Why the obsession with fast glass?

[codester80]

I've been puzzled in recent years with the apparent obsession with fast lenses. It seems nobody is satisfied with f2 or f2.8. I find this hard to understand considering the ability of digital sensors to produce very clean files at higher ISOs. There really is no need for super fast lenses.
The fastest lenses I've ever owned and used professional were 1.8 and I was shooting film. Faster lenses are bigger, heavier, more expensive, and no fast lens is sharp wide open. A lot of people have troubles with focus with razor-thin DOF wide open. Most people still stop down their fast lens a stop or two defeating the purpose of having the extra speed.
The only explanation I can think of is a lot of people have been sucked in by advertising, "experts", and the prestige of owning expensive optics.
Can someone enlighten me as to the desire for fast glass?

 

[f16sunshine]

With Rangefinder I usually have an f2 or f2.5 lens mounted. (f2/40mm f2.5/50mm).
I do own a Canon f1.2/50mm and sometimes like it's atmosphere for B+W images. It's rarely on the camera.
Fast on RF means big and big means losing a big part of what makes RF attractive.

Reflex is a completely different story.
An SLR "normal" lens for me is a 50mm and I like an f1.4 for the bright viewfinder it provides.
In normal daylight I agree with you that f2 is fast enough. As things become dim the extra stop of light in the finder is very helpful.
Go to a tele and again the brighter finder is handy. Faster than f2.8 is overkill considering the added bonus of magnification.
A good short tele for me is an f2.8/100 although currently I'm using an ef f2/100 because it's a very nice rendering lens. Rarely do I use it wider than f4 but!.... fucussing and composing at f2 is great!


Does that help answer the question?
It may not always be obssessing for speed/DOF rather than... simply making use of some of the attributes a bright aperture brings.

 

[Livesteamer]

It's not obsession, it's specialization. Many of us first learned in the film era. A 1.4 lens was very useful as well as pushing films and being steady for slow speeds. Further, an f1.0 Noctilux has a unique look wide open, like nothing else. As to focus, I use my f1.0 lens on a Leica M6 .85 body and get good results with it. It is big, heavy and expensive so I only use it when needed but it can be a very useful tool. Joe

 

[Ko.Fe.]

OP, do you realize it is still RFF and many of us still using film?
If not, my J-3 is the tiny one and renders analog B/W like nothing but joy and so is the little OM-Z 50 1.4, I used to have.
You could find them cheap. You could also check modern CV glass, which isn't terribly expensive, but fast and not so big.
Also, fast for me is my 50 1.2L. Why I like it? Because it is very different at 1.2 from 1.4, while 1.8 is too slow 😉

But, honestly, I prefer 5.6-8 apertures. Maximum IQ, easy to focus and my big family is in focus. 😀

 

[Addy101]

Why do people buy cars that exceed the 130 km/h? I guess a lot of people have been sucked in by advertising, "experts", and the prestige of owning expensive wheels 😀

 

[Monochrom]

It´s a very valid question that should be made more often.
In fact there are so many subquestions like that...why shooting at f2 in broad daylight? Why that bokeh madness? Etc.

😎

 

[kxl]

I hate to bring up the 'C' word (character), but there are some fast lenses that are meant to be used wide open to bring out what makes that lens special, even if it requires using an ND filter on bright days. Two such lenses that come to mind: CV 35/1.2 and ZM 50/1.5 Sonnar.

Needless to say, the above does not apply to all fast lenses.

 

[daveleo]

I think it's an obsession with a minor % of people. Very few really "need" f1.2 for (probably) very few of their pictures. I think a lot of fast glass buyers get a kick out of owning one more than "needing" one.
f2.0 is and always has been what I personally need as my fastest speed.

I will comment that a lot of wide open fast glass pictures I see are an abuse (or over-use) of the capability.

 

[jsrockit]

I've been puzzled in recent years with the apparent obsession with fast lenses. It seems nobody is satisfied with f2 or f2.8. I find this hard to understand considering the ability of digital sensors to produce very clean files at higher ISOs. There really is no need for super fast lenses.

Perhaps in what you use your camera for, but not everyone uses this stuff the same way. To say there is no need is naive. The biggest advantage to me, especially with digital, is that I can use a fast shutter speed. I routinely go wide open (1.4) at ISO 6400 with a 1/250th shutter speed. I photograph at night (on the street) handheld at times.

The fastest lenses I've ever owned and used professional were 1.8 and I was shooting film. Faster lenses are bigger, heavier, more expensive, and no fast lens is sharp wide open.

There are a few fast lenses that are sharp wide open. I don't even own that many lenses and I have a few. Zeiss 55mm 1.8 for the Sony A series and the Nikon 50mm 1.4g to name 2.

A lot of people have troubles with focus with razor-thin DOF wide open. Most people still stop down their fast lens a stop or two defeating the purpose of having the extra speed.

If you stop down a fast lens by two stops, you probably get super great results across the frame. Also, the wide open look isn't always necessary. Just because its there doesn't mean you have to use it all of the time.

The only explanation I can think of is a lot of people have been sucked in by advertising, "experts", and the prestige of owning expensive optics. Can someone enlighten me as to the desire for fast glass?

Bokeh craze.

 

[codester80]

There are a few fast lenses that are sharp wide open. I don't even own that many lenses and I have a few. Zeiss 55mm 1.8 for the Sony A series and the Nikon 50mm 1.4g to name 2.

.

I agree some lenses are better wide open but even they are not critical sharp until stopped down a bit and I get a sense those who hand over a wad of cash for those lenses want that critical sharpness (or at least I would for the money I spent). I guess I'm just of the opinion you can save money by going with the mundane 1.8/2/2.8 lenses and use the saved cash to finance projects, take trips, or purchase a second and/or third lens.

 

[NeeZee]

I think many people who get into photography more seriously in the digital age are seeking for something that distinguishes their photos from the compact digicam/smartphone pictures their friends upload to facebook etc. on a daily basis. The easiest way to do that is generating some 'bokeh' - you don't really get that with a smartphone.

 

[newsgrunt]

It's not just people looking for bokeh but photographers who are trying to isolate subjects from the background, regardless of how the bokeh looks. They want some visual separation, hence the speedy glass. As well, if you're shooting film, then a fast lens is pretty much required for very low light shooting.

 

[NickTrop]

1. As already stated, you can use a stopped-down 1.4 to f2.0 and it will generally give better results than an f1.8 wide open.
2. Why give up that extra stop even if modern DSLRs have made improvements at reducing noise at higher ISOs?

 

[Ko.Fe.]

It's not just people looking for bokeh but photographers who are trying to isolate subjects from the background, regardless of how the bokeh looks. They want some visual separation, hence the speedy glass. As well, if you're shooting film, then a fast lens is pretty much required for very low light shooting.

Exactly! I'm not sure how first example will be displayed in therms of IQ, it is not optimized for web.

At 1.2 it gives me kind of LF DOF and FoV feel on FF digital.

This one is web sized. Taken with deep vND filter on sunny day. 100, 1.4, 1/320.

 

[CMur12]

I still shoot only film, so the reasons Andy provided apply to my case, too. I always considered 1.7 fast, however, and saw no reason to pay a premium for faster than that (though I do now have a 50mm 1.4).

I think for the smaller digital formats (APS-C and Micro 4/3) larger apertures are needed to achieve shallow/selective DOF. I think previous posters have alluded to this if they haven't stated it outright.

- Murray

 

[rbsinto]

High-speed lenses give one depth of field options that are not available with slower lenses, as well as the ability to shoot hand held in lower light than with slower glass.
For me it's just about having choices.

 

[farlymac]

Aside from all the technical aspects as to why someone would want a fast lens, when the OP asked about the "obsession" of owning such glass, that speaks to the digicam owners looking to gain that shallow depth of field, and smooth bokeh that they can't get with their kit lens. And because their friend has one.

It's the same thing that happened when someone put a c-mount lens on their DSLR, everybody had to have one. And thus, all the naked Bolex cameras sitting around today.

PF

 

[jsrockit]

I guess I'm just of the opinion you can save money by going with the mundane 1.8/2/2.8 lenses and use the saved cash to finance projects, take trips, or purchase a second and/or third lens.

Personally, I feel the same way...but answered with possible reason why others may want super fast lenses. I use the Nikon 85mm 1.8g because the 1.4g is too expensive for the small bit of speed.

 

[jsrockit]

It's not just people looking for bokeh but photographers who are trying to isolate subjects from the background, regardless of how the bokeh looks.

Good point... I use this in the winter just to give certain photos more dynamics when the light isn't great as well.

 

[mfogiel]

Oh dear, this picture is WRONG ! His finger is not razor sharp!

https://www.flickr.com/photos/17655...mUR-o3r1BY-fj3sFJ-76W36D-eMsXL4-b1secF-bR3b4n