More money for groceries....

[Bill Pierce]

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……..

 

[Benjamin Marks]

I think wider apertures let you play with the relationship of near elements and far ones, with depth-of-focus and so on. Also, I find it easier to add noise in post than to take it away. I have a f:3.5 Heliar and an f:1.4 Summilux. They both make sharp pictures at f:3.5. But the Summilux offers soooo many more choices in terms of how to present a scene. Just my opinion of course . . .

To be fair, the trend you identified Bill is surely why so many DSLR's are packaged with moderate speed zoom lenses these days. Not for me though. I own one zoom lens, and I don't use it enough to be certain why I keep it around.

 

[retinax]

This has been discussed not too long ago in this thread https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2855919 (with a focus on wides). DSLRs still benefit from brighter finder image with fast lenses, but with mirrorless I think it comes down to this: Some people want thin depth of field (I think the bokeh craze on its way out and more interesting ways to deal with the third dimension are beginning to be more appreciated by the masses as all the phones can now make fake "bokeh" and are getting better at it), some nerds (not a bad word, but these are people who make decision for technical quality rather than artistic reasons) will accept thin depth of field for better signal-to-noise ratio, and the third group wants large depth of field. Of course most of us might find ourselves in different groups at different times and we just want to be prepared for the once in a lifetime opportunity to take that breathtaking portrait of a mermaid at midnight... plus prestige...

Or one could break it down this way: landscapers have always known that they are often better served with slow lenses, fashion and portrait photographers will continue to use fast lenses as long is the look is in demand, which will probably not completely go away, but documentary photographers who used to need fast lenses for lack of light now only need them on special occasions, but many of them will continue to buy fast lenses because they want to be prepared for these special occasions, to take pictures in darker conditions than previously considered possible.

 

[charjohncarter]

I use almost exclusively a 35mm f2.0 on my FF DSLR. But then again I'm not doing the kind of shooting that would take advantage of high speed lenses. I save in that way for groceries and also the cost for dust cleaning of the sensor.

 

[Timmyjoe]

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

 

[Keith]

I like the way optics work at their extreme for the same reason I like driving fast in a car or riding a motorcycle fast. The closer you get anything to it's limit the better the rewards in my opinion.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

In terms of groceries?

I"m not sure if here is really this many and not expensive cameras which will give clear ISO 12800.
I'm not even sure if here is any digital camera which will give as good 12800 as 1600.

The way I'm checking is looking at high resolution test images on DPr reviews reports for each camera.

I mean where are many cameras with decent 12800, but non of them are a good as on 1600.
And with 1600, 1.2-1.4 comes handy.

But if you don't mind muted colors, odd tonality and so-so sharpness ...sure thing, smash it at 12800 and 5.6.

 

[ptpdprinter]

I mean where are many cameras with decent 12800, but non of them are a good as on 1600. And with 1600, 1.2-1.4 comes handy.

None of this came in handy until the advent of digital. How did we get along with just being able to push Tri-X to 1600 knowing the inherent quality loss in doing so. Everyone should do a search of their LR database and report back how many hits you get for high ISO and f/1.4. If you get any, ask yourself whether a slower shutter speed and a lower ISO would have resulted in a better image. The need for faster lenses is the current obsession with bokeh. Afflicted photographers think if they shoot with a 1.4 lens it will make them a better photographer. Again, do a LR search for f/1.4 and see high many hits you actually actually get.

Apropos of the OP, I think Fuji is on to something with its range of Fujicrons which are wildly successful. Take a look at the Fuji 23mm f2 and the 35mm f2 in relation to the new Nikon 35mm f1.8 and 50mm f1.8, which are huge by comparison. Why Nikon went with f1.8 instead of f2 is beyond me. 1/3rd of a stop is insignificant. Marketing.

 

[Bill Clark]

Agree.

But, always exceptions aren’t there, I do have a Canon 50 f1.4 that I bought new for about $350 from B&H and I have it on one of my Canon DSLR cameras most of the time.

When I made headshot portraits I used a 135 f2.0 lens on my DSLR. I also would use a 150 for medium format.

Smiles.

And it was also fun. I enjoy people, they, in turn, enjoyed me. This atmosphere was reflected in photographs I made.

 

[Takkun]

Bill, as always I appreciate your thoughtful topic starters, even if I don't often contribute.

It's been a while since i worked on the retail side of things, but back when the D300 and EOS 5D had come out, and there was buzz that those signaled the death of fast primes and giant constant-aperture zooms. And yet here we are still with them, deep into the digital era with 12,800 ISO and full-frame sensors. I think that speaks to what you're getting at: a big zoom like the 28-70 is a status symbol, and maybe an automatic prescription to an orthopedist.

But you comparing f/1.4 and f/2 lenses hints that you're speaking specifically about primes especially 'normal' lengths. And now that I think about it, I don't think there is much in the way of slower modern primes, other than the standard 1.8s, the way there used to be from the major SLR manufacturers. I'd guess that the market (RFs excluded, more on that) is divided into two camps of zoom and prime, and if you're going to make primes, you're going to throw everything you can at them to differentiate them from a run of the mill zoom.
Slightly related: when I shot Nikon more, I was ecstatic to swap my 85 1.8 to a 1.4. Not for that extra half stop, but because it was so much better of a lens. My desire for it had nothing to do with a bigger, faster lens, but because the better optics and build quality were reserved for that model.

RFs are a bit different, as we all know, and there are plenty of fine slower lenses, and plenty of faster-for-the-sake-of-being-faster lenses (CV 50/1.1 anyone?) that aren't noticeably better optically. A Summicron is nothing to sneer at, and a big lens changes the whole balance of the setup. RF and mirrorless users are a lot more cognizant of the haptics of a camera kit, at least going on the sentiment on this forum.

When I switched fully from SLR to RF, of course I was looking for fast lenses. Both coming from that mentality of faster = better lens, and just the feeling that a faster lens was necessary for hand-holding in available light as it is with an SLR. I'm not much a fan of big grain and pushed film, and the M8 was, to me, unusable above ISO 320 (but beautiful below).
Speaking specifically about digital, now that I'm onto an M 262, I find my F/2-2.8 lenses more than adequate; they're small and sharp and I'm not missing out much. I've got 3 each of 35s and 50s ranging from the Canon 50 1.4 to the Skopar 2.5 and while I was planing to sell the slower ones, now I'm not so sure, now that they have more utility. Wide open, the fast lenses aren't sharp and have a borderline unusably thin plane of focus, but on the other hand bring their own optical qualities.
On the other, other hand (foot?), as you bring up, are those qualities really noticeable in the end product to someone without knowledge of the lenses? I think even to the layperson there's a visible difference between a kit zoom and a cheap prime, even if they can't articulate it, but few will be able to make a distinction between, say the ZM C-sonnar and Planar.

 

[jsrockit]

I"m not sure if here is really this many and not expensive cameras which will give clear ISO 12800.
I'm not even sure if here is any digital camera which will give as good 12800 as 1600.

The way I'm checking is looking at high resolution test images on DPr reviews reports for each camera.

I mean where are many cameras with decent 12800, but non of them are a good as on 1600.
And with 1600, 1.2-1.4 comes handy.

But if you don't mind muted colors, odd tonality and so-so sharpness ...sure thing, smash it at 12800 and 5.6.

I agree. Also, high shutter speeds in low light.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

None of this came in handy until the advent of digital. How did we get along with just being able to push Tri-X to 1600 knowing the inherent quality loss in doing so. Everyone should do a search of their LR database and report back how many hits you get for high ISO and f/1.4. If you get any, ask yourself whether a slower shutter speed and a lower ISO would have resulted in better quality.

Like John already mentioned, try to talk like this then you need at least 1/250.
I already tried it, with kids. Good luck to you to get something decent from pillows fight at slow shutter.

Also what bw has to do with my comment? Did you read about muted colors?
How often did you pushed c-41 film to 1600 back then?

Or have you tried to push Svema? You know, not all of us had access to Kodak bw film back then.

 

[Scottboarding]

I owened the Canon 50mm f1.8 LTM when I first bought my Canon P. It was great; small and lightweight, the f1.8 was almost never necessary. My copy had some pretty bad coating damage, so when I went to buy a new one, not a single one on Ebay had fine optics. Not one! So I went with the Canon 50mm f1.4 LTM which is a great lens, but it's bigger and it intruded into the 50mm frame lines on my P. The f1.4 was almost never necessary for me, and I didn't feel confident focusing that on my P. With Leicas the 50mm framelines aren't covered by it, but it's still bigger than I want in a lens. I wish I could get a great copy of the f1.8 lens, but there doesn't seem to be any available.

 

[NickTrop]

I still like a fast lens, though it is less necessary in modern times. More apertures the better. But faster lenses are not terribly expensive if purchased (a) used and (b) outside the Leica system (excluding Russian M39 glass), (c) the Zeiss, many Sony, and "Art" and other higher-end 3rd-party lenses . In the Nikon lens ecosystem, a 50mm 1.4 AF-D can be had for $170 on the used market (which is what I paid for mine). There are also advantanges in shutter speed for less motion blur.

The avantage for me is zooms. No longer needed is the size, weight, and cost of fast fixed aperture zoom. Perfectly content with a less expensive variable aperture zoom. Smaller, less expensive and you can get away with losing a couple stops at the tele end. I'm perfectly content with my $35, 70-210 f4-5.6 AF-D. (Granted a steal, got lucky on that one, but still comparatively cheap at average used rates).

I say if you really want to have more money for groceries, stay away from new lenses and stick with competent mass-produced "non-sexy" performers by the mass producers of lenses like Nikon and Canon, especially Nikon, that have committed to a mount, have tremendous backwards compatibility, and have been cranking out perfectly good "D" series glass in F-mount for in some cases decades. Loads floating around used and in good condition 100's and thousands less in some cases.

 

[Corran]

Why does anyone need 24mp full-frame cameras with max ISO of 32367 or whatever when phone cameras are about the same in most shooting conditions and displayed on typical monitors via Insta/FB?

Alternatively, shooting dance recitals with fast dance moves and low light from the press box with a 80-200mm f/2.8, ISO 6400 wasn't enough in many cases and looked bad. Would love to have had faster glass or higher ISO ability.

Another alternative - I like to shoot landscape and I typically shoot ISO 100 and f/22 or even up to f/64. Long exposures, obviously, on a tripod, with large sheets of film.

The idea that a camera's ability at whatever ISO or a lens' max aperture is "unnecessary" for someone else is just silly. Unless someone is asking what they "need' for XYZ lighting condition, it is an irrelevant conversation.

 

[zuiko85]

Digital age! I've been willing to accept the low light penalty of moderate fast lenses form the film days. My 50 f1.8 or 24 f2.8 or 85 f2 or even my tiny 200mm f5 are plenty for my OM-1 use, that and a compact tripod. This has been true for me from the early 70's. My lenses are very compact, lightweight, and half the price of their faster versions. Filters are smaller and cheaper also and 49mm covers the whole range from 24 to 200.

 

[lynnb]

High speed lenses extend the possibilities at the expense of extra size, weight and cost. I like making portraits in low light (though my opportunities are limited) so I find faster is useful, to avoid motion blur, reduce artifacts and isolate subject. I'm not sure I'd like to carry around some of those modern, expensive monster-size fast lenses though.. my fastest lenses are 50mm f/1.4 primes from the film days.

 

[Larry Cloetta]

Smaller, lighter, cheaper are the advantages of slower lenses, and modern sensors have made them more useful in a wider range of settings than ever before.
However......With any sensor, even the most current ones, Signal to Noise ratio, Dynamic Range, Tonal Range, and Color Sensitivity are all going to be better at base ISO than at higher ISOs, (generally any ISO higher than base ISO). The richest, most malleable files come at native ISO. If all you want from a camera is “sharp”, a nice small f4-5.6 zoom is great for that.
If you want it all, a fast 50 at base ISO is as useful as it ever was.
Whether any of that matters to someone is a personal decision, but the fact that there are still tradeoffs to be made hasn’t changed.

 

[willie_901]

For my needs f 2 with a current APS-C sensor is fast enough. I have owned f 1.4 and 1.2 lens with APS-C sensors, but I rarely used then wide open. I sold them.

Of course there are projects that benefit from wider apertures (and larger sensors). And it's always nice to have flexibility even if the lenses cost more and are larger and heavier.

 

[ptpdprinter]

When I made headshot portraits I used a 135 f2.0 lens on my DSLR. I also would use a 150 for medium format.

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

And it was also fun. I enjoy people, they, in turn, enjoyed me. This atmosphere was reflected in photographs I made.

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