is f2 fast enough?

[leicapixie]

A f2.0 lens is more than sufficient for 400 ISO film.
Digital can see more in dark.
I have very seldom "pushed" film.
If one has a Leica lens, even classic ones, they are perfectly useable,
at maximum aperture.
Maybe lesser lenses need to be stopped down for better results.
I totally hated my 35mm Pre asph-Summilux, the early 50mm Summilux.
I know some of you "need" O.95 for blurred images.
I don't. Save monies and use what one has.

 

[ulrich.von.lich]

Is f1.4 fast enough when f2 is not?

Since my answer is negative, I always carry a f2 lens and a flash unit.

 

[ChrisPlatt]

I tried the Canon f1.4 when I'm indoors, then I realize all my pics indoor were just soft to blur
(I like ISO 100 bw film), I suppose I just don't have the enough DoF that I want.

Exactly. But I don't like flash, especially on my old focal-plane shutter cameras.
I suppose a modern AF camera would work better, but I don't like those either.
Besides I no longer have any interest in photographing what I cannot see... 😉

Chris

 

[Godfrey]

Ultra-fast lenses, that is, lenses faster than f/2.8, are useful for two things: first for working in very low light where every scrap of light gathering power is essential, and second for controlling depth of field on small format cameras (which includes 24x36 mm format). If your needs include these two situations on a regular basis, an f/2 or faster lens helps. If they do not, a slower lens is fine.

On average, regardless of the maximum aperture of my lenses, I find myself shooting at f/4 to f/8 more than 90% of the time.

G

 

[Roger Hicks]

A f2.0 lens is more than sufficient for 400 ISO film.
Digital can see more in dark.
I have very seldom "pushed" film.
If one has a Leica lens, even classic ones, they are perfectly useable,
at maximum aperture.
Maybe lesser lenses need to be stopped down for better results.
I totally hated my 35mm Pre asph-Summilux, the early 50mm Summilux.
I know some of you "need" O.95 for blurred images.
I don't. Save monies and use what one has.

Clearly not for everyone. There are times when even f/1 isn't fast enough, even with very fast film or ISO 2500 digital. See http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps king.html

Putting "need" in inverted commas argues for a certain narrowness of imagination or ambition. Why do you think manufacturers make faster lenses than f/2 and faster films than ISO 400?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . On average, regardless of the maximum aperture of my lenses, I find myself shooting at f/4 to f/8 more than 90% of the time.

Dear Godfrey,

And then there's the rest of the time...

You can easily stop a fast lens down (do you really regard f/2 as "ultra-fast"?) but it's a bugger trying to open an f/2.8 up to f/2 or f/1.4 or faster.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Ken Ford]

I actually enjoy unavailable light shooting! I like the challenge...

 

[Roger Hicks]

I actually enjoy unavailable light shooting! I like the challenge...

Dear Ken,

I just like taking pictures. Sometimes there's plenty of light. Sometimes there isn't. I'm not going to stop shooting just because there isn't. The challenge lies in getting a good picture, not in how much (or little) light there is.

Cheers,

R.

 

[leicapixie]

Clearly not for everyone. There are times when even f/1 isn't fast enough, even with very fast film or ISO 2500 digital. See http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps%20king.html

Putting "need" in inverted commas argues for a certain narrowness of imagination or ambition. Why do you think manufacturers make faster lenses than f/2 and faster films than ISO 400?

Cheers,

R.

Wow! TY a letter addressed to moi!
I will have it framed.:angel:

 

[tightsqueez]

My first deployment to Iraq my fastest lens was an f/2 and the only film I shot was Kodachrome 64.

Limited? Possibly, but those were some of my deepest, sincere images of a first impression of war.

 

[Godfrey]

And then there's the rest of the time...

Indeed. Let's see: a maximum of 9% of the time when I'm either shooting at f/11 to f/32 or f/1.4 to f/2. Let's split that down the middle and call it 4.5% of the time I'm shooting at greater than f/2.8. Consider someone who makes 10,000 exposures a year.

Do you see how absurd it is to spend double to triple the amount of money to make 450 of those exposures at greater than f/2.8?

You can easily stop a fast lens down (do you really regard f/2 as "ultra-fast"?) but it's a bugger trying to open an f/2.8 up to f/2 or f/1.4 or faster.

Not easy with film, but with either of my digital cameras I can 'open up the lens' three stops by popping the ISO setting up to ISO 6400 with very nice results. Ultra-fast lenses are more important when dealing with the limitations of film capture.

Yes, f/2 classifies in my book as "ultra-fast" ... I'm a conservative on this, I know. Some people these days don't consider f/1.4 an ultra-fast lens, just like they don't consider 20mm an ultra-wide lens. To me, both those notions are absurd.

G

 

[Emile de Leon]

Sometimes you just need either the speed..or a lightweight lens..
F1.0 noct comes in real handy at times..
I was always running out of speed at f2...
Just get both and be happy...you may not need F1 all the time..but it will save the day when you do need it..

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . Do you see how absurd it is to spend double to triple the amount of money to make 450 of those exposures at greater than f/2.8?. . .

Dear Godfrey,

Do you see how absurd it is to miss pictures you might otherwise have taken?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Soeren]

Dear Godfrey,

Do you see how absurd it is to miss pictures you might otherwise have taken?

Cheers,

R.

If feeding your children and getting the next job as a professional photographer is depending on those shots then yes but hardly as an amateur.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Indeed. Let's see: a maximum of 9% of the time when I'm either shooting at f/11 to f/32 or f/1.4 to f/2. Let's split that down the middle and call it 4.5% of the time I'm shooting at greater than f/2.8. Consider someone who makes 10,000 exposures a year.

Do you see how absurd it is to spend double to triple the amount of money to make 450 of those exposures at greater than f/2.8? . . .

A further thought on this one:

A lens should last at least 10 years. Suddenly that's 4,500 pictures, even if (unlike me) you take hardly any pictures at wide apertures. My 35 Summilux is well over 30 years old: call it 15,000 pictures even for you. For me, it's a lot more.

Now, what were you saying about "absurd"? You're throwing away the chance to take well over 10,000 pictures....

Cheers,

R.

 

[Soeren]

Or If using the money saved to gain knowledge, inspiration og maybe other photoequipment giving you the ability take another 20.000 pictures you otherwise would miss.

 

[Godfrey]

I've missed taking literally millions of photos in my life so far. They don't count—we can never take all possible photos we could have taken. That's like being able to enumerate all the things we don't know ... it's impossible because we can't know everything we don't know, by definition.

It's the pictures I've (we've) taken that count. 🙂

G

A further thought on this one:

A lens should last at least 10 years. Suddenly that's 4,500 pictures, even if (unlike me) you take hardly any pictures at wide apertures. My 35 Summilux is well over 30 years old: call it 15,000 pictures even for you. For me, it's a lot more.

Now, what were you saying about "absurd"? You're throwing away the chance to take well over 10,000 pictures....

Cheers,

R.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Or If using the money saved to gain knowledge, inspiration og maybe other photoequipment giving you the ability take another 20.000 pictures you otherwise would miss.

Saved money?
Come on... A wonderful 40 1.4 Nokton can be bought used for close to $300, and that's no money at all. And sharp wide open... You get the speed or you don't, and you get the shots or you don't. The rest is speculation.
No matter if I shoot all day at f/11, yes, 99% of my photography, as someone said before the few times light is not that abundant, things become truly different, but the world remains just as interesting, so why leave and say no? Thank God not everybody left.
Cheers,
Juan

 

[skopar steve]

There are lots of reasons why I miss shots. Too slow to react, camera is in bag and not around my neck, some joker gets in the way...etc. Not having a fast enough lens is pretty far down the list. And since possibilities to get great images are infinite, I don't beat myself up over missing some. I make do with the equipment I can afford.

Having said that, lenses are far more important to me than bodies. I want the fastest, sharpest and best corrected lenses I can afford. When I go out photographing I never know what image will present itself. I want to be as prepared as possible. I will forgo lots of things I want (smart phones, televisions, new motorcycle, hair cuts) in order to have the glass I need. The primary causes of my missed shots can be remedied by getting out and shooting more.

Short answer no, f2. is not fast enough for focal lengths between 35mm-85mm IMHO.

Steve

 

[Soeren]

Well maybe, Im not up to date on lens prices but If that according to the speculations on prices earlier in this thread means a similar f2 lens can be had for 100-150$ its still 150-200$ saved.