is f2 fast enough?

I shot for a couple of years with a 35/1.7 before treating myself to the 35/1.2 I thought I deserved. And I'd shot for a couple of years before that with a 35/1.4. For the kind of reckless, bravura handheld shooting I do, sometimes even 1.2 at ISO 1600 isn't going to be enough. Perhaps I should stick to shooting things I can actually see... :cool:

The jump from 35/1.7 to 35/1.2 (or 35/2 to 35/1.4) is a fair bit of money if all it's going to do is let you shoot at 1/15 instead of 1/8 at the same ISO. I justified it by the amount of very low light stuff I do, and by my liking for shallow depth of field. Getting a lens twice as fast doesn't actually mean I can take twice the shots in low light. And there's a weight/size penalty that comes with it.

So every stop helps, but it's not always enough.

F/2 is perfectly respectable and you can achieve a lot. Still faster than virtually every zoom or digicam. And depending on your subject and ISO, you can do work at night with f/4 if you pick your battles carefully.

And remember that handholding 28/2.8 at 1/8 is as good as 50/2 at 1/15 (as far as camera shake goes), so speed is more of an issue at longer focal lengths. Not that that stops the speed freaks on here joining me in looking longingly at the new Leica 21/1.4... ;)
 
I don't care for film faster than 400 and I shoot predominantly indoors, and so fast lenses are very valuable to me. I shoot almost exclusively with a 35mm Summilux and very often at maximum aperture. Simply, the difference between f2.0 and f.1.4 often means the difference between 1/15 of a second and 1/30 of a second and that often equates to having usable results or not.

Ryan
 
F/2 is IMO the best compromise between size, speed and weight of the lenses. There might though not be important criterias to all, but I have just sold my Nokton 50mm and 28mm Ultron; fast but too big to carry around. I just bought a 35mm Summicron, a perfect mix of all requirements for me.
 
I recently did some night shooting with my 40mm f/1.4. With the ISO 1600 film I was using, I shot at 2.8, 4, and 5.6.

I do own a few f/1.4 lenses and occasionally use them wide open. One instance where f/1.4 can sometime be essential is with the 75mm lens. With it, I can shoot at 1/125th second and get a sharp picture. With a 35mm lens, I can shoot at 1/30 or 1/50th though, and that is fast enough to eliminate camera shake at that focal length. So f/2 is often good enough at that focal length. I got a nice color picture of my wife in a restaurant, with my 28mm f/2. I probably shot at 1/30th and f/2.

So I think focal length enters into the decision. Shorter lenses can be hand-held at longer exposure times.
 
Hephaestus said:
I don't care for film faster than 400 and I shoot predominantly indoors, and so fast lenses are very valuable to me. I shoot almost exclusively with a 35mm Summilux and very often at maximum aperture. Simply, the difference between f2.0 and f.1.4 often means the difference between 1/15 of a second and 1/30 of a second and that often equates to having usable results or not.

Ryan
Click to expand...

Exactly my experience too. Tri-X rated at 400ISO used indoors in a bar or outside at night requires 1/30s and f/1.4 in most cases and sometimes 1/15s. A f/2.0 wouldn't work for me. This one was taken with the 35mm Summilux (pre-ASPH) at f/1.4 and 1/15s (handheld) on Tri-X @ 400ISO:

103821802.jpg
 
Dear Shaun,

If you constantly find yourself running out of light, you need a faster lens.

If you don't, you don't.

What other criterion is there? How can anyone else's opinion help you? Like many people I shoot mostly at f/5.6 to f/11 -- but sometimes I need all the speed I can get, which is why I own and regularly use f/1.5 and f/1.4 lenses, and would buy a Noctilux if I could afford it.

Cheers,

Roger
 
thanks so much for the responses guys.

just last night i was shooting in a bar and with neopan 1600 loaded in my camera and f1.4 i was constantly between 1/8 and 1/15 which is really the limit of my hand-held capabilities. so i guess i will keep my f1.4 :D

thanks so much again for all the responses!
 
Professionally I always carried a small flash for otherwise unworkable situations. I hardly ever used it but that and f2 lenses was enough. Now I prefer to go without that safety net and like having f1.4 available. This happens to open up some situations I run into regularly, but can just barely shoot in with film.
 
yes; f/2 is enough for me.
I once switched to f/2.8 for a while and found it quite unncomfortable; that's why I am now with mt f/2 again. (35mm summicron)
 
I think f2 is plenty fast. I shoot a Leica M9 which has an ISO that is not on par with more modern machines, and I still don't have a problem with shooting at f2 and ISO 1600 max (black and white only, for me).

The other reason I think it's best not to go faster than that is that lenses not only tend to jump in price, but also in size. I used to have a Canon f1.4 50mm and sold it because it was too big and heavy. I also rarely shot it at 1.4, but the times that I did it was soft, difficult to focus and the bokeh was not of my liking.

I also shoot film, and in fact in doing so I can go up to (on Tri-X) 3200 or 6400, which is good, again, for an f2 lens (and you can have one stop because my M3 shakes a lot less than my M9).

In fact, these days my most used lens is a Summaron 35mm f3.5, which is even plenty for most daytime situations :)
 
Oops, I apologize for the thread revival. I really thought this just came up in the rotation. I must have turned it up in a search and got it mixed in with the tabs of current threads I'm following. Not sure how that happened.
 
Eight years old thread becomes alive!

It all depends on camera, film or sensor, light and subject.

I have to use 50 1.2 with color film indoors and with ISO 1600 max no noise sensors. But I quit on 50 1.2 once my family grown. I need f5.6-f8 to have all in the DoF. Bouncing flash is still better option to get clean, sharp and naturally looking pictures, even with modern 12K-56K ISO sensors, IMO.

But I like J-3 over J-8 on FED-2 due to 1/30 as the slowest speed...
With film Leicas I could handle it with f2.5 and f2.8 if pushing bw @1600.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom