High ISO performance makes fast lenses less attractive?

[ebino]

With high ISO performance improving very rapidly in digital cameras, do you feel the demand for expensive and heavy fast lenses would be diminished?

Or bokeh shots justify the price and weight of fast lenses?

 

[antiquark]

I wondered that too. Also, image stabilization reduces the need for fast lenses (somewhat).

High ISOs might be the reason for some of Nikon's recent lenses, which have a max aperture of f/4 (example). Not fast at all, but who needs speed when you can get up to ISO 20,000?

 

[Roger Hicks]

It seems logical that higher ISO will reduce the demand for fast lenses, but then again, we all know how much logic counts for in this business. My suspicion is that demand for fast lenses will be kept alive in three ways:

First, 'available darkness'. I've shot ISO 2500 at 1 second at f/1 = 1/10 at ISO 25000 and f/1 = 1/10 second at f/2 at ISO 100,000.

Second, bokeh-nuts

Third, those who judge a lens's quality by the size of its front element

Cheers,

R.

 

[eleskin]

NO WAY!!!! Bokeh rules!!!

NO WAY!!!! Bokeh rules!!!

What attracts me to f1.4, 1.2, and f1.0 is the unique way the lens renders the subject and background. High ISO cannot do that unless you look for a software solution, but why go through all the trouble in manipulating the image when a lens will solve the problem in one shot? Also, many of the fast lenses like the Noctilux are stellar performers in reducing lens flare. The Voigtlander 35mm Nikton f1.2 is also very good at flare reduction. Contrast is somewhat lower in some faster lenses. A big plus for me in digital in that it helps reduce highlights being blown out. Contrast can always be changed afterwards in Photoshop. Also, the f1.0 , f1.2 and f1.4 lenses will still give one even faster shutter speeds in low light. That is a big plus, even if the camera has fantastic high ISO. Also, and this is a big one with the Noctilux, how the lens "sees" in low light and can render detail in dark areas impossible with cheaper lens designs. Here, you get what you pay for. I have slower lenses (Voigtlander 15mm Super Wide Heliar for one) and they are fantastic, but they have their place, as do my F1.0 Noctilux and 35mm F1.2 Nokton.

 

[Paul Luscher]

Not for me. Even with high ISOs, a fast lens allows me to keep my shutter speeds up, reducing the chances of motion blur. Also, even with high ISOs, I often shoot in situations where the light is such that the difference between, say, F 2 and F 2.8 can become crucial. Let's just say fast lenses give me more latitiude.

 

[Nikon Bob]

I think that high iso and VR is making the need for fast lens very questionable. There still is a demand or Nikon would not have introduced an afs 24/1.4 and an afs 35/1.4 along with it's slower F4 VR zooms. I tend to agree with Roger on his reasons for the fast lens still being in demand. It is a personal call on whether paying the coin for a fast lens is worth it or not to you. Me, I just bought a used 35/2 afd for my D700 as I could not justify $2,000.00 more for a bigger and heavier afs 35/1.4 for the gain of one stop. OTH the 35/2 is at least one maybe 2 stops faster than my variable aperture zoom in that range. Agreed too that logic has no meaning when talking about gear.

Bob

 

[Beemermark]

Fast lenses means limited DOF (almost non-existent) which is a great tool.

 

[Nikkor AIS]

First off, speed is relative. While F/stop 2.0 isn't that fast for a 50 mm, it's very fast for a 300 mm.



This one is for Roger (and yes, the one with the biggest front element is the best 😛).

For me, fast glass is the cat's meow. Always has been, always will be.
If you think about it, photography is painting with light, and when you have fast glass, you can paint with less light. After all, it's the quality of the light, not the quantity. For me, the creative use of limited depth of field is something I've been doing for well over 20 years. I'm not sure why some think that the use of shallow depth of field is new concept (define new) or that the creative use of bokeh is a new fad.



Nikkor 135 2.0 @ 2.0 AIS on F2AS on Ektachrome 400/800/1600 @ 3200 ASA



Nikkor 24 2.0 on F2AS with Kodachrome 25



Nikkor 135 2.0 AIS on F3T on Ektachrome 400/800/1600 @ 3200 ASA

As far as high ISO, I really think that it's such great tool to have at our disposal. But a new concept? Hmmm. Again, if truth be told, I'm pretty sure I was shooting T-Max 3200 at 25,000 and even 50,000 at least 20 years ago. It might have been less but I'm thinking that sounds about right. So in my mind, you young whippersnappers have got it backwards 😀. Digital is now just catching up to where film was two decades ago 😛.



Nikkor 300 2.8 IF-ED AIS with TC-301 on F2AS and T-Max @ 25,000, image cropped



Nikkor 135 2.0 AIS on F2AS on T-Max 3200 @ 25,000



Nikkor 50 1.2 AIS on D3



Leica 50 1.0 @ 1.0 on Leica M7 1/30 second on XP2



50 1.0 Noctilux @ 1.0 on Leica M7 on 160 ASA film



Nikkor 28 1.4 AF-D on D3 @ 3200 ISO

I'm sorry for so many sample images. I just get a little tired of misinformation about bokeh and high ISO and the timeline.
If I'm wrong, by all means straighten me out

I remember shooting cats going under cars at night with a roll of T-Max at 50,000 and getting images 😉. Low light, fast glass is a combination that's been around for decades and methinks it will be around long after I'm dead and gone.

 

[kshapero]

Not for me. Even with high ISOs, a fast lens allows me to keep my shutter speeds up, reducing the chances of motion blur. Also, even with high ISOs, I often shoot in situations where the light is such that the difference between, say, F 2 and F 2.8 can become crucial. Let's just say fast lenses give me more latitiude.

Absolutely, take it where you can get it. I have a CV35/1.4 on a Sony NEX 3 shooting at a quite tolerable 6400 ISO. Now that's latitude.

 

[Krosya]

I think that many people use fast lenses not to just get a shot in a darker envroment, but to also get a specific look to the photo. To separate/isolate the subject. No matter what ISO you can use with a 50/3.5 lens and be able to get a look like you would from a 50/1.2 or 50/1.0 lens. And it is not just about being a "bokeh-nut", but rather using a lens' ability to achieve one's (artistic) vision.
I think only people that really benefit from using slower and smaller lenses due to using much higher ISO - are the reporters, for whom it matters more to be able to get a shot, rather than what type of a shot it is, if you know what I mean.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I think that many people use fast lenses not to just get a shot in a darker envroment, but to also get a specific look to the photo. To separate/isolate the subject. No matter what ISO you can use with a 50/3.5 lens and be able to get a look like you would from a 50/1.2 or 50/1.0 lens. And it is not just about being a "bokeh-nut", but rather using a lens' ability to achieve one's (artistic) vision.
I think only people that really benefit from using slower and smaller lenses due to using much higher ISO - are the reporters, for whom it matters more to be able to get a shot, rather than what type of a shot it is, if you know what I mean.

Absolutely. But the people whose artistic vision encompasses only the area behind their coffee cup or cat (delete as appropriate) are for the most part bokeh nuts and could probably keep the Noctilux in production single-handed.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I think that many people use fast lenses not to just get a shot in a darker envroment, but to also get a specific look to the photo. To separate/isolate the subject. No matter what ISO you can use with a 50/3.5 lens and be able to get a look like you would from a 50/1.2 or 50/1.0 lens. And it is not just about being a "bokeh-nut", but rather using a lens' ability to achieve one's (artistic) vision.
I think only people that really benefit from using slower and smaller lenses due to using much higher ISO - are the reporters, for whom it matters more to be able to get a shot, rather than what type of a shot it is, if you know what I mean.

Further thought: actually, selective focus is often very useful in reportage, to 'lose' distracting rubbish behind the main subject. Another reason to keep fast lenses alive!

(And yes, I know that most 'celebrities' are in fact distracting rubbish in their own right.)

Cheers,

R.

 

[Xherion]

😀😀😀😀😀 thats funny but true

Absolutely. But the people whose artistic vision encompasses only the area behind their coffee cup or cat (delete as appropriate) are for the most part bokeh nuts and could probably keep the Noctilux in production single-handed.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Krosya]

And another thought or two:
1. Some of us ( I know - not that many) still use film and faster lens make it that much more flexible.
2. When we (bokeh-nuts) do turn off our Bokeh-mode, we can just close the lens down to get more DOF. t's hard to do the opposite with a slow lens. 😉

 

[pvdhaar]

I'll readily agree that high-ISO performance in digital cameras is improving all the time. The fallacy however is that this is equivalent to low-light performance.

Cranking the ISO up to 3200 or higher on the D90 essentially means that I can use a faster shutter speed when there's a lot of light. The ISO setting and shutter speed go hand in hand.

When the light is low however, I can't trade-off ISO for shutter speed 1:1 in the same way. I need to up the exposure compensation to get the same exposure. Basically, toto me this signals that there's a threshold level of light that needs to hit the sensor to get a decent picture.

So, based on this I don't believe the higher ISO settings available free us from the need for fast lenses..

 

[Keith]

I don't know about less attractive but it certainly makes them a little less necessary ... really fast glass is never cheap and it's nice to know that f2 is as fast as I'll ever need with my D700. It surprises me that a manufacturer like Nikon goes to such lengths to give us a DSLR that is perfectly usable at ISO 6400 and then tries to sell us f1.4 lenses that make the body seem like a bargain.

Nikon are obviously well aware that the photography world is full of bokeh freaks! 😀

 

[amateriat]

Heck, I'm with Gregory here. (Wonderful shots, too!)


- Barrett

 

[Nikkor AIS]

Thanks Barrett. I really appreciate it.





Nikkor 58 1.2 @ 1.2 Nocturnal on D3 3200 ISO



Canon 50 1.0 @ 1.0 on Canon 5D2 ISO 6400

For me, the look I get from my images when I use fast glass wide open is more than enough to justify the weight, expense and effort it takes to use, and sometimes find, these types of lenses (it took me 20 years to get my Nikkor 300 2.0 IF-ED AIS, and the 50 1.0 Noctilux). And using them at their maximum aperture isn't always easy 😱.



Nikkor 24 1.4 AFS @ 1.4 on D3



Nikkor 105 1.8 AIS @ 1.8 on D3

And even with higher ISOs like 3200, 6400 and beyond, if you're interested in shooting action in low light, fast glass is the only game in town. Unless you want to use flash. Or add light some other way, which is not always possible. And the shutter speed is insufficient to stop subject movement.



Anther cat shot for Roger 🙂,

Nikkor 300 2.0 IF-ED AIS @ 2.0 on D3 800 ISO 1/30 second



Nikkor 300 2.0 IF-ED AIS hand held on D3 @ 1/200 second 500 ISO

Even using the fastest glass and high ISO isn't a magic prescription for a successful photo. Your tech with these types of lenses is critical and there is zero margin for error in focusing or camera movement. I think a lens like the Noct gets a bad rap from people who have unrealistic expectations of what they can do with it.

I've heard it said that the camera points both ways. That statement is true when you really challenge the limits of hand and eye with manual focusing and extremely shallow depth of field.

It's a challenge, and I need that in order to stay interested and passionate about my photography. Some of the best photos I've ever taken, or others have taken, are in the middle ground with 400 ASA film and F8 @ 250 and be there.

There are others on the extreme end of aperture and focal length and ISO that go to the limit of what is possible in photography.

 

[rbsinto]

With high ISO performance improving very rapidly in digital cameras, do you feel the demand for expensive and heavy fast lenses would be diminished?

Or bokeh shots justify the price and weight of fast lenses?

Creative use of depth of field (sorry but I can't bring myself to use that idiotic "bokeh" term in any conversation) in building a photograph is something that doesn't change with ISO. I'll use it to create the effect I need to help tell the story I want whether I'm shooting with Kodachrome 25 or Konica 3200 film.

 

[flip]

Using software to simulate subject isolation sounds reallllly tedious. Not that I wouldn't like the same in a tiny lens. I think the role of fast lenses will shift more to the artistic. someday. when high iso is decent.