my fastest lens is a 2.5...

[zuiko85]

Guess it depends on a persons individual needs and preferences.

Personally I value compact and lightweight equipment. Therefore my fastest lens for my M kit is a CV 35mm f2.5 PII. For my OM kit all my lenses are the slower versions of the Zuiko lens line. My 50mm is a f1.8 and the 24 and 35 are both f2.8. Even my 200mm is the less common f5 Zuiko.

So, I gain some weight and size savings but give up a full shutter speed step or two on occasion. Can I really shoot at 1/8th of a second? Not consistently, but for me the advantages outweigh the loss.

 

[BlackXList]

One advantage with fast glass is you have the extra stop or two for the lens to get up to optimum performance...for example a Nikkor 105/1.8 is gonna be rocking and rolling by 2.5 where a Nikkor 105/2.5 is gonna be wide open and not up to speed yet...so you get the extra stop if you need it. Sometimes the extra stop is a good thing. That is my logic for having a fast lens.

I completely agree with this.

I'd always buy as fast as I can afford, however that absolutely does not mean I'm going to shoot wide open all the time. To me it means that the potential to do so is there should I choose to use it, and in the past I have taken the super shallow dof portrait shots, sometimes that's what works.

The obsession with razor thin depth of field is very obvious at the moment, both in still photography, and in TV shows which are filmed on DSLRs, it's very obvious which shows are, because they can't resist those shots.

I've had a lengthy discussion with a photographer on another site about the Brenizer method, for emulating medium format dof with APS-C DSLRs and why it doesn't work for me (essentially looking through a MF camera you still compose normally, Brenizer almost requires the composition to be done after the fact which leads to a lot of much weaker shots to my eyes)
but it seems that the shallow dof is the desired end result, even if it overshadows the rest of the photograph.

So personally although I'd always buy as fast as I can afford, and whilst I appreciate the extra headroom a fast lens gives, I won't be wide open 90% of the time.

 

[Gumby]

For some of us the quest for fast(er, est) glass really doesn't matter: not enough light, use a flash.

 

[gilpen123]

Or a tripod.......

 

[Livesteamer]

Perhaps I'm one of the few that does not like flash and don't own one. While I do most of my pictures with an old f3.5 Elmar, when needed I'll put the Noctilux on an M6 .85. Whatever tool gets the job done. Joe

 

[raytoei@gmail.com]

Canon 50 /f1.2 on the R-D1
I set the iso 1600 and set the EV to -2,
which was around 1/15s
Aperture was f1.2

 

[stompyq]

Fast glass gives you options.

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

That's some outstanding work. Really moving in brilliant use of photos to tell a story. Thanks for posting

 

[ChrisPlatt]

Since lenses tend to perform better at middle apertures that's where I try to stay.
Shooting wide open with a fast lens also increases the chance of focus error.

On my SLR I do prefer a faster lens (especially WA), for easier and more accurate focusing.

One of the nice things about rangefinder cameras is the smaller size of the lenses.
This advantage disappears once you start hanging fast glass on them.

Chris

 

[dct]

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.
[...]

That's why I'm looking for a 50mm/1.4 or faster glass. Not because of the thin DoF you can achieve.

 

[Sparrow]

... a 50 centimetre f1.4 would be quite heavy I imagine ...

 

[crawdiddy]

Two reason for fast lenses: (1) shallow DOF and (2) speed.

Regarding (1) I don't really care much about fast lens/wide open "bokeh" any more. These days, I'm a sucker for "f5.6 bokeh", just enough to get some 3D but recognize what's in the background. Regarding (2) fast lenses are nice indoors, or when traveling and limiting myself to 400 ASA.

Roland.

\

Roland-- I love this shot.

 

[Aristophanes]

I like sharp, mostly.

Following the maxim which I have found to be generally accurate, of 2 stops from wide open, fast glass (f1.4) gives me the headroom to go sharp by f/2.8. I have to really pixel peep on my best zoom (DSLR) to find the difference between f/2.8 and 5.6, and then mostly in the corners.

Lots of variables, of course, including the subject, the bokeh and other optical considerations. I mostly shoot portraits or candids of people. I tire of the look where the eyes are reasonably sharp but the ears fade into fuzziness.

Also, if I do want a wide open, very shallow DOF and the accompanying less-than-sharp aesthetic, that option exists as well with a fast lens. for me that's occasional, opportunistic shooting.

Some if this veers towards more an SLR system discussion because the RF side can utilize slower shutter speeds at equivalent FL's and apertures (darn mirror splat).

 

[Prest_400]

My fastest one is the 50mm 1.8 for my OM (MiJ version).

I like using low speed film (slide) and tend to prefer using f4-f8 but will, in no doubt use f1.8 if needed.

Sometimes I use ISO 400 film (Tri-X was the last) and wow, if just feels excessive at outdoors. Last time I used up a whole roll for an outdoor event and wow, 1/250-500 at f8-f11, no worries for DoF anyways.

I got the "Bokeh" bug as well, but it's worn out for me by now. I like to do shots with selective focus and blurred background, but not so exaggerated. Sometimes, by luck and need, I've gotten shots of this kind that have forked (for me).

As of handholding, I'll get to 1/60 with no problem, and can do 1/15 with a lot of deliberation and "special technique". I can do 1/8 easily with my little P&S, but that's got IS, which is a great thing to have. It's great to use everything available.

Flash, I do have one but it's cumbersome for me. Tripod, I should get one to do more contemplative shooting...

A m4/3 with that 20mm f1.7 would be a boon for me coupled with a decent body, it would be great for lower light shooting. I would like to do some serious digital (m4/3 upwards). But I'm a student and 600€ brings quite some film, a scanner maybe...

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.

Me too in some way. Not the same, but there's something in the process of film photography (even colour) that attracts me more than digital.

I've been having a crisis (to call it in some way), somehow I've felt 35mm has become a dead end. That means I must shoot more and develop the accumulated exposed rolls

 

[ferider]

Thanks, Jamie & Dan ! 50/1.4, 1600 ASA, if it matters.

 

[Monochrom]

Hi, from the beginning i been wondering about leaving apart fast lenses....
They are big, many have focus shift when changing from wide open to smaller apertures...if not they are way too expensive and also big...
For now i still use the c-sonnar which is small enough but for sure i purchased for the second time a rollei sonnar wich is perfect for most of the time...
It´s very useful having this fast c-sonnar but of course i´m also bored to death with spherical aberrations...

For the time being i´ll keep both sonnars...perhaps i´ll add a vc 35mm f2.5...since it´s very small, sharp and has the right price...

My principles are these, lenses up to $1300, very small and sharp. So i move tween these variables in order to get my glass...

Bye!

 

[back alley]

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!

AGREED...it is unfortune that others took this thread as an opportunity to mock others...that was clearly not my intention for this to happen.
i did not offer my question as an opportunity for battle...i was curious what others thought and i was challenging my own biases about lens qualites and uses.

 

[ramosa]

back alley: as you intimate, it really depends on how you shoot. the only reason to have a fast lens, of course, is to have the capacity (when needed) to shoot it wide open. shooting wide open can allow you to shoot at night (which you're not interested in) or have a narrow DoF. i'm not sure if the second aspect appeals to you. generally, you need a shallower DoF for portraits and some other types of work, but not for traditional street photography. while i do have a f1.4 lens and a f2.0 lens, i know that lots of greats (e.g., HCB) surely weren't shoot wide open.

 

[emraphoto]

AGREED...it is unfortune that others took this thread as an opportunity to mock others...that was clearly not my intention for this to happen.
i did not offer my question as an opportunity for battle...i was curious what others thought and i was challenging my own biases about lens qualites and uses.

You didn't come across that way Joe. The mocking/judging/triumph of opinion thing here (lately) is a bugger.

 

[jawarden]

I like having a fast lens. I'm on a depth of field kick right now, trying to get it 'right'. In my case that means getting the stuff I want sharp, sharp. And getting troublesome background distractions softened a bit, but not too much. It's different for everybody I'm sure, and it's fun to practice.

For indoors, especially in the evening, I just open it up and see what happens, and usually I'm happily surprised when I see the film. It's all good fun.

 

[mlu19]

Why have a fast lens? I'm new to RFF and relatively new to photography. But I like to compare a lot of things in life with cars and driving in general.

So why get a BMW, which serves the same purpose in taking you from point A to point B, when you can get a much cheaper Honda Civic?