is f2 fast enough?

Juan Valdenebro said:
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
Click to expand...
Dear Juan,

Quite.

Besides which, the "saving money" argument is a bit of an illusion. I've forgotten what my Summilux cost but I think it was under £700. Spread across 35 years that's £20 a year. Not a fortune for getting the pictures I have wanted over that time!

Of course if I were to sell it I'd double or triple what I paid for it anyway.

Cheers,

R.
 
It seems if one disagrees, one is wanting in ambition and creativity,
loss of possible photos, ought to use box camera..
Bad day ?
I think the poster of all these mean answers ought to cool off.
Oh! Only 700 drachmas decades ago!
Yes but that forgets inflation..
Have a nice day.
 
Last edited:
leicapixie said:
It seems if one disagrees, one is wanting in ambition and creativity,
loss of possible photos, ought to use box camera..
Bad day ?
I think the poster of all these mean answers ought to cool off.
Oh! Only 700 drachmas decades ago!
Yes but that forgets inflation..
Have a nice day.
Click to expand...
No. If one disagrees, one might benefit from remembering that there are other viewpoints and other arguments -- though "Bad day?" hardly qualifies as an argument.

Inflation adjust the price: £2000, maybe? Over 35 years, call it about a pound a week: well under a couple of bucks. Hardly a disaster.

Cheers,

R.
 
Soeren said:
Dear Roger
How in your eyes does a f2 lens compare to a box camera in relation to the quality tresshold?
Best regards
Søren
Click to expand...
Dear Soeren,

Fair point. But equally, how does an f/2 compare with an f/2.8? It's a bit of a slippery slope argument.

My real argument is that the price of a lens and the price of learning/ experience/ taking pictures are not very comparable. You have to have some sort of lens, unless you're a pinhole addict, so you might as well get a good one, that does what you want.

And, of course, I've learned a lot using that lens, so the price of a lens is a part of the price of learning.

Cheers,

R.
 
if the question is: is f2 fast enough?
I must ask in return: enough for what?
and could add: enough for most
 
For SLRs wide apertures were useful for nailing focus before stopping down to get whatever depth of field that as needed- assuming no focus shift. The extra viewfinder light is not needed with RFs and MFTs.

If you also prefer stationary subject matter, longer exposure times and a steady support will match or better any expanse of glass. 30th and 1,4? How about 1/7th f 2- or if needed simulating an f 0,7.

Moving targets, no camera support and sufficient luggage capacity is quite another matter. In my case max aperture then is a tradeoff between sharpness and speed of focussing.

p.
 
Medium and large format photographers haven't weighed in on this important issue
because they're all out taking photos - with their slower than f/2 lenses! ;)

Chris
 
ChrisPlatt said:
Medium and large format photographers haven't weighed in on this important issue
because they're all out taking photos - with their slower than f/2 lenses! ;)

Chris
Click to expand...
Dear Chris,

I think my slowest lens is an f/16 Ross ultra-wide, which really needs to go to f/22 or better still f/32 for optimum sharpness -- at which point I'm half way to a pinhole anyway. But it covers 8x10 inch... I seldom shoot 12x15 inch at bigger than f/11, though a 21 inch f/7.7 on 8x10 inch, wide open, is an amazing portrait lens.

Cheers,

R.
 
I refuse to participate in a thread that makes an argument over the completely arbitrary lines people draw between Slow and Fast, good enough and not good enough, expensive or inexpensive.

What? I did?

Crap.

You can save money on photo equipment, up to and including never buying a camera.

And an F/2 lens is fast enough, until it isn't.

My two cents is that you buy the equipment that's worth it to you, but don't expect your personal yardstick of what's "just too expensive" to apply to anybody else.
 
The used market abounds with Pentax Spotmatics with 50mm f1.4 lenses......excellent low light photography at little cost.
 
My main two lenses are f/1.4. I 've used them in tandem with their f/2 counterparts and the utility of having one stop on reserve trumps cost, convenience, weight, rectiliniarity or what have you. Someone might say the same for f/1 lenses over f/1.4 but for me f/1 lenses stretch cost/weight/size too much (others may differ - more power to them). This is all with film, where EI maxes out (pretty much) at 1600. I have a friend who uses comfortably ISO 12500 in his EOS 1DX. As far as he is concerned, an f/4 zoom makes for a nimble setup. I keep telling him his Behemoth of a camera is too big. He keeps telling me mine is too small.:D


.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom