Ara Ghajanian
Established
I shoot a lot of available light and stage lit scenes. I have a Summicron 50mm f2 and I've often wondered how great the advantage of one extra stop to f1.4 would be. I started another thread a few weeks about how low of a shutter speed you could hand hold an M. Is that one stop really that valuable to you? I'm really not concerned with quality of glass or any other feature of either lens, I just want to know if that one stop justifies the cost of a Noctilux?
Ara
Ara
trittium
Well-known
I have 50's in 2,1.5, 1.4, and 1.2
I find I use the 2 and the 1.2 more than the 1.5 and 1.4
I love my canon 50/1.2, and for around $300 it would be a good lens to check out before you purchase an expensive peice of Leica glass. One caution is that this lens is HEAVY (about the same weight as my M2).
I find I use the 2 and the 1.2 more than the 1.5 and 1.4
I love my canon 50/1.2, and for around $300 it would be a good lens to check out before you purchase an expensive peice of Leica glass. One caution is that this lens is HEAVY (about the same weight as my M2).
clarence
ダメ
If you're not too concerned about focal length, you could get a wider lens, which would allow you to hold it at even lower speeds.
Clarence
Clarence
Pablito
coco frío
I have a lot of experience with the sort of work you cite and I've almost always found f2 to be sufficient. Of course much depends on film and processing (pushing) choices - how much grain is acceptable le to you. Also whether your subject is moving. You may be able to hand hold 1/8 sec but you'll get blur if your subject is moving. Finally, shooting wide open forces you to consider very carefully the point of focus because the DOF is so shallow - this is accentuated even further by a 1.4 or 1.2 max aperture, of course. But in the end, only you can answer your own question. Only you know the light levels you'll be shooting in. Maybe you can only get the results you want by rating your film at 3200 and shooting at f1.2?
Flyfisher Tom
Well-known
No, money is better spent on faster film.
And no, in the end, that doesn't matter, because you will not be able to resist the lure of speed
And no, in the end, that doesn't matter, because you will not be able to resist the lure of speed
Harry Lime
Practitioner
Ara Ghajanian said:
Going from f2 to f1.4 makes a bigger difference than jumping from f1.4 to f1.
Over the years I've owned a Noctilux, Summilux and Summicron. I sold the Noct and kept the other two.
With a roll of 400asa film there isn't much you can't shoot at f1.4 @ 1/30th in an urban environment. I started out with f2 lenses and getting the extra stop changed the way I shoot. I shoot Tri-X and with an f1.4 lens I can keep shooting with into the evening, without having to change films. With my f2 lenses I would always end up at f2 @ 1/15th, which isn't very useful.
Going to f1 isn't a magic bullet, because DOF becomes extremely narrow at close distances. At f1 and 1 meter you have 1cm that is in focus. The Noctilux also happens to dwarf both the Lux and Cron in size and weight. It also has a fairly long focus throw, which may slow you down.
Last edited:
Flyfisher Tom
Well-known
I concure with Matt that the Canon 50/1.2 is a very economic and competent way to get into high speed lenses.
And in my opinion, the Canon is really not as large as it sounds, a lot more squat and compact to the body than you think. Great lens. I like its ergonomics better than the 50/1.5 Nokton, though optically, the Nokton is marginally better at equal apertures.
And in my opinion, the Canon is really not as large as it sounds, a lot more squat and compact to the body than you think. Great lens. I like its ergonomics better than the 50/1.5 Nokton, though optically, the Nokton is marginally better at equal apertures.
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
Ara Ghajanian said:
I do a lot of stage-lit photography, too, and in my opinion the difference between f/2 and f/1.4 is definitely worth it. (Whether you can afford it is a different question!... that's between you and your banker, spouse, etc.)
You can see why if you think in terms of shutter speeds instead of lens apertures. Let's assume you're photographing a dimly-lit show and you're already using the highest ISO rating that you can tolerate in terms of image quality. Because it's a stage performance, you can't add light (other than by bribing the light-board operator to bump it up a little) and you certainly don't want to spoil the lighting effects (and get yourself kicked out of the theater) by using flash.
In these circumstances, a lens with a wider maximum aperture is really the only way to "buy" higher, safer shutter speeds. If the lighting forces you to use your f/2 lens at 1/15 sec. (pretty risky) then an f/1.4 lens would let you use 1/30 (safer); if the f/2 let you use 1/30, then the f/1.4 would let you use 1/60 (much safer.)
Remember that it's not solely a matter of how slow a shutter speed you can hand-hold. Even if you're rock-steady or are using a tripod, you still also have to consider the motion of the subject.
The more limited you are in your choices of shutter speed, the more limited you are in choosing scenes you can photograph successfully. If you have to wait for situations where everything is holding still enough to use 1/15, you'll have a very limited selection of photo opportunities in most shows. If you can use 1/30, that opens up more possibilities, and if you can use 1/60, you have an even wider selection of what you can shoot. (I shoot a lot of dance performances, in whicih 1/250 is pretty much the "floor" in terms of dealing with action; even having to drop back to 1/125 cuts me out of a lot of potentially photogenic moments.)
The suggestion to use a wider lens was an interesting one, and might work in a lot of documentary-style shooting. But I suspect it will be of limited use in stage-lit situations, in which usually you want the people in the shot to occupy most of the picture area. If you used a wider lens, you'd have to magnify the image more so you could crop it down to just the "live" area; the extra magnification would negate the effect of using the wider lens, so you'd be no better off.
Okay, sometimes you can use a wide-angle lens AND a slow shutter speed, if you're aiming for a result like the attachment --but I like to have options besides that kind of rendition, and usually a wider-aperture lens is the only way to get them!
Attachments
Last edited:
NL2377
*scratches head*
See for yourself! look at the conditions in which you find yourself shooting/wanting to shoot, and the speeds at which you are getting at f2, and think "what if I could shoot at 1/60th instead of 1/30th...
That's what I did. I shoot w/ my nikon all the time, and the 50 1.8 is a great little lens, but when you can get that extra stop in, it makes it worth all the difference in the world. which is why I ended up purchasing a CV 40/1.4 for my M2 instead of the leica 40/2...
That's what I did. I shoot w/ my nikon all the time, and the 50 1.8 is a great little lens, but when you can get that extra stop in, it makes it worth all the difference in the world. which is why I ended up purchasing a CV 40/1.4 for my M2 instead of the leica 40/2...
drewbarb
picnic like it's 1999
I shoot half my work with 50mm lenses, and I work in marginal light at least as much, if not more often, than in good light. Like Matt, I have settled on 2 lenses- an f2 and an f1.2. I had a (penultimate, pre-asph) Summilux, and liked it well enough, but after seeing what the Canon f1.2 could do, I sold the 'lux, banked the (considerable) difference, and haven't looked back.
The thing is, most of the time an f2 lens and 400 or 800 speed film will yeild prefectly good negatives. So for me, faster lenses tend to be more for the specific look, and the shallow D.O.F. than merely for the actual speed. Sure, there are times when you just need all the speed you can get, but I find the times I can't get my shot with f2 are few and far between- and these are what I have the Canon for. I wouldn't bother with a Noctilux unless I couldn't figure out what else to do with my money. I've shot with one, and I've seen excellent images made with them, but they are so big and heavy, tricky to nail focus consistently with up close (and I shoot with M3's), and so god awfully expensive to boot, that it hardly seems worth it to me.
The thing is, most of the time an f2 lens and 400 or 800 speed film will yeild prefectly good negatives. So for me, faster lenses tend to be more for the specific look, and the shallow D.O.F. than merely for the actual speed. Sure, there are times when you just need all the speed you can get, but I find the times I can't get my shot with f2 are few and far between- and these are what I have the Canon for. I wouldn't bother with a Noctilux unless I couldn't figure out what else to do with my money. I've shot with one, and I've seen excellent images made with them, but they are so big and heavy, tricky to nail focus consistently with up close (and I shoot with M3's), and so god awfully expensive to boot, that it hardly seems worth it to me.
furcafe
Veteran
What Pablito & NL2377 wrote. I'm always confused when photographers ask other photographers questions that are so context-specific.
Are you getting a lot of (unwanted) motion blur in your current shooting? From your Viennagram shots, it would appear that you could use some leeway w/a faster lens or faster film. Then again, you might normally shoot in brighter venues, have more static subjects, have the option of using flash, or be committed artistically to a particular, slow emulsion . . .
Personally, I never use flash, so I find f/1.4 & even f/1 to be worth the money & would have to abandon approximately 1/3rd of my photography (or change styles & use flash) if I couldn't go above f/2. As jlw points out, one's handholding skills have nothing to do w/subject motion. I often shoot in environments, including many performance venues, where ISO 1600 & f/1.4 will get me a shutter speed of only 1/8th sec. or slower, which is insufficient to freeze any significant motion.
Are you getting a lot of (unwanted) motion blur in your current shooting? From your Viennagram shots, it would appear that you could use some leeway w/a faster lens or faster film. Then again, you might normally shoot in brighter venues, have more static subjects, have the option of using flash, or be committed artistically to a particular, slow emulsion . . .
Personally, I never use flash, so I find f/1.4 & even f/1 to be worth the money & would have to abandon approximately 1/3rd of my photography (or change styles & use flash) if I couldn't go above f/2. As jlw points out, one's handholding skills have nothing to do w/subject motion. I often shoot in environments, including many performance venues, where ISO 1600 & f/1.4 will get me a shutter speed of only 1/8th sec. or slower, which is insufficient to freeze any significant motion.
NL2377 said:
Pablito said:
telenous
Well-known
Ara Ghajanian said:
In my experience, it is, and I agree with the points made by jlw, furcafe et al. To summarize the plot: An f/1.4 lens allows me to take photos in dimly lit places (bars, theatres, music-venues, etc.etc.) at a shutter speed which does not require that the subject is entirely motionless. At the same time, the f/1.4 lens produces an utterly usable depth of field in its widest aperture - something which may not be the case if you take the leap for the critically thin f/1 focus area.
Last edited:
amateriat
We're all light!
It all depends...
Once upon a time, when I roamed the Earth with big SLRs, my formula was Fast lenses (well, as fast as i could afford at the time), and slow-fine-grained film. This was, of course at a time (late 70s-late 80s) when most high-speed emulsions exhibited golf-ball-size grain.
Now? As an example, here are some images from a walk I took from Park Slope to Red Hook, Brooklyn, with both Hexars and all three lenses in tow. Kodak BW400CN for b/w, one roll of Fuji Superia 800 for color. Everything taken with either the 50 f/2 or 28 f/2.8. Challenging, yes, but hardly impossible. Fast(er) glass is always nice, all else being equal; but it's not equal, because of the weight penalty you carry with each speedy wunderoptik you carry. Meanwhile, medium-high-speed emulsions carry the day now, with sometimes spectaculer results. As long as the lenses on-hand aren't too slow, i think I can manage, although I'm not above, say, acquiring a 35 f/1.2 Nokton...
- Barrett
Once upon a time, when I roamed the Earth with big SLRs, my formula was Fast lenses (well, as fast as i could afford at the time), and slow-fine-grained film. This was, of course at a time (late 70s-late 80s) when most high-speed emulsions exhibited golf-ball-size grain.
Now? As an example, here are some images from a walk I took from Park Slope to Red Hook, Brooklyn, with both Hexars and all three lenses in tow. Kodak BW400CN for b/w, one roll of Fuji Superia 800 for color. Everything taken with either the 50 f/2 or 28 f/2.8. Challenging, yes, but hardly impossible. Fast(er) glass is always nice, all else being equal; but it's not equal, because of the weight penalty you carry with each speedy wunderoptik you carry. Meanwhile, medium-high-speed emulsions carry the day now, with sometimes spectaculer results. As long as the lenses on-hand aren't too slow, i think I can manage, although I'm not above, say, acquiring a 35 f/1.2 Nokton...
- Barrett
Attachments
Last edited:
R
RML
Guest
One stop does make a difference but whether _you_ really need it, is a personal matter.
Shooting the R-D1 I'm very much satisfied with the f2 lenses I have. If and when I need shorter shutter times I can easily increase "film" speed. Also, some proper breathing, bracing and hand holding can add significant to how long a shutter time I can handle.
So, for me, going for a f1.4 or faster lens is not necessary, considering the amount of money involved and the little extra use such fast lenses hold for me.
Shooting the R-D1 I'm very much satisfied with the f2 lenses I have. If and when I need shorter shutter times I can easily increase "film" speed. Also, some proper breathing, bracing and hand holding can add significant to how long a shutter time I can handle.
So, for me, going for a f1.4 or faster lens is not necessary, considering the amount of money involved and the little extra use such fast lenses hold for me.
rolo
Established
I sold a perfectly good latest version Summicron and bought a Summilux f1.4 purely for the extra stop. The reason was because I was losing too many frames through camera shake at 1/8th. I shoot weddings with my MP and whilst I can afford the occasional blurred photograph, I can't apologise and blame the low light in church for not recording the ceremony and I can't use flash.
A Noctilux might have been better for me, but cost and weight decided against it.
Consider how important it is for you to return with images. If the subject will be there again tomorrow night, f2 might be adequate.
A Noctilux might have been better for me, but cost and weight decided against it.
Consider how important it is for you to return with images. If the subject will be there again tomorrow night, f2 might be adequate.
Last edited:
Pablito
coco frío
Do what you gotta do...
Do what you gotta do...
Ok....time to "fess up"
When the situation calls, I leave my Summicron in the bag and pull out...TA-DA...an FM2n with a 50mm 1.2. I have the cheaper, much maligned version of this lens, but find it gives me very good results. And, because it's on an slr, you can actually see the shallow DOF. Also, you don't have to worry about the hood or part of the lens blocking the viewfinder.
Do what you gotta do...
Ok....time to "fess up"
When the situation calls, I leave my Summicron in the bag and pull out...TA-DA...an FM2n with a 50mm 1.2. I have the cheaper, much maligned version of this lens, but find it gives me very good results. And, because it's on an slr, you can actually see the shallow DOF. Also, you don't have to worry about the hood or part of the lens blocking the viewfinder.
RObert Budding
D'oh!
You could use a tripod (gasp!). Perhaps something light weight, such as a Gitzo CF.
peter_n
Veteran
The Noctilux is two stops over a Summicron which is a hell of a lot of light. But I would agree with others here who suggest faster film or a tripod. I use aperture for DOF effects and the only lens that is truly unique is the Noctilux. You have to really love the OOF drawing of the lens to sink well north of $2K into a lens that isn't really that practical. Do you need the very thin DOF a Summilux will provide? If not the most practical alternative is faster film. I shoot a lot of classical music - both rehearsals and concerts - and I use a tripod and Neopan 1600.Ara Ghajanian said:
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
RObert Budding said:
That's a great solution for shooting static subjects. Not only does it eliminate the risk of camera movement, it makes composition more reliable -- you can shoot several shots with exactly the same framing.
For moving subjects, though, you have to consider subject movement as well as camera movement, and you also have to consider that the loss of mobility reduces your ability to move around the scene to choose the best framing for each particular moment.
Incidentally, vibration reduction has the same key disadvantage as a tripod: It helps with camera movement, but doesn't do anything about subject movement. I've got an 80-200 VR lens for my Nikon DSLR, and the VR feature is useful in fairly good light -- basically it lets me be confident that the pictures I make at the 200mm end will be as sharp as those at the 80mm end.
But when the light is really low and the action is fast, it's of little use simply because its f/2.8 maximum aperture is too slow to deal with the subject movement. In these situations, an RF with its two-stops-faster lens does me more good than VR. Not only does the RF camera's lens let me use a higher shutter speed, but its lack of mirror vibration lets me hand-hold with more confidence. And the fact that its finder doesn't black out at the moment of exposure helps me get my reaction time dialed in to the pace of the movement.
peter_n
Veteran
Agree about the subject movement jlw. However you can use that to your advantage sometimes. Attached is a (failed shot) example. I'm trying to get some shots of static + moving musicians. Not easy but the potential is there. If that cellist in the middle had been more in focus (she leaned backwards at a crucial moment...)
