What are the advantages of slower lenses?

[dogbunny]

So I understand the advantages of faster lenses and why someone would want to own them, but why would one want a slower lens? I'm just a 'student' of photography, so I guess I don't mind asking a stupid question. Do slower lenses give a specific desired effect?

Searching through the thousands of posts here can be a bit daunting, so if this is already spelled out somewhere, or if you have a good link, I'd be happy to read it.

Thanks,

DB

 

[jbielikowski]

they are cheaper, usually sharper wide open and dont have "bokeh trap" when you shoot pictures of bokeh not of the subject.

 

[j j]

Smaller, less weight, easier to make and cheaper. I don't know of any artistic reasons.

 

[j j]

What is a bokeh trap?

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

The faster the lens, the hardest to correct aberrations... Slower lenses are usually distortion free, sharper and smaller. Lots of advantages. I like using several small lenses and have one or two fast ones for low light or selective focus only. I shoot mostly with slow lenses: slow lenses of today and film of today are really ultrafast compared to what photographers had to use some decades ago...

Cheers,

Juan

 

[paulfish4570]

I do not feel at a disadvantage at all with an F2.8 or f3.5 rangefinder lens and 400asa film ...

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Size, weight, and price come to mind. Slower lenses tend to have less elements in them, usually "Tessar" formula 4 elements in 3 groups. Like most lenses, an Elmar or Tessar will do best when stopped down 2 F-Stops from maximum aperture. This typically means that a Sonnar or Planar formula lens stopped down to F4 is sharper than a Tessar formula lens used wide-open. By F5.6 and F8- there is no practical difference in the image.

 

[wjlapier]

I don't shoot alot of lowlight so I prefer the slower lenses because of size and sharpness. Usually cheaper, but in my case the Nikkor LTM wide 28 and 35 3.5's weren't exactly cheap. Last thing I want on a small rangefinder body is a monster size lens!

 

[jsrockit]

Slower lenses are usually distortion free, sharper and smaller. Lots of advantages.

This seems like the best reason to me...

 

[Calzone]

How come no one mentioned handling?

For me a Cron is always faster focus than a Lux of the same focal length. The smaller diameter of the lens barrel translates into a smaller circumference and less distance for the same degree of travel; for street a Cron offers a different kind of speed over a Lux.

For me the differences in the two speeds are reason enough to own both a 50 Lux and a Cron: one for low light; the other for fast handling, especially for street.

BTW I own three different 50's because of their signatures: 50/2.0 Rigid Cron; CV 50/3.5 Nickel Heliar; CV 50/2.0 Nickel Heliar. Owned the late version of the 50/2.8 Elmar BTW because of its signature also.

Cal

 

[Calzone]

I do not feel at a disadvantage at all with an F2.8 or f3.5 rangefinder lens and 400asa film ...

I also shoot with a LTM Canon/Serenar 28/3.5 that is notably sharper than the Canon/Seranar 28/2.8. The lens is a tiny pancake that also ha a deeply recessed front element that requires no hood. An unbeatable package for stopping down and using scale focusing where a wide open lens is not used and is avoided.

JSROCKIT stated it many times to me: the best tool for the job is all that is required. For shooting wide combined with using scale focusing a fast lens offers no premium except extra weight to steady the camera.

Cal

 

[PKR]

Faster lenses were an advantage in focusing .. more light = easier to focus. With a RF or auto focus, the advantage is nil. I prefer a slower, sharper, smaller, lighter weight lens. It's nice to have one or two fast ones in a set of primes, but with zooms, weight and size are important to me. I almost never use a zoom wide open.. at least 3-4 stops down.

 

[newspaperguy]

Calzone mentioned handling - I keep turning back to my Canon 50/2.8
because of the light weight and the huge knobbey focusing ring.

You can see it here on my IIIf:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=137503&ppuser=20714

 

[Mephiloco]

I've only started using slower lenses more, as I've started doing more things during the daytime and the need for a faster lens isn't as crucial. The size/weight difference going from a Canon 85/1.9 to a Elmar 90/4 is staggering. Even going from the Canon 50/1.2 to a Jupiter8 is like night and day.

Also it's easier to focus a slower lens, as they usually have a shorter focus throw due to the smaller aperture and greater DOF. The 35/2.5 focuses much quicker than my 35/1.7. Too bad the 2.5 never gets used since I acquired the 1.7

 

[PKR]

I've only started using slower lenses more, as I've started doing more things during the daytime and the need for a faster lens isn't as crucial. The size/weight difference going from a Canon 85/1.9 to a Elmar 90/4 is staggering. Even going from the Canon 50/1.2 to a Jupiter8 is like night and day.

Also it's easier to focus a slower lens, as they usually have a shorter focus throw due to the smaller aperture and greater DOF. The 35/2.5 focuses much quicker than my 35/1.7. Too bad the 2.5 never gets used since I acquired the 1.7

I used RF cameras long ago and foolishly bought a 90mm f 2. The lens was so heavy, I hated packing it, and didn't use it much. Plus the frame on an M4 was small. If I'd known better I would have gone for an f 4.

 

[dogbunny]

Wow,

Thanks for all the answers. I understand how the faster focusing would be a plus, and cheaper is good for me 🙂 If I was just out and about on a sunny day a slower lens could be perfectly suitable.

 

[peterm1]

To demonstrate the advantage of slower lenses.

I own a Nikon D200 and have also owned for some time, the little 18-70mm lens that was standard with the D70s. It is quite small and light and has a reputation for considerable image quality. But it has a variable aperture that is much slower than pro lenses. Its reputation for quality images I might add is well deserved.

Some time later, on a whim, I bought a Nikon pro lens of similar range - the 17-55mm f2.8. It is big and heavy but beautifully made. Its images are superb but in everyday use still not necessarily noticeably better than those produced by the 18--70mm in all circumstances.

I recently had to go interstate for a week on business and wanted to have a DSLR with me. But what lens did I take? Well, the smaller, lighter and slower 18-70mm of course.

There were times that I wished I had the faster lens but boy did I appreciate it when I came to carrying the camera around with me. In some circumstances the benefits of the bigger pro lenses are just not enough to make the difference for us amateurs.

I will probably sell the smaller prosumer lens soon but am in no hurry as its a fine lens that still fills a niche in my shooting armoury.

 

[ChrisC]

.....If I was just out and about on a sunny day a slower lens could be perfectly suitable.

I'd rephrase the above to read :

......"should be perfect."

Be wary of forums, their contributors spend far too much time obsessing about bokeh and lens speed. If, say, on the 'M' platform, you really really NEED f1.4 on a 35mm lens then bear the price of a Leica Summilux, but do so with open eyes. The brilliant achievement of the Summilux to achieve it's famous on-centre resolution and CA control etc. at maximum aperture comes at a design price as well as a financial price. Pop over to the Zeiss forum and read what some of us think of the 'slower' Zeiss C-Biogon 35mm f2.8 for 'M' fit rangefinder cameras. This is a lens with fabulous; resolution, flare control, flat focus plane, and absence of focus shift. For my way of working the Zeiss is a superior lens to the Leica Summilux because I have no interest in working at apertures f2.8 to f1.4, and designing and manufacturing a great f2.8 lens is easier [therefore cheaper to purchase] than a f1.4 lens.

The Coastal Optics 60mm lens for Nikon [and Canon?] platforms is widely regarded as about as good a lens that one can buy for 35mm format photography.

http://diglloyd.com/articles/CoastalOptics60f4/index.html

Hey look; it's an f4.0 lens! Slower can be optimal. Good luck with your lens choices.

............ Chris

 

[David Murphy]

Calzone mentioned handling - I keep turning back to my Canon 50/2.8
because of the light weight and the huge knobbey focusing ring.

You can see it here on my IIIf:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=137503&ppuser=20714

It's also a stunningly sharp lens, at least a mid aperture settings - one of the overlooked Canon gems.

 

[ferider]

A couple of comments:

- not all small lenses have better IQ than fast lenses. For example, a good CV 28/1.9 will outperform a good CV 28/3.5 at all f-stops.
- for other lenses, it goes the other way: for example, a CV 35/2.5 is better than any pre-asph Summicron, in all optical aspects, and in particular the price. Unless you need f2.
- my rule of thumb for speed is the following: indoors, like at a lunch or dinner, at 400 ASA, with 50mm I need at least f2. If you don't do this, slower is OK. But speed is sometimes needed.

For example, when I travel, a 35/1.4 (a Nokton in my case) helps, since I shoot after work in the evenings, and limit myself to 400 ASA film (due to traveling by plane).

My slow lenses do happen to have the best IQ, when compared to my faster lenses. But it's not always so, even when comparing same brand, generation, etc.

Be wary of forums, their contributors spend far too much time obsessing about bokeh and lens speed.

You mean instead of obsessing over, say, "resolution, flare control, flat focus plane, and ... focus shift" ? I will never understand you ZM 35/2.8 users .... in particular when you use it as an example for compactness 🙄

Roland.