Frank Petronio
Well-known
Sounds odd doesn't it? But after years of opting for the f/1.4 instead of the f/2, or even the f/2.8, I am starting to think that I get better results in low light situations with the slower lenses.
Shooting at f/2.8 gives my focusing a more margin of error. And loosing two stops over a f/1.4 forces me into thinking differently... it almost forces me to start bracing the camera, using a tripod or alternative support, or even the dreaded flash.
With the faster lenses I take a more 'what the Hell" approach and actually believe I can stop action and not get shake when I handhold at 1/15 @ f/1.4. But with the slower lens I'll give up the notion of shooting handheld at 1/4 and start looking around for options. Which usually results in better pictures that are actually in focus.
Of course I sacrifice that wonderful Noctilux bokeh... but the bokeh off an old Elmar looks pretty sweet to my eye, and it's not at all trendy.
Besides that little old slow lens is smaller, lighter, less expensive, and, if vintage, better built.
And if it gets really dark, I just shoot with a dslr ;-) but where's the soul?
Shooting at f/2.8 gives my focusing a more margin of error. And loosing two stops over a f/1.4 forces me into thinking differently... it almost forces me to start bracing the camera, using a tripod or alternative support, or even the dreaded flash.
With the faster lenses I take a more 'what the Hell" approach and actually believe I can stop action and not get shake when I handhold at 1/15 @ f/1.4. But with the slower lens I'll give up the notion of shooting handheld at 1/4 and start looking around for options. Which usually results in better pictures that are actually in focus.
Of course I sacrifice that wonderful Noctilux bokeh... but the bokeh off an old Elmar looks pretty sweet to my eye, and it's not at all trendy.
Besides that little old slow lens is smaller, lighter, less expensive, and, if vintage, better built.
And if it gets really dark, I just shoot with a dslr ;-) but where's the soul?
binky
Established
You have a good point, that we should adapt to the environment. I recently found 3 of 5 pictures taken with a f1.5 to be blurry while most from a f3.5(!) lens to be alright. Over-confidence (or carelessness) on my part. On a slower lens I would take 1 or 2 more shots just to make sure I was steady.
maddoc
... likes film again.
Having some steady support for the camera makes slower lenses indeed interesting for low light shooting. Something like a hand-rail for example: Elmar 5cm 1:3.5 "red-scale"
ItsReallyDarren
That's really me
A good point. I have not used a fast 50 and slow 50 back to back but I have used a 28/3.5 in low light when that was the fastest lens with me. It turns out shooting at 1/8 wasn't so bad after all.
kshapero
South Florida Man
Finally something new and interesting to think about and try. After years of 1.4 addiction, this is worth checking out.
aizan
Veteran
mind games and X factors...won't get you one or two extra stops. 
Dave Wilkinson
Veteran
When light levels and shutter speeds drop - my greatest assistance has always been.....LEAF SHUTTERS!
Yep, Dave, agree with you there! This thread had me thinking right away about the 21mm f/4.5 ZM and the Fuji GA645Wi's 45mm f/4. Here's an example of the latter at 1/6 sec exposure hand-held but braced. Slow lenses and low light are not mutually exclusive.
palec
Well-known
I have been doing a lot of low light shooting with vintage Elmar 50/2.8 for my family and friends snapshots when I wanted to carry minimal set. I've compensated the lens speed with low-contrast character of the lens to push the film to 1600-4800 with satisfactory results. Lower shutter speeds were of no use because I wanted to steal the moment.
Last edited:
kitaanat
kitaanat
Frank, I think so and because of we know this limitation we always find something to support the camera in low light situation.
David Murphy
Veteran
Gabor that's really just an amazing shot - nice work. The classic Elmar Collapsible continues to impress.
[/QUOTE]
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Consider that in the 1930s, 'super-speed' films were the equivalent of maybe ISO 200, so 1/5 second at f/1.5 was commonplace. Now use Delta 3200 at 3200 and you can shoot 1/20 at f/2.8 under the same light.
In the early 70s, I shot quite a lot of low-light with my IIIa/Elmar f/3.5, sometimes even colour slide (50 ASA!), though usually (pre-Plus) HP5 after my 800 feet of outdated FP3 ran out. But once I got my first fast lenses (Xenon f/1.5 for Leica, 5,8 cm f/1,4 for Nikon), I was much happier. My most-used lenses today are 35/1.4, 50/1.5, 75/2.
Cheers,
R.
In the early 70s, I shot quite a lot of low-light with my IIIa/Elmar f/3.5, sometimes even colour slide (50 ASA!), though usually (pre-Plus) HP5 after my 800 feet of outdated FP3 ran out. But once I got my first fast lenses (Xenon f/1.5 for Leica, 5,8 cm f/1,4 for Nikon), I was much happier. My most-used lenses today are 35/1.4, 50/1.5, 75/2.
Cheers,
R.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
I get precise focus with f/1.4, both with manual and autofocus... But I shoot slower lenses in low light too... With fast film I seldom shoot below 1/30... But to answer the question: if I have to choose between 1/4 at f/4 and 1/30 at f/1.4, I prefer the faster speed if I have people in the scene...
Cheers,
Juan
Cheers,
Juan
xxloverxx
Shoot.
The same self-discipline could happen if you forced yourself to stop down.
I usually shoot f/2 and faster, but that will soon change to 2.8. I find having the extra speed, even if just for when I have no other option, comforting.
I bought a Gorillapod yesterday, so I guess it doesn't matter too much anymore, as long as I'm not trying to stop motion.
I usually shoot f/2 and faster, but that will soon change to 2.8. I find having the extra speed, even if just for when I have no other option, comforting.
I bought a Gorillapod yesterday, so I guess it doesn't matter too much anymore, as long as I'm not trying to stop motion.
Richard G
Veteran
Thanks Frank, I am sure you are right. It's good to think along the lines you suggest. We recently saw here some nice interiors with the Color Skopar f4 25 which most had not considered using indoors. I often opt for my f2 35 over my 1.5 50 for evening functions, and have done some interesting slower shutter speed shots with the 25 2.8. I started rethinking this in a tight spot last year when I recalled the extremely slow shutter speeds used in late 19th century portrait work. Resting the camera on a ledge or bracing my right wrist against a door jamb has worked for me sometimes. The following photo, taking xxloverxx's point, was f8 at 1/2 second, resting on the railing. From NZ last year (http://www.flickr.com/photos/richardgm2/sets/72157618991545830/)
Last edited:
retnull
Well-known
Agreed! If shooting a manual focus lens at f1.4 or wider, you will need to spend time/energy verifying focus...probably not much less time than you would spend stabilizing the camera.
My current fave lens is an Angenieux 25mm f0.95 c-mount (used on a Panasonic GH-1). But f0.95 doesn't get used much; nearly all my shots are done at f2. Two reasons: focusing becomes a practical procedure, with no luck or prayer involved, and, as everyone knows, all lenses are better at two stops down from maximum aperture.
My current fave lens is an Angenieux 25mm f0.95 c-mount (used on a Panasonic GH-1). But f0.95 doesn't get used much; nearly all my shots are done at f2. Two reasons: focusing becomes a practical procedure, with no luck or prayer involved, and, as everyone knows, all lenses are better at two stops down from maximum aperture.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Thanks Frank, I am sure you are right. It's good to think along the lines you suggest. We recently saw here some nice interiors with the Color Skopar f4 25 which most had not considered using indoors. I often opt for my f2 35 over my 1.5 50 for evening functions, and have done some interesting slower shutter speed shots with the 25 2.8. I started rethinking this in a tight spot last year when I recalled the extremely slow shutter speeds used in late 19th century portrait work. Resting the camera on a ledge or bracing my right wrist against a door jamb has worked for me sometimes. The following photo, taking xxloverxx's point, was f8 at 1/2 second, resting on the railing. From NZ last year (http://www.flickr.com/photos/richardgm2/sets/72157618991545830/)
Half a second outdoors? Even being overcast, with low ISO film I can shoot at 1/250th of a second... Yes, you wanted more depth of field, and the water less frozen... Interesting... Shot looks nice!
Cheers,
Juan
MatthewThompson
Well-known
When light levels and shutter speeds drop - my greatest assistance has always been.....LEAF SHUTTERS!
Amen to that!
Ronald M
Veteran
A tripod is your friend, remember. So is creative use of your flash.
Fast lenses have no debth of field. I personally do not appreciate "beautiful bokeh."
My Summarit does a wonderful job in certain circumstances if there is a simple background. Therewise there is photoshop.
Fast lenses have no debth of field. I personally do not appreciate "beautiful bokeh."
My Summarit does a wonderful job in certain circumstances if there is a simple background. Therewise there is photoshop.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Ronald,
But the tripod can also be your enemy if you want to work quickly or unobtrusively. Same goes for flash. I don't always want to announce that I've taken a picture every time I press the release, and usually, I don't like the effect anyway.
I'm not saying you're wrong. Rather, I'm saying that we're both right, depending on how and what/whom we are photographing.
Cheers,
R.