More money for groceries....

[Dogman]

The lenses I use the most are all f/2 or f/2.8. I have faster lenses but they don't get much use unless I want to take a picture at f/1.4 for the limited DOF effect. But I seldom go for an effect when I take pictures. And the bokeh thing...not an issue for me since all lenses these days seem to have decent transitions from sharp to soft.

 

[Godfrey]

Ultra fast lenses (meaning lenses faster than about f/2.8) in the film era enabled two things:

• Ability to make usable exposures in poor light with modest sensitivity
• Accurate focusing with SLR cameras

in addition to enabling extended control of focus zone with miniature format (35mm film) cameras.

That last is the reason why fast lenses remain viable (and necessary for some purposes) in today's digital camera era with 35mm sized sensors that can achieve eight to ten stops more light sensitivity than 35mm film with good quality results, and with cameras that have even smaller than 35mm format size.

If exquisite control of focus zone isn't needed for your particular photographic aims (and is it certainly not needed all the time for anyone's!), then there's little reason to spend the additional money for ultra-fast lenses.

The problem is that while you likely don't really need the exquisitely shallow focus zone all the time, on those occasions when you do, if you don't have the ultra fast lens, you can't get it. And the modern ultra fast lens typically performs as well as the lighter, smaller, cheaper lens when stopped down. The disadvantage of the ultra-fast lens, without price consideration, is that it's always a bit heavier, bulkier, and less appealing to carry.

"You pays your money and you takes your chances." I only have a couple of lenses faster than f/2.8 and I only very very rarely find myself wishing for something faster. Most of my photography with most lenses in the wide to short tele range seems to fall out with around f/4 to f/8 lens openings. But every once in a while, a special lens like the Walter Mandler designed Summilux 35mm f/1.4 v2 (circa 1972) used wide open makes its premium price well worth the expense:

Leica M-D typ 262 + Summilux 35mm f/1.4 v2
ISO 320 @ f/1.4 @ 1/30 second
No editing aside from the square crop and border treatment.​

Since this particular lens also happens to be small and only modestly heavier than the similar vintage Summicron 35mm f/2, the extra $500 or so price premium I paid was money well spent. I can eat a little lower on the food chain for a month or two and make that up easily. 😀

G
—
No matter where you go, there you are.

In the digital age, with the possibility of decent image quality at high ISO, I wonder if we need high speed lenses? I think the answer is yes and no. With the elevated “film speeds” that digital offers, you can shoot almost anything with an f/2 prime. Even a slower zoom, especially if it is equipped with image stabilization, can take on what was referred to in the predigital days as available darkness.

Then why would someone want a faster lens? Is f/1.4 going to open up a wealth of opportunities that can’t also be handled by f/2 or are you just indulging in conspicuous consumption and saying “My lens is bigger and more expensive than yours.” The truth is that SOME, not all, high speed lenses are going to deliver better image quality at wider apertures than the slower lenses at the same aperture. But will it make a difference in your photography? If that high-speed lens is really better, will your sensor show that difference. Do you present your images in a form that benefits from the improvement (printed images, cropped or in large sizes)? Does your shooting technique preserve the subtle differences? And, of course, we have to accept the fact that f/5.6 or 8 are the great equalizer among all but the worst lenses.

I think that once upon a time high-speed lenses were necessary for the available darkness shots. I think in the digital world those days are gone. Sometimes that expensive lens is a little better at the big apertures, but are we good enough to take advantage of it? Sometimes the slower, smaller lens is just more convenient to shoot with and there’s no real difference in the image quality in the final presentation and there’s more money left for groceries. All this being said by a photographer who owns a lot of high speed lenses and sometimes wonders why.

As always, your thoughts……..

 

[Pherdinand]

But every once in a while, a special lens like the Walter Mandler designed Summilux 35mm f/1.4 v2 (circa 1972) used wide open ...

Since this particular lens also happens to be small and only modestly heavier than the similar vintage Summicron 35mm f/2, the extra $500 or so price premium I paid was money well spent. I can eat a little lower on the food chain for a month or two and make that up easily. 😀

G
—

what are we looking at here? sorry but i don't see 500 bucks on that cafe table.

 

[RObert Budding]

For High School Sports (a real exercise in available darkness), those f2.8 apertures were a godsend on the telephotos. But boy were they heavy. My current "ideal kit" is a mirrorless body with an adapter to use small rangefinder glass. Remarkable what good images you can get from the modern mirrorless camera bodies, even in low light. And the camera, bag, batteries, and six lenses all weigh less than one 300mm f2.8. Not sure if it helps my grocery budget, but it sure saves my back.

Best,
-Tim

I shot a lot on indoor basketball - before my sons went off to college. I was often shooting at f/2.8 with my Nikon 70-200 mm at ISO 6400 (Nikon D700 and then D750). Yes, there was noise, but they were pretty good. But I absolutely loved stumbling into those rare away games to discover that I could shoot at ISO 1600, because the images were so much cleaner.

 

[Godfrey]

what are we looking at here? sorry but i don't see 500 bucks on that cafe table.

An unmistakeable and lovely rendering quality. Sorry if you’re blind to it.

G

 

[ptpdprinter]

An unmistakeable and lovely rendering quality. Sorry if you’re blind to it.

It just looks out of focus to me. Camera shake perhaps?

 

[Godfrey]

It just looks out of focus to me. Camera shake perhaps?

Its critically focused and there is no motion blur. At 200%, a detail attached. You can see the stitching in the hat embroidery and the hairs on his head.

This is how a Summilux 35mm f/1.4 v2 renders at f/1.4. The effect is that of a Zeiss Softar 1 ... fine detail inside a soft glow. It's what makes the lens so sought after. The effect diminishes as you stop it down ... by f/5.6 it is razor sharp. This is what Walter Mandler intended.

If you want razor sharp, buy the Summicron 35mm f/2. Or the later Summilux lenses, particularly those with ASPH lens elements. They're designed to be both more evenly illuminated and without the glowy effect wide open.

Another example, this one at f/2:

This rendering is why people pay money for these lenses. They're special. If it's not to your taste, don't buy one.

G

 

[MIkhail]

Ultra fast lenses (meaning lenses faster than about f/2.8) in the film era enabled two things:

• Ability to make usable exposures in poor light with modest sensitivity
• Accurate focusing with SLR cameras

in addition to enabling extended control of focus zone with miniature format (35mm film) cameras.

That last is the reason why fast lenses remain viable (and necessary for some purposes) in today's digital camera era with 35mm sized sensors that can achieve eight to ten stops more light sensitivity than 35mm film with good quality results, and with cameras that have even smaller than 35mm format size.

If exquisite control of focus zone isn't needed for your particular photographic aims (and is it certainly not needed all the time for anyone's!), then there's little reason to spend the additional money for ultra-fast lenses.

The problem is that while you likely don't really need the exquisitely shallow focus zone all the time, on those occasions when you do, if you don't have the ultra fast lens, you can't get it. And the modern ultra fast lens typically performs as well as the lighter, smaller, cheaper lens when stopped down. The disadvantage of the ultra-fast lens, without price consideration, is that it's always a bit heavier, bulkier, and less appealing to carry.

"You pays your money and you takes your chances." I only have a couple of lenses faster than f/2.8 and I only very very rarely find myself wishing for something faster. Most of my photography with most lenses in the wide to short tele range seems to fall out with around f/4 to f/8 lens openings. But every once in a while, a special lens like the Walter Mandler designed Summilux 35mm f/1.4 v2 (circa 1972) used wide open makes its premium price well worth the expense:

Leica M-D typ 262 + Summilux 35mm f/1.4 v2
ISO 320 @ f/1.4 @ 1/30 second
No editing aside from the square crop and border treatment.​

Since this particular lens also happens to be small and only modestly heavier than the similar vintage Summicron 35mm f/2, the extra $500 or so price premium I paid was money well spent. I can eat a little lower on the food chain for a month or two and make that up easily. 😀

G
—
No matter where you go, there you are.

I saddens me that one has to get Leica M-D typ 262 + Summilux 35mm f/1.4 setup to achieve this kind of quality. Not all of us can afford this perfection.

 

[Bill Clark]

But did you use it at f2 aperture? You must have really dialed down your strobes.

I like using window light. Many headshot portraits I used window light. I learned that from my coach Monte.

When I used flash it was Quantum. Lots of power settings available. It came with a nice diffuser that popped on, if I chose to use it. ISO of camera usually at 160 like the film I used in past. Operated camera and flash in manual mode. Used pocket wizards.

Bought f2 lens so as I could use it at places like wedding receptions with available light. I could turn the pocket wizard transmitter on or off using the flash or not.

that fun and atmosphere was the result of using an f2 lens? Wouldn't have been as much fun with an f2.8?

Sounds like you’re kinda of wondering about that lens. Any reason why? Or are you just making conversation?

I believe that a fun atmosphere is created by people not equipment.

At any rate, it’s what I did back then.

 

[Dan]

Its critically focused and there is no motion blur. At 200%, a detail attached. You can see the stitching in the hat embroidery and the hairs on his head.

This is how a Summilux 35mm f/1.4 v2 renders at f/1.4. The effect is that of a Zeiss Softar 1 ... fine detail inside a soft glow. It's what makes the lens so sought after. The effect diminishes as you stop it down ... by f/5.6 it is razor sharp. This is what Walter Mandler intended.

If you want razor sharp, buy the Summicron 35mm f/2. Or the later Summilux lenses, particularly those with ASPH lens elements. They're designed to be both more evenly illuminated and without the glowy effect wide open.

Another example, this one at f/2:

This rendering is why people pay money for these lenses. They're special. If it's not to your taste, don't buy one.

G

Wouldn't a cheaper alternative be a soft-focus filter?
Sorry, but the image appears (to me) to just be soft.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Wouldn't a cheaper alternative be a soft-focus filter?
Sorry, but the image appears (to me) to just be soft.

Entire image rendering is just awful. IMO. Where are much better lenses, but no status, only good rendering.

 

[Bill Pierce]

My feeling, especially with primes, is that the expensive higher speed lens is actually offering more than an increase in speed. Face it, there’s not that much difference in usability (or depth-of-field) between, for example, an expensive f/1.4 lens and a more economical f/2 lens. The expensive lens at f/2 or 2.8 is often a better performer than the less expensive lens. Not exactly a huge surprise. Nor is it surprising that as you continue to stop down both lenses the quality difference diminishes. This is, of course, a glittering generality. Going back to the days when sheet film was king, slow specialty lenses existed that were often better than higher speed ones and to a limited extent that is paralleled in today’s smaller digital cameras. But, in many cases, more money means not just more speed, but more high aperture image quality. Less money means smaller, easier to handle and probably just as good in good light.

 

[retinax]

Are you pulling our legs? This is awful, and no-one can see what the lens can do because it's full of digital artifacts, blotches. Probably a very compressed jpeg.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

My feeling, especially with primes, is that the expensive higher speed lens is actually offering more than an increase in speed. Face it, there’s not that much difference in usability (or depth-of-field) between, for example, an expensive f/1.4 lens and a more economical f/2 lens. The expensive lens at f/2 or 2.8 is often a better performer than the less expensive lens. Not exactly a huge surprise. Nor is it surprising that as you continue to stop down both lenses the quality difference diminishes. This is, of course, a glittering generality. Going back to the days when sheet film was king, slow specialty lenses existed that were often better than higher speed ones and to a limited extent that is paralleled in today’s smaller digital cameras. But, in many cases, more money means not just more speed, but more high aperture image quality. Less money means smaller, easier to handle and probably just as good in good light.

Nothing else renders like Canon 50L (for me). Which is f1.2. Even at f5.6.
I miss this plastic and glue 1K$ lens. 🙂

And not so long time ago I have noticed what this Leica 50 1.1 if not faster lens (can't spell it name right, nor I'm able to own it) has much better oof rendering comparing to any other 50mm lens I have seen. Again, at f5.6.

 

[kbb]

Its critically focused and there is no motion blur. At 200%, a detail attached. You can see the stitching in the hat embroidery and the hairs on his head.

The stitching and [individual] hairs are not visible.