Why use a fast 50mm?

[Peter Klein]

It's really very simple. The available light philosophy is that you don't destroy the mood and dynamics of the scene by blasting it with a flash. Once you get to the point where you have to shoot an f/2 lens wide open and the shutter speed is 1/30 or less, you are in dangerous territory. Motion blur is going to get you some of the time no matter how good you are. I can shoot at 1/8 and often get a usable picture, but not always. And if the subject is moving, then you're out of luck at very low shutter speeds.

At that point, lens speed matters. f/1.4 is often enough. Sometimes it isn't. That's where f/1.2, 1.1 or 1.0 comes in. My wallet isn't fat enough for a Noctilux, but I own both a Canon 50/1.2 and a VC 35/1.2, and I've used them in situations where they did make a difference. So they are well worth it to me. Personally, I don't care to shoot wide open in bright sunlight, but if that floats your boat, who am I to argue?

 

[rxmd]

Sometimes you can only take a shot when you're using an f1 lens:

High ISO would do the same job, too.
Shoot with a halfways modern camera at ISO 6400 instead of the Kodak 800 film in your example, and suddenly you can use a 50/f2.8 and probably less noise.

 

[Bluedog2212]

Being a LF photographer for most of my life, I have always been aware of a different look with different lenses, i.e Schneider G Claron vs Goerz Dagor etc. This is the same with all the various RF lenses. I will be doing a lot of comparisons with 50mm lenses, more later.

 

[bmattock]

With an SLR, it is easier to compose and focus with a fast lens mounted - the viewfinder is appreciably brighter. With a rangefinder, that is not a factor, obviously. I find f1.4 lenses to be sufficiently fast, but I'm just as happy with a cheaper (and often sharper) f1.7 or somewhat slower lens. I would not mind having a faster lens, and I like my Canon FL 55mm f1.2 on my Canon SLR bodies. Don't use it enough, but like it.

 

[ferider]

I find 50/1.4 plenty fast, if I need more "speed", I go wider. A 35/1.4 is as "fast" as a 50/1, much smaller and easier to focus ...

Welcome back, Bill, good to see you posting 🙂

 

[rbsinto]

Why do people use/need fast 50mm with film? The Voigtlander NOKTON 50 mm f/1.1, the Leica f0.96 (1/6 of a stop faster than the old f1.0) and Leica f1. I was using my f1.4 35mm yesterday (on my SLR), trying to get a situation ever I could justify getting Nokton 35mm f1.2 for my Zeiss ZM. There was no situation (during the evening) where half a stop would make a difference (A whole stop maybe, two stops yes). So the gain of 3/4 of a stop of the Nokton f1.1, over a common f1.4, would not make much difference. Considering the f0.95-f1.1 lens are so much bigger, cost more, and there performance compared to a f1.4/f1.5 is (normally) inferior - why do people buy them.

It is a question I've often asked myself.
In my opinion, a fast or slow 50 is a vanilla optic: too wide to be long and too long to be wide.
I much prefer fast 35 and 85 or 105 lenses for street shooting over the 50, regardless of its speed.

 

[Roger Hicks]

High ISO would do the same job, too.
Shoot with a halfways modern camera at ISO 6400 instead of the Kodak 800 film in your example, and suddenly you can use a 50/f2.8 and probably less noise.

So... Give up everything else you want, in return for a high ISO camera?

I think I'd rather use fast lenses.

At half a stop faster (f/1.4>f/1.2), I don't really care. At whole stop different, yes, sometimes d-o-f is too thin, but f/1 does allow you to halve your shutter speed. I'd probably buy a Noctilux if I could easily afford it, based on the experience of borrowing one from a friend for a year, but the weight, price and d-o-f mean that I don't want one badly enough (a) to pay for it and (b) to live with the drawbacks.

That's quite apart from the image quality, which quite frankly wasn't good enough from any Canon 50/1.2 I've ever used, including my last one, overhauled by Balham Optical. Or, to be more accurate, the Canon didn't often suit the way I shoot at full aperture. I'd rather have the C-Sonnar's sharpness and contrast, which is why I gave away my last 50/1.2 (to the guy who lent me the Noctilux).

Cheers,

R.

 

[Viktor Sebastian]

Because leica digital cameras have poor high iso performance so fast glass is one way to combat that.

 

[ampguy]

perhaps

perhaps

but 2.8 would give a much different look than f1. btw, how did you know it was Kodak 800?

High ISO would do the same job, too.
Shoot with a halfways modern camera at ISO 6400 instead of the Kodak 800 film in your example, and suddenly you can use a 50/f2.8 and probably less noise.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

With an SLR, it is easier to compose and focus with a fast lens mounted - the viewfinder is appreciably brighter. With a rangefinder, that is not a factor, obviously. I find f1.4 lenses to be sufficiently fast, but I'm just as happy with a cheaper (and often sharper) f1.7 or somewhat slower lens. I would not mind having a faster lens, and I like my Canon FL 55mm f1.2 on my Canon SLR bodies. Don't use it enough, but like it.

Glad to see you back!


Cheers,

Juan

 

[cliffpov]

Most likely the same reason someone needs a vehicle (car/motorcycle) that goes from a standstill to 60 mph in under 2 seconds.

 

[Nokton48]

The challenge of getting it to function as I would like (these fast 50's are difficult to use properly; look at how often they are resold), and the image quality are what are interesting to me. The original Noctilux was an F1.2 BTW, I prefer the Canon F1.2 or the Minolta MC Rokkor 58mm F1.2 for this type of thing. This is a very good example of what is possible. To each his own.

this is why for me:
1/ DOF
2/Bokeh and wonderfull diafragm made for this canon 1.2/50mm Who is talking about expensive lenses ;-)

 

[tritiated]

For me this is simple: to be able to use natural/environmental light as often as possible!

Although the nokton 1.1 seems like a great deal (could never imagine affording a noctilux), it looks pretty big - so I'm pretty settled with my canon 50 /1.4, which is pretty small and was ~ a quarter of the price. Also, 1.4 is generally all I ever need. I sometimes ponder getting a 40/1.4 for a bit more depth of field and angle, but the 50 will do.