Is 1.4 really necessary for available light?

[Bosk]

Right now I'm using my 50/2 Summicron and 35/2.5 Voightlander on my R2A and getting some nice results, but I feel the need for something a little quicker, particularly on the 35mm end of things.

I've been thinking of replacing the 35/2.5 with a 35/1.7 Ultron or 35/2 Summicron, but since I have no desire to replace my 50/2 Summicron this will leave me with a maximum f-stop of f2 in my bag.

How limiting will a max aperture of f2 be for low-light work in the long run?
Are 1.4 and faster lenses really necessary for low-grain results indoors and after dark?

Cheers for your opinons on this. 🙂

 

[Stephanie Brim]

Not essential, no, but it may be a good idea depending on your shooting. I would be happy with f/2.

 

[ray_g]

I think the key to your statement is that you want "low grain" results. Otherwise, fast film or pushing would be the easy answer.

Personally, if you have a 35/2 or 35/1.7, having a 50/2 as you fastest 50mm is not a big deal. I find that I can effectively hand hold the 35mm one stop more (one stop slower shutter speed) than the 50, so for the same EV, I can take the same picture with the 35/2 as I can with the 50/1.4, I may just need to move a couple of steps closer.

 

[Bosk]

Oh, and since it's relevant I should also mention I'm allergic to tripods. 😀

 

[dmr]

Cheers for your opinons on this. 🙂

I'm happy with a 1.7 on the Canon and Mamiya. I know that's less than 1/2 stop slower than a 1.4, but I very seldom really shoot totally wide open. I like to do f/2 or f/2.8 for night scenes. I've had very good luck using the various Fuji 400, 800, and 1600 films for urban night shooting.

On the SLR (Pentax with f/2) I have felt limited. I swear the slap of the mirror costs a stop. I've found that I can more reliably hold the RFs at 1/30 and 1/15 than the SLR. Overall it seems that the RFs have close to a two-stop advantage over the Pentax in low light.

 

[Pherdinand]

It's not only about handholding the stuff, or lower grain.
A faster lens allows for less (subject) motion blur. Sometimes motion blur is good but rarely. A shutter speed of 1/60 versus 1/20 (f/1.4 vs f/2.5) can make the difference.

Of course it's always possible to use faster film. But then, using faster film, AND faster lens, you can shoot in even less light😀
Nighttime, in a low-lit local e.g. the faster you can get the better the lens. Vignetting or barrel distortion etc, those are not real issues in these situations, IMO.

 

[peter_n]

I've found the extra stop at f1.4 useful even when shooting NP1600 in places like the subway. I have a 35mm/f1.4 that focuses down to 0.7M and it is ideal. One lens you may be interested in trying is the CV 40mm/f1.4. A lot of people here like that lens.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

You can shoot at f/8 just fine with available light from the Sun outside or reflected inside.

f/1.4 is not necessary. In the 30's and 40's people shot with "high-speed" ISO 50 and ISO 100 films with f/3.5 lenses.

 

[Pherdinand]

Gabriel - Yep, and when they were shooting inside without reflected light, they used blinding strong and fire-hazard large flash units. 🙂

 

[ray_g]

Gabriel - Yep, and when they were shooting inside without reflected light, they used blinding strong and fire-hazard large flash units. 🙂

Lol... and that will surely get rid of motion blur. Hey, it worked for Weegee. 😉

 

[Pherdinand]

How does a Summarit compare to a SOnnar 50/1.5?

 

[Didier]

Speed matters. Speed matters. Speed matters.

One can not say f1.4 is rquested for available light photography. But one can say f1.4f offers more tolerance in critical situations than f1.7 or f2 or higher.

In the past I was so glad I had the max speed in so many situations. When I go to concerts or theatres shooting friends performing their art, I mostly prefer the Canon 1.2/50 to my meanwhile two Summiluxes (35, 75) just for that half stop of speed more.

Hm, did I say: Speed matters? 🙂

Didier

 

[ampguy]

depends

depends

with digital, I can live with f2, with certain cameras that have low noise, and a good 1600.

with film, shooting low light, I'd spend the $$ for 1.2/1.4 or faster, otherwise you'd be spending that money on 1600 + or pushed film, with questionable grain levels.

Right now I'm using my 50/2 Summicron and 35/2.5 Voightlander on my R2A and getting some nice results, but I feel the need for something a little quicker, particularly on the 35mm end of things.

I've been thinking of replacing the 35/2.5 with a 35/1.7 Ultron or 35/2 Summicron, but since I have no desire to replace my 50/2 Summicron this will leave me with a maximum f-stop of f2 in my bag.

How limiting will a max aperture of f2 be for low-light work in the long run?
Are 1.4 and faster lenses really necessary for low-grain results indoors and after dark?

Cheers for your opinons on this. 🙂

 

[Ronald M]

SLRs without soome mirror dampening blurr pretty badly. Pentax spotmatic series, Leica R4and 5. `flex`s SL SL2 R3 6 6.2 7 8 and 9 are all fine.

The best is any RF. I once pulled off 1/4 sec at 2.8 as that was all I had. Leaned against a railing, elbows tight in , and hold your breath. Squeese slowly. Suprised even me.

The Spotmatics were so bad I could not hold 1/1000. They always needed a tripod.

 

[Socke]

How limiting will a max aperture of f2 be for low-light work in the long run?
Are 1.4 and faster lenses really necessary for low-grain results indoors and after dark?

IMHO not as limiting as it was a couple of years ago, I remember that my father and grandfather thought of DIN18 (ISO50) as daylight and DIN15(ISO25) as artificial light films, DIN21 (ISO100) was fast film then and that's only some 30 to 40 years ago.

Today Elitechrom100 is virtualy grainless and my HP5+ shows less grain than the Perruz and Addox ISO50 my father shot in the 50s.

As far as I'm concerned we gained at least a three stop increase in low grain B&W film and two stops in slides and maybe four with colour print film.

The only reason for a fast lens today is less DoF and there I have the problem that it shows my focusing errors more clearly 🙂

 

[Pherdinand]

The Spotmatics were so bad I could not hold 1/1000. They always needed a tripod.

Man, you seriously need to cut down on your coffee consumption.

 

[x-ray]

f/1.4 is not necessary. In the 30's and 40's people shot with "high-speed" ISO 50 and ISO 100 films with f/3.5 lenses.

Took the words right out of my mouth. Work on your technique and work on your film processing for finer grain. Try HP5 in Acufine at 800. Very good grain and tonality.

Take a look at the work of Lewis Hine. He shot 5x7 available light in steal and textile mills back in the early 1900's up to the forties.

I've shot 400 ISO available light in both 5x7 and 8x10 in dimly lit country store interiors where there was only light from a small window and from bare light bulbs hanging from the ceiling. It's not easy particularly with a 121mm f8 super angulon but it can be done and I did it. It's very rewarding when you pull it off.

The first image of the country store was shot on a Sinar Norma 5x7 with 400 ISO film and a 121 super angulon. I had numerous good shots from that session. The second is just to illustrate an 8x10 shot on tri-x shot with an 1800's vintage 10inch tripple convertible protar uncoated at f256 for ten minutes.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=5045

 

[Kin Lau]

Gabriel - Yep, and when they were shooting inside without reflected light, they used blinding strong and fire-hazard large flash units. 🙂

http://www.meggaflash.com/

The PF-300 is equiv to 6 Press 25's 😱

Check out the gallery shot where someone lit an entire valley + train.

 

[BillBingham2]

I've felt the need for speed for years and never been let down. While I have been able to live with f4 indoors some times, subject and I need to be very still. 40/1.4 is a fine lens, not too big, fast and sharp.

The only bad thing I can say about fast lenses is that they are often BIG.

Take a look at the CV 25/4 vs the ZI 25/2.8, OMG is that ZI large. Now do not get me wrong, I have a Leica 21/2.8 when I need speed in doors and that is big, but it does not come with me unless I know I am going to need it. My old kit used to be 21/2.8, 35/2, and 90/2 and I never felt I did not have enough speed. Now with the 40/1.4 and I spoiled and very happy.

Speed also comes at a price.

B2 (;->

 

[RObert Budding]

You can get away with an f1.4 lens on 35mm. But the DOF with medium and large formats is too shallow to use such fast lenses at close range. But there is always flash (when it isn't too disruptive). And it is possible to make flash look like natural light.