Huss
Veteran
The answer is a definite maybe.
willie_901
Veteran
Digital, yes. Film, maybe not.
brennanphotoguy
Well-known
Fast enough in terms of light gathering? Yes, I think it's plenty. In terms of DOF and some of the softness that some of the older lenses have when opened up to f/1.4 or the DOF in general I think is very pleasing for certain things. My fastest lens is f/2 and I'm fine with that. Do I need 1.4? No. Do I want it for other reasons aside from light gathering? Yes.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
In art, what is the difference between "need" and "want"?
Though in all fairness, many of those who say they don't want art may be the ones who need it most.
Cheers,
R.
presspass
filmshooter
What Hacker said. A lot depends on whether you're shooting film or digital. With digital, you can usually bump the ISO and at least get recognizable results. If you've got a partial roll of ISO 400 black and white in the camera, you're stuck with that speed unless you want to load another roll or ruin what you've already shot. There are a few, very few in fact, days when I go out with nothing faster than a 2.0. Typically the day's kit will include at least one, and sometimes as many as three, lenses that are 1.4. I never know when I'll need the speed, so I pack for that uncertainty.
Pioneer
Veteran
As fast as I can afford...
and as small as I can get.
It always seems that when I need a 1/15s shutter speed to get the photo, that is when my hands start shaking like a paint mixing machine. I have plenty of blurry photographs at f/2 to prove this point for me. Sometimes f/1.4 and ISO3200 are not enough for me.
Of course, if your hands are as steady as a surgeon's than you may find f/2 to be all you need.
Digital is another ball of wax but high ISO, whether on film or on digital, always seems to come at a price.
and as small as I can get.
It always seems that when I need a 1/15s shutter speed to get the photo, that is when my hands start shaking like a paint mixing machine. I have plenty of blurry photographs at f/2 to prove this point for me. Sometimes f/1.4 and ISO3200 are not enough for me.
Of course, if your hands are as steady as a surgeon's than you may find f/2 to be all you need.
Digital is another ball of wax but high ISO, whether on film or on digital, always seems to come at a price.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
I don't find f/2 fast enough. Maybe it is for today's digital sensors, I don't know...
But for film it's not: it's far from being fast enough...
It can be good outdoors with natural light, but with low light, indoors, night, artificial light, even at 3200 I constantly need speeds like 1/15th and 1/8th when I use f/1.4, so, f/2 is not fast at all for low light with film.
Cheers,
Juan
But for film it's not: it's far from being fast enough...
It can be good outdoors with natural light, but with low light, indoors, night, artificial light, even at 3200 I constantly need speeds like 1/15th and 1/8th when I use f/1.4, so, f/2 is not fast at all for low light with film.
Cheers,
Juan
ChrisPlatt
Thread Killer
FWIW I shoot only film, now 35mm exclusively, and usually ISO 100-400.
I own f/2.0 lenses in 35, 50 and 85mm to fit my Pentax and Nikon SLR bodies.
I prefer to use these fast lenses; their brighter image makes focusing easier.
Given an SLRs focus accuracy and ability to preview depth-of-field I'm not
afraid to shoot at maximum aperture in existing light or for selective focus.
For my rangefinder and other non-SLR cameras I don't require a lens that fast.
In fact for these cameras I prefer a slower f/2.5 - f/4.0 maximum aperture.
Lenses in this range are more compact, cheaper and often perform better.
Their greater DOF makes them more tolerant of focus inaccuracy as well.
Chris
I own f/2.0 lenses in 35, 50 and 85mm to fit my Pentax and Nikon SLR bodies.
I prefer to use these fast lenses; their brighter image makes focusing easier.
Given an SLRs focus accuracy and ability to preview depth-of-field I'm not
afraid to shoot at maximum aperture in existing light or for selective focus.
For my rangefinder and other non-SLR cameras I don't require a lens that fast.
In fact for these cameras I prefer a slower f/2.5 - f/4.0 maximum aperture.
Lenses in this range are more compact, cheaper and often perform better.
Their greater DOF makes them more tolerant of focus inaccuracy as well.
Chris
Pioneer
Veteran
Very well put Chris.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Juan,
I heartily agree. Often, f/2.8 is enough for differential focus. But when it's not enough to get enough light on the film or even sensor, it's very different. You need f/2. f/1,4, f/2, f/1. See http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps king.html for some f/1 pictures.
Cheers,
R.
giganova
Well-known
I've had f1.4 and 1.2 lenses in the past but have always stopped them down to 2.8 to get a more manageable dof.
giganova
Well-known
sara
Well-known
Always a f2.8 girl, used to live with f2.5 but sometimes needed more. Just got a lens that is f2, so we'll see but I guess it depends what you're shooting more of. I prefer daylight stuff so yeah, plenty for me.
peterm1
Veteran
It depends.
For low light photography using digital sensors (especially on full frame) yes it is adequate, given it is easily possible to shoot at sensitivities of at least 1600 ISO. In fact I have a Nikkor 16-35mm f4 lens which is stabilized and I have shot sharp images in very, very low light at 1/8th second with that lens at f4. So if you add optical stabilization into the mix then f2 is even more adequate.
But not of course for film in the same conditions.
And I would say also not for native lenses in the micro 4/3 range. This applies partly because such sensors still do not have the same performance as full frame in regard to sensor noise in low light. In that situation a faster lens may be better for noise. And neither is is adequate for m4/3 if you are shooting for bokeh. In those lenses f2 is equivalent to a much smaller aperture on full frame so the bokeh outcome is more problematic. (This does not apply of course when f2 is used on a full frame lens mounted on an M4/3 camera using an adapter as those lenses have "normal" bokeh).
For low light photography using digital sensors (especially on full frame) yes it is adequate, given it is easily possible to shoot at sensitivities of at least 1600 ISO. In fact I have a Nikkor 16-35mm f4 lens which is stabilized and I have shot sharp images in very, very low light at 1/8th second with that lens at f4. So if you add optical stabilization into the mix then f2 is even more adequate.
But not of course for film in the same conditions.
And I would say also not for native lenses in the micro 4/3 range. This applies partly because such sensors still do not have the same performance as full frame in regard to sensor noise in low light. In that situation a faster lens may be better for noise. And neither is is adequate for m4/3 if you are shooting for bokeh. In those lenses f2 is equivalent to a much smaller aperture on full frame so the bokeh outcome is more problematic. (This does not apply of course when f2 is used on a full frame lens mounted on an M4/3 camera using an adapter as those lenses have "normal" bokeh).
MikeMGB
Well-known
If I'm shooting outdoors my Elmar 3.5 is more than enough, I rarely open up more than 5.6.
However, indoors my 1.7 Summilux is quite often not enough, I miss the 1.2 50s I used to own in the 80s.
However, indoors my 1.7 Summilux is quite often not enough, I miss the 1.2 50s I used to own in the 80s.
ChrisPlatt
Thread Killer
I guess I'm different: if there's no light, I don't take pictures
You are not alone. When I started for years I spent much time attempting "existing darkness" photography.
In my experience the miss rate is far too high in those conditions, even using fast lenses and high ISO film.
To me the time spent is just not worth it. There are plenty of better things to do when it's that dark...
Chris
newfilm
Well-known
You are not alone. When I started for years I spent much time attempting "existing darkness" photography.
In my experience the miss rate is far too high in those conditions, even using fast lenses and high ISO film.
To me the time spent is just not worth it. There are plenty of better things to do when it's that dark...
Chris
Em... I tried the Canon f1.4 when I'm indoor, then i realize all my pics indoor was just soft to blur (I like iso 100 bw film), I suppose I just don;t have the enough DoF that i want. And now for me indoor always end up with using a flash, which is not too bad especially when you bounce the flash and on BW its still pretty nice IMHO.
oftheherd
Veteran
I have and use lenses all over the place aperture wise I prefer faster lenses, but usually focal length is what I look for in a lens. If it isn't as fast as I prefer, there are things to make up for that, such as film speed, tripods, or flash.
pvdhaar
Peter
I've got an 85/1.4.. Never use it for indoors shooting, the DOF is so shallow, that getting focus right is a hit and miss. It does see use outdoors though in the absolute dark, though I think that doesn't count as it's for astrophotography