noimmunity
scratch my niche
So much attention is lavished on fast lenses with apertures of 1.5 or greater, yet I often find myself most at home with F2 lenses (like my 'crons, or the Nikon 85/2 Sonnar).
Some of the reasons why I like F2 lenses might be the reasons that push others to look for faster glass:
they are easier to handle,
give consistent look across apertures,
are less expensive,
are more compact than faster glass,
give "breathing-space" DOF rather than razor-blade slices,
are still pretty fast :angel:
I would be very curious to hear from others about why you do/do not like f/2 lenses compared to their faster brethren?
Some of the reasons why I like F2 lenses might be the reasons that push others to look for faster glass:
they are easier to handle,
give consistent look across apertures,
are less expensive,
are more compact than faster glass,
give "breathing-space" DOF rather than razor-blade slices,
are still pretty fast :angel:
I would be very curious to hear from others about why you do/do not like f/2 lenses compared to their faster brethren?
feenej
Well-known
f2.8 is plenty fast for me. F2 is real fast imho.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Well, f/2 lenses are great at f/2 or less, but not so much use when you want f/1.4 or f/1.5. Do I want f/1.4 or f/1.5 all the time? No, but there's a wonderful little device on all my fast lenses that allows them to be used at smaller apertures. There's no such device on my f/2 lenses to allow them to be used at f/1.4...
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
monochromejrnl
Well-known
I'm in agreement - I've made my way through a bunch of LTM and M lens (from 90/2cron and 85/2CanonLTM to VC21/4). I've settled on the 35/50'crons despite having owned and/or used both 35 and 50'lux. In addition to the RF/VF the main reason I grab my M body is because it is compact and the size disadvantage of the lux's doesn't justify the size (or added expense) doesn't offset the speed advantage for the type of shooting I do. In addition, most faster lenses are 'character' lenses wide open and like you, I prefer to have the sharpest lens possible at all apertures.
Instead, when I 'need the speed' or character I use a 50/1.5 Contax with Amedeo C-LTM or a Pentax MX with SMC Tak 50/1.4 (marginally bigger than M body + 50'lux, actually lighter and a fraction of the cost).
Instead, when I 'need the speed' or character I use a 50/1.5 Contax with Amedeo C-LTM or a Pentax MX with SMC Tak 50/1.4 (marginally bigger than M body + 50'lux, actually lighter and a fraction of the cost).
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
It depends on what you're using them on IMO!
When I had my M8 my 35mm f1.2 Nokton was my most important lens for that camera ... enter the D700 with it's high ISO capabilities and suddenly f2 is plenty fast enough. Being able to shop for a 35mm lens knowing that f2 will deliver the goods for available light digital shooting everywhere, except possibly the inside of a cow, is reassuring.
For film I really like a fast 50mm f1.5 or better but for the other focal lengths I tend to shoot with (35mm and 85/90mm) f2 is fine.
When I had my M8 my 35mm f1.2 Nokton was my most important lens for that camera ... enter the D700 with it's high ISO capabilities and suddenly f2 is plenty fast enough. Being able to shop for a 35mm lens knowing that f2 will deliver the goods for available light digital shooting everywhere, except possibly the inside of a cow, is reassuring.
For film I really like a fast 50mm f1.5 or better but for the other focal lengths I tend to shoot with (35mm and 85/90mm) f2 is fine.
A number of super-Speed lenses have their "little brother" counterparts. I prefer the pre-war F1.5 Sonnar over the F2 version for a very simple reason: the glass on the F1.5 lens seems to be more robust. I've handled about 20 of each, in most cases the F1.5 glass cleaned up beautifully but the glass in the f2 lenses had many abrasions in the front glass. It was softer, more prone to damage.
Second reason: the F1.4/F1.5 lens is often better stopped down to F2 than the F2 version is when used wide-open.
I do have many f2 lenses, and do use them. The F1.4's and F1.5's get more use. Somewhere I have a directory of fourteen 50mm F2 lenses tested on the Leica M3.
Second reason: the F1.4/F1.5 lens is often better stopped down to F2 than the F2 version is when used wide-open.
I do have many f2 lenses, and do use them. The F1.4's and F1.5's get more use. Somewhere I have a directory of fourteen 50mm F2 lenses tested on the Leica M3.
peter_n
Veteran
I sold my 35mm Summilux in January fully expecting to get the new one, but in truth I haven't missed it and I'm wondering if I really need the new lens. I'm using a 35 Summicron that I really like and while I still have my f1.4 50s I use faster film with the f2 lenses if I need to.
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
I simply like them. They're fast compared to the SLR standard for fast (f2.8) and do the job well. My first lenses were all 'crons or equivalents, and I keep using them because of the DOF insurance that an f2 offers over, say, an aperture of f1.4 or 1.2.
'nuff said!
'nuff said!
damien.murphy
Damien
I'm a 50mm shooter in the main and loved my summicron, which with 400 iso film, would allow me to shoot handheld in all conditions from bright sunny weather to indoors. I like a lens I don't have to change when the light changes significantly, and for this reason my on-camera 50 is soon to become to a voigtlander f1.1, with the postman hopefully arriving in the morning with the not so little bundle of joy