Graybeard
Longtime IIIf User
For about 45 years now I've shot with some flavor Leica (IIc, then IIIc, then IIIf, then M3, to M6) with an f2 lens (usually LTM Canon optics on the Barnack Leicas but I also used a Summar then, later, Summicrons and Hexanons on the M's). I've certainly been pleased with this hardware but I must admit that only a small fraction of my photographs were made at f2.
About one year ago, I bought a beater, early DS M3 that DAG refurbished into quite a nice user. Portability and small size are major considerations for me since I carry it everywhere, and the lens I use is an Elmar 50mm/f2.8 (this is M Leica gear that will fit into pocket). I've probably put 125 rolls this this camera; the camera has been around the world with me now.
After a year, I discover that the f2.8 maximum aperture isn't much of a limit at all. The Elmar is a first rate lens and with (nominal) ASA 400 film I've been able to bring home images where ever I've been. I do all of my own B&W darkroom work so upping the effective film ASA by one or two stops is simple for me when it is necessary.
The most difficult lighting, for me, has been in Italy, in churches and museums. For the most part, I just shoot the Elmar wide open with the camera resting on a church pew railing (or the local equivalent) at 1/10th or so (I'm unable to hand hold below 1/25th). Outdoors, I'm in the sweet spot for this lens, f5.6 or greater.
I post this to invite comment. Ignoring assignments for jazz prodigies in smoky nightclubs, stage plays, and harshly-lit rock concerts, how fast a lens do you fellows and gals really need? I'm a grandfather and shoot plenty of baby photographs but there is little reason to photograph the kids with available light; and flash does just fine; there is fine art photography and then then is documenting family events.
I invite your comments-
Graybeard
About one year ago, I bought a beater, early DS M3 that DAG refurbished into quite a nice user. Portability and small size are major considerations for me since I carry it everywhere, and the lens I use is an Elmar 50mm/f2.8 (this is M Leica gear that will fit into pocket). I've probably put 125 rolls this this camera; the camera has been around the world with me now.
After a year, I discover that the f2.8 maximum aperture isn't much of a limit at all. The Elmar is a first rate lens and with (nominal) ASA 400 film I've been able to bring home images where ever I've been. I do all of my own B&W darkroom work so upping the effective film ASA by one or two stops is simple for me when it is necessary.
The most difficult lighting, for me, has been in Italy, in churches and museums. For the most part, I just shoot the Elmar wide open with the camera resting on a church pew railing (or the local equivalent) at 1/10th or so (I'm unable to hand hold below 1/25th). Outdoors, I'm in the sweet spot for this lens, f5.6 or greater.
I post this to invite comment. Ignoring assignments for jazz prodigies in smoky nightclubs, stage plays, and harshly-lit rock concerts, how fast a lens do you fellows and gals really need? I'm a grandfather and shoot plenty of baby photographs but there is little reason to photograph the kids with available light; and flash does just fine; there is fine art photography and then then is documenting family events.
I invite your comments-
Graybeard
Last edited:
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Realistically I could probably get by at f2 but I use f1.2 a lot because I like that short isolating depth of field in some but not all images. The problem is IMO that when you have that speed and the ability to compress the depth of field you tend to over use it ... and I think I can be guilty in this area.
I'm sure there's people out there who have never used f16 on their fast lenses and just automatically select the widest aperture they can use in any given situation. The obsession with bokeh is just that at times and has little to do with photography. YMMV
I'm sure there's people out there who have never used f16 on their fast lenses and just automatically select the widest aperture they can use in any given situation. The obsession with bokeh is just that at times and has little to do with photography. YMMV
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Well that's ironic ... I glanced back at the main forum page to see that 'The Ultimate Bokeh Thread' was directly above this one at the top of the page! 
KenD
Film Shooter
Fast enough for what?
For landscape, f8 is plenty fast enough.
For ordinary daytime pot-pouri, f 3.5 will certainly do the trick.
If you are allergic to flash and shoot indoors, f 1.8 may be too slow.
I have a Jupiter-3 I use for portraits and fashion that never gets closed down ... stays at 1.5 all the time.
Basic answer to 95% of all photo questions... it all depends.
KenD
For landscape, f8 is plenty fast enough.
For ordinary daytime pot-pouri, f 3.5 will certainly do the trick.
If you are allergic to flash and shoot indoors, f 1.8 may be too slow.
I have a Jupiter-3 I use for portraits and fashion that never gets closed down ... stays at 1.5 all the time.
Basic answer to 95% of all photo questions... it all depends.
KenD
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
Not a fan of flash photography. I shoot available light for 99 percent of what I do. And if it requires a flash, I'll probably use my Nikon D200.
That said, I consider f/2 to be the absolute minimum requirement for a lens. My kit is primarily summicron-based right now and I'm quite happy with it. I do think I need an f/1.4 or f/1.2 lens for those times when the light is really low.
That said, I consider f/2 to be the absolute minimum requirement for a lens. My kit is primarily summicron-based right now and I'm quite happy with it. I do think I need an f/1.4 or f/1.2 lens for those times when the light is really low.
thomasw_
Well-known
f1,4 for me with trix pushed a bit will cover nearly any lowlight situation.
Keith wrote: "The obsession with bokeh is just that at times and has little to do with photography."
But doesn't photography have to deal with aesthetics? If it does, it would seem photography has to grapple with the aesthetics of out of focus areas. Accordingly it would seem logical in some circumstances to suggest that bokeh has something to do with the aesthetic virtue of a photograph. Hence, bokeh does have a place in photography.
I think it is true that there has been a huge movement in recent times to isolate this lens rendering trait. But whatever be the pitfalls of this, I would still suggest that this has to do with 'photography'.
Good cheer, Thomas
Keith wrote: "The obsession with bokeh is just that at times and has little to do with photography."
But doesn't photography have to deal with aesthetics? If it does, it would seem photography has to grapple with the aesthetics of out of focus areas. Accordingly it would seem logical in some circumstances to suggest that bokeh has something to do with the aesthetic virtue of a photograph. Hence, bokeh does have a place in photography.
I think it is true that there has been a huge movement in recent times to isolate this lens rendering trait. But whatever be the pitfalls of this, I would still suggest that this has to do with 'photography'.
Good cheer, Thomas
Livesteamer
Well-known
I started photography when flash was difficult, calculating guide numbers and such, so I learned to work available light. I use a 50mm f1.4 Summilux as my normal lens and would rather shoot at f1.4 and keep my shutter speed up than try to slow the shutter in search of depth of field. Several times a year the Noctilux is put to work, almost always at f1.0. Anyone know where I can get a good 50mm f0.7? Guilty of being a speed freak. Joe
F1.5 is my choice for "real use". I keep the Canon 50/1.2 "in reserve" and the Canon 50/0.95 when I want to be "showy".
But F1.5 is plenty fast for me.
Fast enough for shots at restaurants that are not well lit, enough DOF to get the portraits that I want.
Above is with a 1953 5cm F1.5 J-3 wide-open, on the Bessa R2 with Kodacolor 400.
I do not like using Flash. You might find that true especially of the Grandkids. It "interrupts" what they are doing, and they become very aware of the camera. Either get a "Look at me" shot or "I don't want my picture taken". Either extreme, the natural play is off.
Of course, the occasional "dirty Look" is always fun to get.
But F1.5 is plenty fast for me.
Fast enough for shots at restaurants that are not well lit, enough DOF to get the portraits that I want.
Above is with a 1953 5cm F1.5 J-3 wide-open, on the Bessa R2 with Kodacolor 400.
I do not like using Flash. You might find that true especially of the Grandkids. It "interrupts" what they are doing, and they become very aware of the camera. Either get a "Look at me" shot or "I don't want my picture taken". Either extreme, the natural play is off.
Of course, the occasional "dirty Look" is always fun to get.
Last edited:
Al Kaplan
Veteran
Whatever is on the camera is cool with me. The last time I used my 50 'cron was to shoot some quick 'n dirty copies of magazine tear sheets. I put 'en down on the sidewalk and used the sun as the light. I was amazed at how well I'd lined up the pages with the frame edges considering that I wasn't using an SLR. I was shooting at f/8.
f/2 is the fastest lens I have, 35 and 50 Summicrons and an 85mm Nikkor, yet I shoot mostly with my 15mm Heliar which is f/4.5. Lens speed is an over rate attribute.
f/2 is the fastest lens I have, 35 and 50 Summicrons and an 85mm Nikkor, yet I shoot mostly with my 15mm Heliar which is f/4.5. Lens speed is an over rate attribute.
Last edited:
maddoc
... likes film again.
50/1.0 is fast enough, 35/1.4 also does fine for me.
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
This is such a great point. The use of a flash tells everyone "i just took a picture." Often in documentary settings, that's not what you are after. You'd rather just blend into the background. Anything you can do to make that easier is a good thing.
maajka
Member
That analogy doesn't really work in this case. 10 or 11, it doesn't tell you the wattage of the amp, while f1.4 or f2 does represent the sensitivity, or however you call it, of the lens.
As somebody already mentioned, having f1.4 can sometimes really be useful, I can shoot without tripod at 15, but at 8 not really.
Nando
Well-known
I frequently go back home to Portugal during the summer months and I've been planning on photographing worshippers at the old cathedrals in my home city. The cathedrals would be similar to those you saw in Italy. Last time, I primarily used a 50f2 and got by but there were many instances where I wished for something faster so that I wouldn't have to move to a lower shutter-speed. At the same time, I also wanted something wider than a 50. I've invested in a 35f1.2 Nokton primarily for shooting inside cathedrals. I find it more ideal than a super-fast 50mm for my purpose as it give me a wider FOV, more usable DOF (about the same as a 50f2.8) and its better for hand-holding. I wish I had enough money to justify the new 24f1.4 Summilux - I'd get that one too.
W
wlewisiii
Guest
90% of the time, a 50/3.5 Tessar will do.
95% of the time, a 50/2.8 Tessar will do.
99% of the time, a 50/2.0 Sonnar will do.
The rest of the time, a 50/1.5 or 50/1.4 (the same for all practical purposes) will do.
This presumes hand holding. If you're willing to breakout the tripod, a f6.3 Tessar normal prime will do...
If the sun breaks through at all, my walkabout lens is my 50/2.8 Tessar. If it's purely overcast, then I get out my 50/2 Sonnar. I only get out the 50/1.5 if I know in advance that I will have to shoot the proverbial available darkness image. If I don't know in advance, I make do with whatever I have on me & don't worry about it.
William
95% of the time, a 50/2.8 Tessar will do.
99% of the time, a 50/2.0 Sonnar will do.
The rest of the time, a 50/1.5 or 50/1.4 (the same for all practical purposes) will do.
This presumes hand holding. If you're willing to breakout the tripod, a f6.3 Tessar normal prime will do...
If the sun breaks through at all, my walkabout lens is my 50/2.8 Tessar. If it's purely overcast, then I get out my 50/2 Sonnar. I only get out the 50/1.5 if I know in advance that I will have to shoot the proverbial available darkness image. If I don't know in advance, I make do with whatever I have on me & don't worry about it.
William
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
I shoot indoors fair amount and portraits in the shade -- all of this with 50, K64,and 160 ISO. Dont use much flash; been known to shoot Metz 54 iMZ off camera on occasion. For my style f/2.0 was too slow. I find the Summiluxes work well for what I do. Churches I shoot avail light. I prefer faster lense than faster film, although I carry FP5 that can be bumped to 3200 if necessary.
amateriat
We're all light!
For me, over the last decade, advancing film technology became something of a equalizer.
Before then, I was a slow-film, fast-lens adherent. I simply didn't use emulsions much above ISO 125 if I could help it. And, up to a certain point, I was justified: I wasn't interested in any format larger than 35mm, yet I wanted seriously enlargeable quality. So, I went with honking-big, heavy and fast primes (not above 180mm, though...I was a bit crazy, but not certifiable), and K64, Agfa CT18, EPR, the occasional roll of Fujichrome 100 (when there was only one Fujichrome). And I was younger, and (slightly) more of a masochist than I am now.
Now: films are not only faster, but much finer-grained than back then. At the same time, I grew enamored of rangefinders again, this time, with interchangeable lenses. Which were smaller, and had no stinkin' slapping mirrors. Absolute lens speed was no longer a Schedule 1 priority.
The rest if history, or, at least, my story.
- Barrett
Before then, I was a slow-film, fast-lens adherent. I simply didn't use emulsions much above ISO 125 if I could help it. And, up to a certain point, I was justified: I wasn't interested in any format larger than 35mm, yet I wanted seriously enlargeable quality. So, I went with honking-big, heavy and fast primes (not above 180mm, though...I was a bit crazy, but not certifiable), and K64, Agfa CT18, EPR, the occasional roll of Fujichrome 100 (when there was only one Fujichrome). And I was younger, and (slightly) more of a masochist than I am now.
Now: films are not only faster, but much finer-grained than back then. At the same time, I grew enamored of rangefinders again, this time, with interchangeable lenses. Which were smaller, and had no stinkin' slapping mirrors. Absolute lens speed was no longer a Schedule 1 priority.
The rest if history, or, at least, my story.
- Barrett
Last edited:
David William White
Well-known
If I'm desperate or pretending to be artsy, f/5.6. Otherwise, f/11 or smaller. Photography excels at detail and definition.
W
wlewisiii
Guest
I hear you Barrett. I shoot 100ISO almost exclusively nowadays...
William
William
Chris101
summicronia
Heh.
One of the most fun things I like to do with my camera is to 'street shoot' at night. Typically I use 1600 speed film, and I'll go as low as 1/15the of a second. So I need to get below f/2 occasionally, but not very often. My 'fast' lenses include 1 @ f/1.4, 1 @ f/1.7, 2 @ f/1.8, 2 @ f/2, 7 @ f/2.8 and 2 @ f/3.5 and a few slower ones. My mean f-stop is f/3. Interestingly, most of my work at night is done near f/3.
The faster lenses DO make low light focusing easier, but have just too shallow of an in-focus zone. I like the bokey look occasionally, but it's WAY overused. Besides, I like to pre-focus, then walk right into a situation and shoot without holding the camera to my face, usually while engaging my subject. At f/3 or so, I get pretty good results from this. At f/1.4, I miss it almost every time.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I guess we've all heard of "f8 and be there!"
How about a new rule ... "f2 and lay off the coffee!"
How about a new rule ... "f2 and lay off the coffee!"