is f2 fast enough?

K

knodd

Member
Local time
6:15 PM
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
36
hello guys,

i just wanted to know whether any of you guys survive with an f2 as your fastest lens. prices jump substantially with a move from an f2 to f1.4 and i don't want to take that jump :(

i'm asking this because i want to know if my (seemingly obsessive) desire to get an f1.4 is out of need or pure greed :D there were a few times where i felt, 'wow an f1.4 would be nice', but i don't know whether those fickle fancies of mine are enough to warrant forking out more cash for an f1.4. i was hoping to get some insight from you guys :)

thanks alot for your time!

shaun
 
nowadays, i think an f2.8 is plenty fast.

of course much depends on what and where you shoot.
i shoot mostly outside and during the day which makes 2.8 ok for me.
 
Really depends on the focal length and what you want to shoot.

There are some good affordable fast "normal" lenses out there like the 50 and 40 CV Noktons,
or the Canon 50/1.4.

Roland.
 
Yes, it is. On the other hand, if you want a faster lens, then there are many excellent options available.
 
i personally think f2 is pretty fast enough and with a faster iso film, you can survive most situations
anything faster than f2 is really more for artistic shots as well as shooting in really low lightning situations...
my 2 cents
 
Maybe I'm crazy...but, I like lenses faster than f2 because I like to shoot at f2 and I'd rather not be wide open. Of course, that gives you the option of going wide open with a faster lens if the situation demands it. Overall though, my sucess rate focusing faster than f2 is not good.
 
with a Summicron 50 it will perform about as good wide open as almost anything faster shot at f2.

f2 is fine for most of my shooting because wider open and then DOF drops to nothing.

dazedgonebye said:
Maybe I'm crazy...but, I like lenses faster than f2 because I like to shoot at f2 and I'd rather not be wide open. Of course, that gives you the option of going wide open with a faster lens if the situation demands it. Overall though, my sucess rate focusing faster than f2 is not good.
Click to expand...
 
I don't do a lot of low light shooting and I don't shoot a lot of portraits, where the shallow dof of 1.5 or faster can be useful. I sold my 50 Nokton b/c I just wasn't using it much. For me, f2 is fast enough.
 
Fastest Lens I Have Ever Owned

Fastest Lens I Have Ever Owned

In 41 years in photography, an f2 is the fastest lens I have ever owned. And that includes my time as a newspaper photographer doing night time high school sports (180mm2.8 at 250th on TriX pushed to 1600 on my Nikon F). It was not the best b&w but yielded a usable print for the local newspaper.

I just ordered a 35f1.2 but sent it back once I realized how large it was on my M. Now it is not the fault of the lens which seemed to be really well made. Unfortunately where I live there are no camera stores within 250 miles so I have to use mail order. But I too sometimes lust after a lens with LOTS of glass.

Of course it really depends on what type of shooting you do. I have a Summicron in 50mm but most of the time I like to travel with a 35 and 90. And I like to travel light so the apertures on both are f2.8.

After my experience with the 1.2 Nokton I admit to looking at the 35 1.4 but I already have a perfectly good 35mm.

So there is my 02 cents worth. But there are lots of reasonable fast lenses out there, especially with Zeiss and Cosina in the game.

I was talking to Sherry Krauter yesterday about an M5 and she agreed that Leica was pricing itself out of the market, especially asking $10000 for a lens. Now I know the dollar's exchange rate sucks but that is ridiculous!
 
Generally speaking yes. But I do like to have at least one faster lens in the kit. A lens that performs well at max aperture.
My current kit is:
f/3.5
f/2.8
f/2.8
f/2.0
f/1.5

(the 2.0 and 1.5 take 80 percent of my photos, I would guess)
 
I'd suggest the thing to do is go out a lot with a slower lens (f/2, f/2.8 or whatever), and only consider something faster if you actually find yourself in situations where you really could have done with an extra stop or two.

Most of my photography here in Thailand is outdoors in bright light, and during my last spell here the fastest lens I had with me was a 40/2, then a 35/2.5 and a 28/3.5. But even though such apertures were more than enough most of the time, there were occasions (in dimly-lit temple interiors, etc) where I was struggling to find a support for the camera and an extra stop or so would have made a big difference, and I missed shots.

So I invested in one f/1.4 lens (a CV 35), and I'm very pleased I have it - it works fine at f/1.4 and occasionally that extra stop makes all the difference (and even if that's not its sharpest aperture, I'd rather have a shot at f/1.4 than no shot at all).

So really it's all down to your own shooting - you need to be honest with yourself about whether an f/1.4 would actually make a difference when you're out and about.
 
I think that Keith is spot on, it depends upon what you want to shoot, your style, how you feel about it. I think it also matters about how much you want to carry.

I used to think I needed fast lenses and while given a choice I would still go that way, but I've learned to live very happily with an f4 on my 25mm. I liked the speed of the 21/2.8 I had, but not the look. While it was a lot bigger, it was not too big at the time. After using a 25/4 on a Bessa L I realized it was a bit bigger than I liked.

I used to carry around my M4-P and a 35/3.5 and 90/4 when I traveled on business or went into parts of NYC I should not be in. I made it work for me. I changed what I was going for some times but I always walked away at the end of the day with some shots I liked. Now I had the 'Cron twins (35 and 90) at home if I needed. I used the travel kit when I shot things with flash (Village Halloween Parade) I was lucky to have a choice.

I've changed to a Nikon S3-2000 kit so I have a fast 50 (the Millennium is GREAT) but my wides are CVs (25/4, 35/2.5). I'd love the 35/1.8 Nikkor but money is moving in the negative direction these days so I live happily with the CV @ 2.5.

If I were generating income with my cameras again I think I would go back to two kits, one fast and large and one slow and small.

Think about what you want, your style, what brings you the most joy? What style do you want to explore, what do you want to try? The other thing to keep in mind is that you can often sell most anything you find here in the classifieds for about what you paid for it if you find it's not you.

It's OK to change your style as you go. An important part of growing older it trying to make sure we learn and grow. Find your vision and keep improving it.

B2 (;->
 
As Keith have said ... it only depends on your preferred style of taking photos. In my case, I take 90 % of my photos at night and prefer 35/1.4 and 50/1.0. If I would shoot mostly at daytime, I would go for 35/2 and 50/2 and use occasionally 1600ISO film.
 
99% of the situations, f/2 is ok.
I think f/2 lenses are generally better at f/2 than their 1.4 counterparts at the same aperture. So basically the additional f/1.4 lenses I have (canon) are really for situations where f/1.4 is needed.
OTOH, it's also a question of focal lenght. I have a 28mm f2.8 that I prefer to my VC f/1.9, and 28mm allows for pretty low sppeds. I also have a 90mm f/2.8, and I really felt I needed more speed, so I bought a canon f/1.9.
BTW, Canon lenses are bargains, great build quality and more than enough optical quality to allow for these stretch situations where you need one stop more.
Good luck
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom