Roger Hicks
Veteran
Historical accident -- until <15 years ago you actually needed it -- plus habituation to what fast glass gives you.
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
Why the obsession with fast glass?
- Thread starter codester80
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 56
- Views 5K
GaryLH
Veteran
From modern digital camera perspective...
Even if u are not into bokeh or razor thin depth of field look..unless the subject of your shot is static and the light is such that u are shooting at your max iso, the difference between f2.8 vs f2 vs f1.4 or faster could be the difference between a shot w/ motion blur or not. Yes modern camera bodies and lenses w/ image stabilization can shoot amazing low shutter speeds, but 1/4 to 1/30 (or whatever your low shutter standard is) of a second and the subject is moving, the probability of a sharp picture becomes questionable (unless that motion blur is part of the reason for the image).
Slightly different point...In the days of film when I used iso 400 film (tri-x) that I occasionally pushed to 800 or 1600, even w/ f1.4 lenses, I remember a lot of times I need to look for a lamp post or new paper rack or chair or table to steady the shot (I rarely carry a tripod) to get a good picture.. Modern image stabilization technology has made using such techniques less likely, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be used..
From my days from film, I have two lenses faster than f1.4
- canon rf 50f1.2
- Konica slr 57f1.2
I keep them around mainly for portrait shooting on my apsc size sensor digital cameras.
Today my fastest digital lenses are the Fuji 35f1.4, Sigma 30f1.4 and 50f1.4. Most of the time they are set about 2-3 stops slower..
Gary
Even if u are not into bokeh or razor thin depth of field look..unless the subject of your shot is static and the light is such that u are shooting at your max iso, the difference between f2.8 vs f2 vs f1.4 or faster could be the difference between a shot w/ motion blur or not. Yes modern camera bodies and lenses w/ image stabilization can shoot amazing low shutter speeds, but 1/4 to 1/30 (or whatever your low shutter standard is) of a second and the subject is moving, the probability of a sharp picture becomes questionable (unless that motion blur is part of the reason for the image).
Slightly different point...In the days of film when I used iso 400 film (tri-x) that I occasionally pushed to 800 or 1600, even w/ f1.4 lenses, I remember a lot of times I need to look for a lamp post or new paper rack or chair or table to steady the shot (I rarely carry a tripod) to get a good picture.. Modern image stabilization technology has made using such techniques less likely, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be used..
From my days from film, I have two lenses faster than f1.4
- canon rf 50f1.2
- Konica slr 57f1.2
I keep them around mainly for portrait shooting on my apsc size sensor digital cameras.
Today my fastest digital lenses are the Fuji 35f1.4, Sigma 30f1.4 and 50f1.4. Most of the time they are set about 2-3 stops slower..
Gary
bence8810
Well-known
While still on digital I used a Minolta 58 f1.2 Rokkor that was a fantastic lens - albeit very heavy.
Having moved to film and to a Leica, I enjoy the compactness and the collapsible barrel lens. It takes little space in my bag and it isn't heavy at all. At f2.0 I can still photograph indoors at 1/60 or 1/125 comfortably at 400ASA. Sometimes push to 1600 and get away with lower light. If there isn't enough light - I put the camera away.
If the fast lenses weren't this expensive I am not sure whether I'd buy one or not but at this rate I definitely am staying with the f2.0. Even if I had the fast lens I am pretty sure it'd be used a lot less than the convenient 2.0 collapsible.
Ben
Having moved to film and to a Leica, I enjoy the compactness and the collapsible barrel lens. It takes little space in my bag and it isn't heavy at all. At f2.0 I can still photograph indoors at 1/60 or 1/125 comfortably at 400ASA. Sometimes push to 1600 and get away with lower light. If there isn't enough light - I put the camera away.
If the fast lenses weren't this expensive I am not sure whether I'd buy one or not but at this rate I definitely am staying with the f2.0. Even if I had the fast lens I am pretty sure it'd be used a lot less than the convenient 2.0 collapsible.
Ben
- Local time
- 1:35 AM
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2005
- Messages
- 6,291
Why to companies make/like them, my guess is higher margins of profit.
They were the only game in town for existing darkness a few years back (as mentioned above).
Brighter the image from your focusing screen the easier it is to focus accurately (SLR, MF, LF, NOT RF).
It's nice to have options. When I had two leica kits one was for carrying everywhere, older slower glass (2.8/4). When I was walking about to take pictures it was faster stuff (1.4/2/2.8). I was very happy with either kit, but then I don't make money with my cameras.
B2
They were the only game in town for existing darkness a few years back (as mentioned above).
Brighter the image from your focusing screen the easier it is to focus accurately (SLR, MF, LF, NOT RF).
It's nice to have options. When I had two leica kits one was for carrying everywhere, older slower glass (2.8/4). When I was walking about to take pictures it was faster stuff (1.4/2/2.8). I was very happy with either kit, but then I don't make money with my cameras.
B2
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Bill,
The exact opposite, I'd guess. A LOT harder to make; harder to sell; and it's hard to charge enough extra to justify the extra cost. My bet would be "Because we can. We're good enough to make state-of-the-art fast lenses." In other words, it's a form of (barely) self-funding advertising.
Cheers,
R.
SuperUJ
Well-known
In addition to the 3D effect, some lens glow more at large aperture due to spherical aberrations exhibited along the edges highlight areas.
John
John
D
Daniel Teoli Jr.
Guest
1.4 is nice once in a while.
hamradio
Well-known
Honestly, after banging around LF gear for a while, f/2 feels downright fast on 35mm. I think once-upon-a-time I could've never imagined shooting a 5cm 3.5 Elmar, but now it feels normal. If I want super shallow DOF, it's easy to accomplish with larger formats than 35mm, anyway.
codester80
A Touch of Light
Exactly. And when there isn't enough light we used to use a thing called a flash. Interestingly enough, must DSLRs come with a build in flash, something older film cameras (P&S excluded) didn't. I know the on-camera flashes have limits but most situations of low light are encountered indoors where flash coverage is usually adequate.
This comes back to my main point. Most people are not seeking a specific look with fast lenses. They are simply trying to gain more speed to shoot in dim or non-existent light.
I'm well aware of the limits of shutter speed and freezing action. I'm sure most people have never had the pleasure of trying to photography a hockey game in an arena in the middle of the Canadian prairie where you're lucky to get 125th/2.8 at 1600. Despite the limitations I was able to capture images week in and week out for publication. A faster lens would have allowed for a faster shutter speed but would also result in shallower DOF, creating a different set of problems. Crappy light is crappy light and often you end up with a bit of motion blur (if you don't time your release just right) or you may end up with slightly out of focus images because of the narrow DOF with faster lenses. There are limits in life and dim or crappy light happens to be one of them in regards to photography.
maddoc
... likes film again.
To take photos in dim light?
200805-M6TTL-400PR-NOCT-03032 copy by maddoc2003jp, on Flickr
201411-08-M4P-400TX-35LUX-NOCTILUX-23 copy by maddoc2003jp, on Flickr
200805-M6TTL-400PR-NOCT-03032 copy by maddoc2003jp, on Flickr201411-08-M4P-400TX-35LUX-NOCTILUX-23 copy by maddoc2003jp, on Flickr
Erik van Straten
Veteran
Fast lenses are wonderful because they can produce pictures with a tiny dept of field.
Leica M3, Nokton-M 50mm f/1.5, Tmax400.
Erik.
Leica M3, Nokton-M 50mm f/1.5, Tmax400.
Erik.
Darshan
Well-known
The fastest lens that I need is f2.0.
The fastest lens that I want is..that's another story..😀
Obsession for some but need for others, every person shoots in different light, circumstances etc.
Yes, there is also a factor of "show-off" and unnecessary "bokeh" requirements. If you have money to spend then why not?
The fastest lens that I want is..that's another story..😀
Obsession for some but need for others, every person shoots in different light, circumstances etc.
Yes, there is also a factor of "show-off" and unnecessary "bokeh" requirements. If you have money to spend then why not?
YYV_146
Well-known
Having one stop on the lens means you can either double shutter speed (1/30 to 1/60th for a sharp shot, or 1/200th for mobile subjects) or take noise down one stop (iso 2500 vs. 5000). Having two stops on the lens means you can have both...
cassel
Well-known
Interesting topic! I always thought of f2.0 as "fast enough"....but that's probably because I like and have used the oldies like the Summitar, the Retina Xenon, the Summicron, and others. In the 1950's those were very fast...."super fast" was like the Leitz (T&H) Xenon, 7.3 Hektor, Summarex, the fast Zeiss (and Canon/Nikkor clones) Sonnar f1.5, etc.
I've had lenses in f1.4, f1.5, and a SLR Nikon in f1.2 -- and I currently own none of those speedy examples! I guess they were worth more to pass along and spend on something else....
With my new obsession-- the Mamiya Magazine 35-- the f2.8 is the normally encountered model (though all are rare) and the the otherwise identical f2.0 seems very rare...In practice the extra speed of the f2.0 is nice but the lens definitely has a "different" overall look from the 2.8 -- though my sample size (comparing three cameras) is really too small to make any sweeping assumptions. I will admit that I like the looks (cosmetic) of a f2.0 or faster lens and the rarity in the case of the Mamiya🙄
I've had lenses in f1.4, f1.5, and a SLR Nikon in f1.2 -- and I currently own none of those speedy examples! I guess they were worth more to pass along and spend on something else....
With my new obsession-- the Mamiya Magazine 35-- the f2.8 is the normally encountered model (though all are rare) and the the otherwise identical f2.0 seems very rare...In practice the extra speed of the f2.0 is nice but the lens definitely has a "different" overall look from the 2.8 -- though my sample size (comparing three cameras) is really too small to make any sweeping assumptions. I will admit that I like the looks (cosmetic) of a f2.0 or faster lens and the rarity in the case of the Mamiya🙄
Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
In a word, Bokeh.
ferider
Veteran
- Some of us still shoot film. I limit myself to 400 ASA on plane trips and need a fast lens then.
- not all fast lenses have "razor thin" DOF. A 90/2 Summicron has thinner DOF than a Noctilux. Conversely, my "fastest" lens (meaning for hand-holding) is a 35/1.4.
- not true; for example, CV makes four 50mm lenses, a 50/1.1, a 50/1.5, a 50/2 and a 50/2.5; the sharpest (across the field, at all f-stops, at infinity) is the 50/1.5.
That being said, 35/2, 50/2, and 90/2.8 are mostly good enough for me on my digital camera. Unless I need a special effect, bokeh, vignetting, whatever.
Roland.
- not all fast lenses have "razor thin" DOF. A 90/2 Summicron has thinner DOF than a Noctilux. Conversely, my "fastest" lens (meaning for hand-holding) is a 35/1.4.
- not true; for example, CV makes four 50mm lenses, a 50/1.1, a 50/1.5, a 50/2 and a 50/2.5; the sharpest (across the field, at all f-stops, at infinity) is the 50/1.5.
That being said, 35/2, 50/2, and 90/2.8 are mostly good enough for me on my digital camera. Unless I need a special effect, bokeh, vignetting, whatever.
Roland.
Maiku
Maiku
Fast lenses offer more creativity. I also like fast lenses on SLRs because the viewfinder is a lot brighter.
Richard G
Veteran
Good question I think. And good discussion.
My first lens was the version two Summilux 50. I look at my 1980s Kodachromes of Venice at dusk, taken from a boat, and wonder how I got them. F1.4 might have had something to do with it. Even with digital the base ISO is superior and the higher ISOs, especially with the M9, all come at a price. But I will shoot sports at ISO 640 with no noticeable loss of quality in fair to good light.
It's true that bokeh is over-rated and it would be difficult to name a great photograph that was made by the bokeh. I am using a lot of slower lenses, even the f3.5 Elmar and ISO 25 film and having a lot of fun and enjoying the sharpness and zero distortion. Mostly with my digitals I am shooting Elmars and Elmarits for the compactness and lightness, finding f2.8 plenty fast enough, and with the 50 Elmar M, still allowing bokeh on the rare occasions I think I want it.
And then there's the Zeiss f1.5 C Sonnar 50. A glorious lens at any aperture. Even the mass adds to the hand-holding of slow shutter speeds, adding maybe yet another stop of exposure possibility beyond the wider apertures.
My first lens was the version two Summilux 50. I look at my 1980s Kodachromes of Venice at dusk, taken from a boat, and wonder how I got them. F1.4 might have had something to do with it. Even with digital the base ISO is superior and the higher ISOs, especially with the M9, all come at a price. But I will shoot sports at ISO 640 with no noticeable loss of quality in fair to good light.
It's true that bokeh is over-rated and it would be difficult to name a great photograph that was made by the bokeh. I am using a lot of slower lenses, even the f3.5 Elmar and ISO 25 film and having a lot of fun and enjoying the sharpness and zero distortion. Mostly with my digitals I am shooting Elmars and Elmarits for the compactness and lightness, finding f2.8 plenty fast enough, and with the 50 Elmar M, still allowing bokeh on the rare occasions I think I want it.
And then there's the Zeiss f1.5 C Sonnar 50. A glorious lens at any aperture. Even the mass adds to the hand-holding of slow shutter speeds, adding maybe yet another stop of exposure possibility beyond the wider apertures.
newsgrunt
Well-known
KM-25
Well-known
I passed on it after using both for a week and stuck with the 1.8. I found them to be equally sharp and the 1.8 almost as good as the 1.4 @ F2. The size and weight loss just made sense for the outdoor lifestyle work I do which involves keeping the kit light if I can.
Now for the OP:
I use fast glass a lot, especially with black and white film.
But with digital it opens up simply amazing light quality that would otherwise require a tripod to access. I have done three ad shoots this year in full moonlight, hand held.
And aside from the wonderful isolation effects of wide open, fast glass has a knack for changing the tonal relationships in a given scene in a very pleasing way.
I’m sure there are a lot of folks out there who buy fast glass to satisfy egos and gear fetishes, but I have really come to depend on them as solid tools with a lot of ability.
Similar threads
