What are the advantages of slower lenses?

I bought an M42 adapter for my EP2. Used the 85/4.5 Ultra-Achromatic Takumar on it. Slow, made of Calcium Fluorite. Extreme correction for chromatic aberration.
 
The advantage of a Tessar/Elmar/Xenar, which is a relatively slow lens, is that it is at it's optimal quality at f11 or f16. So, if you want optimal quality combined with big depth of field it is a good choice. This is particularly useful for close up photos in good light or for landscape. A 50mm Summicron, on the other hand, is optimal at f4.

I would say for 35mm photography the faster the better, but since slow standard lenses are so cheap, it's nice to have one around.
 
Cool, thanks again for all the input. I am looking to buy an additional lens or two. I initially got an impression that a lens was always better the faster it was, just because the amount of posts and such that are devoted to fast lenses. I guess the right lens for the job approach seems more sensible.

cheers
 
Often, slower lenses can be closed down further. f1.4 lenses regularly go to f11 or f16 only, while the equivalent f2 lenses from the same manufacturer go to f16 or f22 instead. So if you're after that last ounce of DOF (at the cost of diffraction of course), the slower lens is the way to go..
 
To counter some arguments given here, I have found that though the 35mm Cron IV provides a smaller and lighter package, the 35mm Lux Asph balances better on the M8/9. I feel I get more stability when shooting with it.
As for the shorter focus throw, this is correct yet most of my focusing comes before I actually raise the camera to my eyes, the most important is to have an understanding or what distances corresponds to a certain lever position by touch only. This is obviously independent of lens speed.
One big advantage of slower lens, is that you can't gamble with thin DOF on every shots ;) I mean I love the wide open look of my 35 Lux but I do miss a few shots here and then because my focusing was slightly off. With a slower lens, doesn't happen.
 
Slower lenses often have a smaller front element, which might make it harder to damage.

I love my Industar 22 because I can collapse it and fit that with a Zorki 4 in my pocket, for those times I need my hands free. It also has a very light feel to it, even if the weight isn't that different from the J8.
 
Slow lenses may be had with camera as a body cap. Fast lens usually commands higher price than untested body with a couple of slow lenses.

In SLR world faster lens means more comfortable focusing (I assume we are talking about manual focus lenses). There's quite a difference between 50/1.4 and 50/2, let alone adorable though almost useless 45/2.8 pancake. I appreciate difference also between 28/2.8 and 28/2.

In RF world small camera with slow f/2.8 lens is great as long as I don't need large apertures and ergonomics suits me.
 
yanidel said:
To counter some arguments given here, I have found that though the 35mm Cron IV provides a smaller and lighter package, the 35mm Lux Asph balances better on the M8/9. I feel I get more stability when shooting with it.
quote]

A balanced rig is a good point. I have found that often a heavy camera is often a more stable platform for shooting at slow speeds and wide open.

Also when I mounted my 75 Lux on a M8 or M9 it had a better balance than a M film body. I now use a TA Rapidwinder and TA Rapidgrip on my M6. The added weight I don't mind because I love the balance and the handling.

Cal
Click to expand...
 
Any Tessar faster than f/6.3 tends to sacrifice a lot of Tessar 'magic'.

And who's going to buy a 50/6,3?

Wide Tessars are dubious too.

Cheers,

R.
 
My original Tessar 5cm F2.8, Black face, is soft until F5.6. That lens was recomputed in the mid 1930s, the F3.5 version was much better.

The later 50/2.8 Tessar formula lenses, newer glass used in the late 50s, got much better.

My 3.5cm F3.5 Nikkor was a Tessar/Elmar, did not get sharp until F8.
 
Last edited:
IMO, the main advantage are size,weight and price. For example, the CV 35mm 2.5 pancake II is a great looking lens and and costs like a fifth of the cron. In terms of size/weight, there is such a difference between the CV 35mm 1.2 and the 35mm 1.4. For things like street photography, I think the smaller lenses are more suitable than the larger ones.
 
I highly recommend a 3.5cm f/3.5 Leica Summaron. You can get these in thread mount for very cheap. They are sharp, distortion free, very durable, have a very well recessed front element so a hood isn't necessary and very small. There are two models of this lens and the bigger on is longer by a few millimeters than the older one. They stick out of the camera about an inch.
It's a great lens that is very often overlooked because of its age and conservative maximum aperture. It's very very good though for a general walk-around lens into the evening with some Tri-X.

It took me years of lust and purchasing fast lenses to realize what benefits the slower lenses have over them in many cases. If you're wanting to start out with a few nice lenses, f/2.8 or f/3.5 is the way to go.

Phil Forrest
 
I just "downgraded" from a 50mm Summilux v2 to a 50mm Summicron v5. They're the same price used. And just about the same sharpness. But the summicron has more contrast. And the Summilux has smoother bokeh.

The thing for me is that I'm often so close to my subject that f1.4 is too thin and I end up at f2 or f2.8 anyway. And with the summicron I get a smaller and lighter lens. Aso the summicron has a much shorter and faster focus throw. With the 'lux I'd have to turn twice to go from close to infinity. With the 'cron it's one quick motion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom