my fastest lens is a 2.5...

[noimmunity]

My most used lenses are all around f/4!

But for night events featuring people, I need as much speed as possible. With the X-Pro1, I enjoy using f/1.4 at ISO25600.

The C Sonnar and the CV 35/1.2 are really irreplaceable for the look they give wide open. Heck, even the Nikkor 85/2 is in that category.

 

[dweekie]

1. Ego.....
2. I can't turn myself into a human tripod (bipod?). I'm amazed at what some people can do at 1/6s that I can't do at 1/30s.

 

[umcelinho]

the difference between shooting at night at 1/15 (2.8) and at 1/60 (f1.4) @ iso 1600 is that in the first setting you get a blur, in the second you get a distinguishable image of a person moving. i'm not crazy about sharpness and focus, but shooting at night with f2, 1/15 and iso 800 made me lose some shots i wish I didn't because things were happening and the shutter speed just wasn't fast enough to capture he scene how i intended to.

low light shooting is what brought be to rangefinders in the first place. only afterwards i got to learn the other benefits... nowadays to me picking lenses to go out shooting is a matter of finding a good compromise between size/weigh/volume and speed.

 

[Lss]

2.5 is not slow

2.5 is not slow

I don't think 2.5 is too bad, but it can be limiting especially for indoors or night-time photography. For me, slow starts in the 4.0-5.6 range. That will seriously limit both shutter speeds and depth of field control (depending on the format).

 

[Jamie Pillers]

Nick, now that its commonplace to have acceptable ISO capability of 12,800 or some such ridiculously high number, maybe we no longer need 'fast' glass. And when it starts going above 100,000.. that Orion 28/6 starts looking good! 🙂

 

[Peter_wrote:]

my fastest lens is 1.8.

but i want a 50/1.4 for my canon slr, because

-i like low light shots
-the image quality of the faster lens is overall better (in my case comparing canon fd 50/1.4 with the 50/1.8)
-brigther viewfinder, when using a slr.

i don't need extremly limited dof, though.

 

[kuvvy]

My 'standard' lens on the RD1 is a CV28 3.5 and my only wide is the CV15 4.5. My fasted lens is a chrome Jupiter-8 which is 50mm f2 and is enough for me. However this J8 is a little stiff in use despite having been serviced and I'm looking to replace it. The lens I'm interested in replacing it with is the one Joe has, the CV 50 2.5 but so far unable to find one.
I sometimes use each of theses lenses wide open and it doesn't worry me that they are considered slow. If they get me the shot, then no worries.
My X100 is fantastic low light option though.

 

[Sparrow]

... one sees so few classic photos taken above f5.6 it hardly seems worth carrying round fast lenses ... I do have a f1.5 nokton in a cupboard but hardly ever use it, and never put it in the bag

 

[Jockos]

Nokton 1.1 is good to have in the basement or when it's raining to much to bring a tripod.

 

[Lund]

I'm a sucker for fast glass. Usually gives a dreamy, unreal look, which I really like.

 

[emraphoto]

What I want to know is what this 'real' photography business is?

 

[oftheherd]

To me, my 50 f/1.4 is another tool. It is my fastest SLR lens. I normally carry it as my normal, on-camera lens when I am out. I use f/1.4 when I need it. That might be for effect, or it might be because I can't get the photo otherwise.

In RF, my fastest lens is f/1.8. Same thing as above.

 

[ChrisN]

Fast glass gives you options.

Narrow DOF is one of the options. Best example I know is Phillip Toledano's Days with my Father

Of course, such lenses can also be used at smaller apertures for a greater DOF. What's not to like? (Perhaps the weight and the price of entry! But if you buy good lenses the chances are that you can get your money back after enjoying them for a while - treat it like rental.)

 

[myM8yogi]

Fast glass gives you options.

Narrow DOF is one of the options. Best example I know is Phillip Toledano's Days with my Father

Fantastic work. The shallow depth of field leaves no ambiguity anout what the precise subject of the photo is, and abstracts the background enough to free the concept of the specific environment.

One of my favoirute lenses these days is a 40/2. It has a great compromise of size and speed, and is faultless from f/2.8 onwards.
My travel kit is a 21/2.8, 40/2 and 90/2.8. I cannot take lenses slower than f/2.8 because I find f/4 unusable indoors handheld in so many situations and I always like to have the shallow depth of field effect of f/2 - 2.8.

For real indoor shooting I use 35/1.2 and 50/1.5. These large apertures are also very useful for subject isolation at greater distances - the 35/1.2 in particular can give a very distinctive look (almost like medium format) when used in this way. Figures in isolated focus within a larger landscape or cityscape. I love it! But the 35mm is a very big and heavy lens, so I only bring it along when I know I will have a specific reason to use it.

The 50/1.5 J3 is so very light that there is absolutely no weight (or cost) penalty for the extra speed. It is my lens of choice for candid family photography, but I only shoot at 1.5 if I have a specific reason - dim light or medium distance subject. Most often I shoot it between f/2-f/4.

 

[it'sawhat?]

My fastest is 1.7, the main reason I got it was it was priced the same as a 2.8 , so it's like a little insurance for free. Normally I shoot between f8 - f16. My next lens is going to be 3.5 wide open I won't need the speed on that one and it's better at the edges. The fact that it's $40 shipped doesn't hurt either.😱

 

[Dylan Hope]

I like the option of having a large aperture, but it feels that most of the time I'm shooting at f/11-16 at 1/1000, or at f/4 at 1/125 (Without any filters), which means I could do just fine with even the cheapest m-mount lens out there.

 

[thegman]

I do have a fast lens, but I stopped caring a little while ago. I'm not interested in ultra shallow DOF, and for night shooting, I'm a tripod guy really.

 

[Keith]

The discussions about the need/desire for fast lenses gets ugly very quickly at times around here!

The argument that you don't need fast lenses to take 'real' photographs is right up there with the theory that digital imagery looks plastic IMO.

As for the OP's first post he was asking an innocent question with non inflammatory intentions ... which never works for certain subjects because some bonehead will always need to drive their own biased opinion home in a charmless manner!

 

[rbelyell]

What I want to know is what this 'real' photography business is?

perhaps my reply was a bit strident, but nonetheless i do stand behind it. however i was not claiming to state what 'real' photography 'is' as much as i was pointing out what it 'isnt'. my example of one 'never' shooting above the maximum aperture is what it isnt, imo. not understanding, nor even caring, how the use of different apertures translates into results is what it isnt, imo.

i did not say shooting wide open, or shooting fast lenses, is somehow not 'real' photography, just that lack of understanding is not. everyone is different, everyone has a 'favorite' aperture setting that may differ with different lenses, and perhaps some, after considered experimentation prefer to shoot some 'wide open'. it is the 'considered' part to which i was referring.

anyway, as for the OT, if youre happy with your results, if youre achieving your vision, if you dont feel limited in achieving your vision with your present gear, then i think youre ok. no need to have equipment in your bag that youre not going to use.
tony

 

[anjoca76]

I don't see why it's either/or. Personally I feel I am constantly utilizing all shutter speeds and apertures available to me based in the lens and camera I have at hand. I could never say I never go below 1/30 or above 1/500, or that I always shoot wide open or always stopped down. I use whatever I need to try to capture the image. If the lens I happen to have with me is only f3.5, then that's what I have to work with. Same with the film speed in my camera. That said, what can I say, it's nice to have a couple lenses, or at least one, that's on the fast side. But if I didn't have one, I guess I find ways around it. Maybe I'd use a tripod. Who knows. Different strokes for different folks, as they say.

I should probably add that one of the things that attracts me to film photography is its limitations. If im out with only 100 speed film loaded and the day suddenly turns gloomy, then it's up to me to find creative ways to shoot whatever it is I want to shoot. For example, it's gloomy now so I have 400 loaded, but this afternoon it will clear up and I'll wish I had something slower, but oh well.