How fast is fast enough?

[mfogiel]

This was shot at f1.2 on the 35 Nokton, Tri X @ 1250...

 

[__hh]

This was shot at f1.2 on the 35 Nokton, Tri X @ 1250...

Love the black cat and shadow effect!!!

 

[Chris101]

Great picture, mfogiel! The cat's wondering if it is cat food in the bag?

 

[philipp.leser]

I find myself using f/1.4 with EI 800 film (Neopan 1600) quite often, and at "barely usable" shutter speeds, so f/2 would definitely make me miss a few shots. I'm mainly thinking of indoor parties etc., here (A tripod is useless here, because the people I take pictures of move).

Of course, for daytime / outside photography, f/4 is plenty. My VC 21mm f/4 is what I use most of the time. I like to hyperfocus, so open apertures don't work too well anyway for me in those situations.

I never use a flash or a tripod with my rangefinder. Flash photography is a lot easier done with my D70 + wireless flash. If I have enough time to use a tripod, it's usually worth to use my Mamiya and get larger negatives.

 

[Graybeard]

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.

Flash certainly does declare the presence of the photographer but sometimes even Leicas are used for simple snapshots and in simple indoor gathering situations where some depth of field is needed (an anti-bokeh heresy, I suppose).

Not much mention of the f3.5 Elmar to this point in the discussion-

Graybeard

 

[feenej]

I like f2.8 lenses the most. Small, light, less expensive, plenty fast.

 

[35mmdelux]

I like f2.8 lenses the most. Small, light, less expensive, plenty fast.

Nothing wrong with slower lenses if you can get acclaimated to them. Small and much less expensive, and often pocketable. Some people prefer shooting faster films anyway.

21mm/4.0VC, 35mm/2.0, 50mm/2.8, 75mm/2.5VC would produce some damage in the hands of a skilled shooter.

 

[Rob-F]

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.


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 invite your comments-

Graybeard

Your comments show that most of the time, an F/2.8 Elmar is fast enough for you; and then again, there are times when it isn't. That's true for most of us, I think. In other words, f/2.8 is fast enough when it's fast enough. Your difficulties in churches and museums, though, argue in favor of a faster lens. Since you can't hand-hold at 1/10, a faster lens would give you more freedom to shoot in low-light conditions. An f/2 lens would at least allow a 1/20 speed under the same lighting conditions that now force you to 1/10; but since there is no 1/20 speed on an M3, why not "bite the bullet" and get an f/1.4? You could shoot at 1/25 at f/1.7, or wide open when needed. It need not be a Leica lens. I've been very happy with my Voigtlander 40mm f/1.4. I prefer the 40mm focal length (or wider) to the 50mm lens, most of the time. But if 50mm is your preference, there are affordable lenses in a 50mm f/1.5 speed. So why not extend your low-light capabilities? It sounds like there is a part of you that wants to.

 

[ItsReallyDarren]

In the 50mm lens department I have an F1.5, F1.8, and F3.5. 100 speed film accounts for 90% of my speed usage. I'm usually out shooting in daylight hours and since its summer the sun stays out longer. When the lights go down I don't have a problem shooting with shutter speeds at 1/30 if I'm standing or 1/8 if I'm sitting or propped against something.

I've only found a slight desire for more speed when shooting at night only when I have 100 speed film loaded. Using a 400 speed film or pushing it and I've never had a problem with any of the lenses even the F3.5.

For a while I shot with the F3.5 and Tri-X in Diafine, during daylight hours I used a filter to keep light manageable. Never had a problem with speed and had everything in a very small package.

 

[Graybeard]

why not "bite the bullet" and get an f/1.4? You could shoot at 1/25 at f/1.7, or wide open when needed. It need not be a Leica lens. I've been very happy with my Voigtlander 40mm f/1.4. I prefer the 40mm focal length (or wider) to the 50mm lens, most of the time. But if 50mm is your preference, there are affordable lenses in a 50mm f/1.5 speed. So why not extend your low-light capabilities? It sounds like there is a part of you that wants to.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. As it happens, over the years, I've acquired several fast 50mm lenses, among them a Summilux, Cosina Nokton, and a Nikkor 1.4. These are all first rate glass and availability of fast lenses isn't an issue for me or the reason for my comments.

The 2.8 Elmar, being collapsible, permits me to carry the camera in a slim belt pouch (I like the Lowepro Z30) or in the pocket of a heavy coat. If I am forced to leave the camera behind because the combination of it and the lens are too bulky, then I will miss every shot that might present itself. If I bring the M3 with the Elmar, I'll miss very few, and then only because I didn't find a way to steady the camera (the self timer can be very handy for this purpose.)

When I travel, I never bring a bulky camera or camera bag along with us when we go to dinner in the evening, for example; for me, at least, photography isn't the principal activity then but wonderful street photography opportunities will be everywhere. (The lady in my life will carry some extra film in her purse if I ask nicely and the restaurant proves to be a good choice.)

The point that I suggest is that it can be necessary to trade between ready portability of my camera and blindingly fast lens speed. I find the Elmar 2.8 to be quite a practical compromise.

As always, YMMV.

Graybeard

 

[35mmdelux]

I dont find my M7/35mm Summilux necessarily bulky. Camera in pocket makes for droopy drawers anyway and in California or Central America where I hang out heavy coats are unknown.

No matter what lens I carry, my camera is slung diagonally across my chest and out of the way. Pull out a flash unit at the venues I shoot and I'll be labeled paparazzo for sure and there goes the stealth and the advantage of RF shooting.

Id love to take the smaller lenses, but in avail light practice I cant do without the fast glass.

 

[Rob-F]

OK then portability/pocketability is an issue. The collapsible Summicron, although not quite as compact as the Elmar when collapsed, might fill the bill. I brought one along to France recently, using it on a IIIc body, for just the same reason. Though I used wider lenses most of the time.

 

[fleetwoodjazz]

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.

I am in the same boat. I consider flash to be rather annoying to carry around and to the scene I am about to photograph.

The main problem is where I live, it is very difficult to get films faster than ISO200, hence f2 is my minimum requirement. I simply love to walk around at night time where the natural light give the look I like best.

Lately I have been after a fast 28mm, doesn't seem to be many cheap options around :bang: (apart from the Voigtlander which is fairly reasonable of course)

 

[Tom A]

It probably depends more on were you are shooting, what speed you need. Walking around close to home, I use lenses as slow as f3.5 of F4 regularly - and if i need faster, I can go home and get it!
Travels is another thing - there i want to carry as little as possible - but be prepared for everything. At least one fast (f1.4 minimum) and the rest f2.0 at least. If a lens is slower than that, it means it is for special purpose only (15f4.5/12f5.6 and, to some extent, the 21f4.5 Biogon).
One requirement is that my "fast" lens also must be able to perform well in mid-apertures and fully stopped down.
No flash EVER again. For decades I shot heavy industrial photography, dragging a 3/4 ton van full of flashes/softboxes/reflectors/stands etc and once I quit that I decided, no more flash, no more broken flash cords, no busted flash tubes, no more reflectors "Blow'in in The Wind" and no more assistants! Far less chance of involuntary execution by electrocution! 2000Ws power packs can really hurt you in rainy weather.
I am looking forward to use the new 50f1.1 Nokton as my "short" tele for traveling. It works very well at f1.1, but looks very good also in mid-apertures and fully stopped down - pair it with a fast 35 (f1.4 or 1.2) and the world would look less dim.

 

[telenous]

There's a reason why all manufacters have at least one f/1.4 lens in their lineup. An aperture of f/1.4 strikes a good balance with usable DOF, lens size/weight and cost. With an f/1.4 lens you can take photos that would be impossible or its nearest with slower lenses (think those f/1.4 and 1/4s where any slower aperture requires 1/2s or f/1.4 and 1/125s when you need to freeze action and any slower will not do the trick). But it really depends on the context in which you shoot, if the use of flash is allowed/preferred then even in f/8 lens is fast enough.

 

[dufffader]

I used to think that I need something faster than f1.4 but with the new 50mm Summilux ASPH, f1.4 is fast enough for me. I routinely use it at night with Neopan1600. Most shots under sodium lamps are 1/125s, and in the dimly lighted areas 1/30s or worst case 1/15s, which I can manage if I'm careful.

Daytime anything is fine. f5.6-f16 is normal so this falls under the sweet spot of any sub $100 lens.

 

[nzeeman]

i don't know how fast is enough - i used jupiter 8 which is f2 lens for years but from time to time i felt a need to get something that is f1.5 - i don't have good developer so i don't push my hp5+ - i use it only on 400. so when i saw damaged summarit in one shop i bought it because price was very good. before that i wanted to buy nokton 40/1.4 but i never found cheap enough offer. so that stays for future - i think it is really great lens (at least from what i saw online).

 

[Graybeard]

OK then portability/pocketability is an issue. The collapsible Summicron, although not quite as compact as the Elmar when collapsed, might fill the bill. I brought one along to France recently, using it on a IIIc body, for just the same reason. Though I used wider lenses most of the time.

Your suggestion of a collapsible Summicron is certainly a practical way of having a "pocketable" camera. The 40mm/f2 Summicron C is another (I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned). My Elmar is still another way.

 

[former member]

The Canon 50/1.5 is almost as small as the Summicron in collapsed position.

 

[wlewisiii]

For collapsible lenses, I still prefer my 50/2.8 Tessar & 50/2 Sonnar on my Kiev. The Tessar is especially compact and at 2.8 is only one stop slower than the Sonnar.

William