gavinlg
Veteran
fast lenses are better x 100
High ISO performance makes fast lenses less attractive?
- Thread starter ebino
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 48
- Views 6K
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
Certainly, if you require the look that fast glass gives you or want to shoot in even more situations then there is no substitute for fast glass. That is why companies like Nikon make them. They are a very specialized tool for a specific purpose. It is just that for my needs I require fast glass even less now. I don't think I am alone in that. It just depends on your personal needs and the look you want. Fast glass is not going away anytime soon.
Bob
Bob
Bob
Bob
Jack Conrad
Well-known
Fast glass penetrates shadows. What it exposes is ostensibly real.
Without delving into lengthy philosophical discourse, what the lens sees is what we get.
Whereas high iso is merely the mathematical extrapolation of probabilities.
Replacing fast lenses with high iso is like replacing Disneyland with a postcard. Although personally, I often prefer the postcard to Disneyland, it still remains a probabilistic facsimile. 😉
Without delving into lengthy philosophical discourse, what the lens sees is what we get.
Whereas high iso is merely the mathematical extrapolation of probabilities.
Replacing fast lenses with high iso is like replacing Disneyland with a postcard. Although personally, I often prefer the postcard to Disneyland, it still remains a probabilistic facsimile. 😉
maddoc
... likes film again.
jawarden
Well-known
okay that was funny. 🙂 And I agree; faster lenses offer more creative potential and present the scene differently. The ideal for me would be high iso and a fast lens together, but if I can choose only one I'm going with glass.
Last edited:
ebino
Well-known
Fast lenses = bokeh. that's it, there is no creative potential, look, or any other esoteric aesthetic feature to it...
That's why most serious and top photographers will almost never use shallow dof, because it is a cringe-worthy amateur-thing.
That's why most serious and top photographers will almost never use shallow dof, because it is a cringe-worthy amateur-thing.
JayGannon
Well-known
I do love reading your sweeping statements!
rbsinto
Well-known
- Local time
- 2:41 PM
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2006
- Messages
- 1,597
You're not even wrong.
jawarden
Well-known
ebino
Well-known
Yes, but I got Disney land and postcard analogies not to mention countless mentioning of "creative potential" and "isolating the subject" (which is actually done more often with a long lens rather than shooting a portrait at 35mm/1.4 focal length with all the distortion).
Bokeh is cringe-worthy to me and I make no qualms about saying it. I will never use it and i'm just a humble amateur.
jawarden
Well-known
ok, rock on, man.
About 90% of my images use "normal" depth of field, and the other 10%, well, you know. I'd tell you about it but I'd hate to be responsible for a cringe, you know? Use what you like. Works for me.
ebino
Well-known
But, how could it be creative when you already know exactly what you gonna get? Its like being creative in a production line... you know if you shoot a certain thing at a certain f stop you get a certain look. You can do hundreds of it and it will look pretty much the same.
In a bokeh shot there is too much of the photographer in the picture as if saying, "hey look at me, i have a fast lens and i like bokeh".
jsrockit
Moderator
While there are many of those photos out there, and some seem to be just about bokeh and nothing else, you cannot just dismiss bokeh completely. There are times when it works and times when it doesn't.
jawarden
Well-known
Photograph your way. If that means swearing off this or that kind of lens, so be it. Following my slow lens around town while it's glued to hyperfocal would bore me to tears, but I'm not about to put down the people who like that approach, because that would be rude.
I like to experiment with photography. Photography is fun. I'm looking for new creative things to try, not more to rule out.
Ezzie
E. D. Russell Roberts
There's nothing wrong with bokeh, but it does tend to be overdone, rather like HDR.
To answer the original question: No! I too like to shoot at as low an ISO as possible. Good as they are the new imaging processors can't beat good low light optics. Once you've decided not to capture whatever light you can, there's no recreating it further down the road. I'd say that high ISO performing sensors spell more trouble to flash sales than fast optics.
To answer the original question: No! I too like to shoot at as low an ISO as possible. Good as they are the new imaging processors can't beat good low light optics. Once you've decided not to capture whatever light you can, there's no recreating it further down the road. I'd say that high ISO performing sensors spell more trouble to flash sales than fast optics.
Last edited:
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
The D700 with a fast (f1.4) 50mm on it has abilities that go beyond my own vision. If I set the ISO to 6400 and point it into a dark corner where I can virtually see nothing I'll get an image that appears to have been taken in quite reasonable light ... WTF!
It needs to stop now ... we don't need ISO capabilities beyond what the Nikon offers and current fast lenses are more than fast enough! The only thing ISO 50000 and an f.75 lens will let me do is take photos of people moving around in virtually dark rooms with less motion blur thus turning them into something similar to a Madam Tussaud's exhibit!
But consumerism will demand otherwise of course. 😀
It needs to stop now ... we don't need ISO capabilities beyond what the Nikon offers and current fast lenses are more than fast enough! The only thing ISO 50000 and an f.75 lens will let me do is take photos of people moving around in virtually dark rooms with less motion blur thus turning them into something similar to a Madam Tussaud's exhibit!
But consumerism will demand otherwise of course. 😀
Last edited:
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
Keith
Yea, sometimes enough is just what it is, enough.
Bob
Yea, sometimes enough is just what it is, enough.
Bob
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I was sort of tongue in cheek with my last post Bob but I do think the tail is starting to wag the dog a little.
The best photos I've seen weren't about optical gymnastics ... they were about capturing a moment with compositional skills and an ability to use the light to best advantage with whatever camera and lens combination was at hand.
Nikkor AIS
Nikkor AIS
I don't know, Keith, my pal has a D3S and it's a stop and a half better for low light than my D3/your D700.
I shoot a lot of low light and having the extra speed and better performance @ 6400 makes the D3S a compelling camera.
Nikkor 300 2.0 IF-ED AIS @ 2.0 hand held on a D3 ISO 3200
I shoot a lot of low light and having the extra speed and better performance @ 6400 makes the D3S a compelling camera.
Nikkor 300 2.0 IF-ED AIS @ 2.0 hand held on a D3 ISO 3200
Last edited:
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
I always was a bit thick. There are some who could make good use the extra iso and fast glass, good examples are posted in this thread, but I am content with the D700 performance level. I was content with 800 speed film and f2.8 glass for what I needed. It is going to take some really drastic improvements to get me to buy another body and faster glass. Gear is not holding me back, my skill level is.
Bob
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
