Why use a fast 50mm?

I like really fast lenses so that I can reduce flash output to almost ambient light levels but still have a combination of fast shutter speed (1/125) and low iso (200).
 
ferider said:
Never understood myself - besides the cool factor (in other words: "my lens is bigger than yours").

Adding to your thoughts that (1) a 35/1.4 is just as "fast" as a 50/1 for hand-holding, and (2) no super fast 50 focuses below 1m.

Roland.
Click to expand...

Hexanon 50/1.2 (and 60/1.2) DO focus below 1m.
 
Brian Sweeney said:
For Bokeh- hard to beat a Sonnar. I think the Zunow 50/1.1 is a Sonnar derivative, but not sure. The Nikkor 5cm F1.4 is the fastest true Sonnar that I know of. The Bokeh is harsh compared with the J-3 and Zeiss.

I use the Nokton for low-light, and the J-3 or Zeiss Sonnar for Bokeh.
Click to expand...


Matter of taste, of course, but I really like Nokton 50/1.5 and it's signature and bokeh. Even compared to Sonnars. M-Hex 50/1.2 isnt bad either.

To OP - less so with digital, but very often with film, having superfast lens saved me lots of shots. When I went to Turkey, for instance, all I had was ISO 200 film, no digital backup and having Hex 50/1.2 gave me ability to shoot lots of night and inside the buildings scenes and have many keepers. That extra half stop does make a difference at times. At least for my style of shooting. Your requirements and style may be different.
 
Last edited:
1] For fast, color film has few options to increase speed.
2] For fast, b&w film is either high contrast & pushed or short DoF. Pick your preference. I prefer to shoot short DoF and sort out the lighting later.
 
Last edited:
I like fast lenses, as I mostly shoot at night.
They allow me, to handle shots at lower ISO speeds with the digital Leicas (ISO 1250 does still look nice, ISO 2500 is pushing it).

Between a f1.4 lens and the noct f1 is one stop more light, that often makes or breaks, if you get enough light.

L1000763-becoming%20a%20rockstar.jpg

"becoming a rockstar"

…*same night, a stop more light, which I used, to not have to chimp and ask - "Mister, may I retake the shot - you twinkled!"

L1000773-chan%20from%20tokyo.jpg

"Chan"

L9997069-500.jpg

"500"

I am not a fan of getting NDs, thick as ashtrays, to shoot a noct @f1 during midday summer light for that thin dof.
I love the Noctilux and wish, I would have known earlier - would have saved quite some money, wasted on many other 50s before.

I like RFs a lot more than lugging SLRs (I also use Nikon stuff), RFs do lack in ISO speed for low light, so fast lenses are the only way, bar from flash.
 
With smaller formats the tendency has always been to get fixated on specs like definition and speed. I suppose because of the limited size of the image there was a sort of a talking dog phenomenon especially in the early days ("it not how well it talks its that it talks at all). In larger formats photographers have traditionally concerned themselves with the "look" of the lens, and here distortions are frequently the factor that produces the look we like.

From this perspective super fast lenses often have so-called distortions that appeal (I was particularly fond of the old Noctilux). Other common uses include razor thin depth of field to isolate the main subject and otherwise impossible available light shots (although this is somewhat obviated by super fast film). Just keep in mind if you are into specs and distortion numbers the slower lens will usually beat the super fast.
 
It's diminishing returns, though. In Arles last week I was frequently shooting wide open at f/1.5 at night at ISO 2500 and still dropping as low as 1/8 second sometimes. But for the kind of pics I was taking I suspect that the C-Sonnar was a better bet than either the Canon 50/1.2 (too flary and soft) or the 50/1 (too little depth of field). I'd probably have used the Noctilux if I'd still had it (the owner wanted it back) but I'm not sure I'd have got better pics.

It's also worth pointing out that these light levels are about as dim as I can focus an M.

Cheers,

R.
 
I traded my f/2 for a f/1.1 recently and I'm lovin it! Yeah it's big, heavy, doesn't focus under 1m, cost more, takes a new filter size, blocks more VF, is not as sharp, has worse bokeh... but it gets me the shots I want.

I had a 35/1.4 but I'm really more of a 50mm shooter, and I'll take 1/30 at f/1.1 over 1/15 at f/1.4 any time.
 
I think that people get spec drunk. Same reason why people get ridiculously powerful engines in their cars. These had a purpose back in the day - film speed was slower and if you wanted to shoot color, you often put correction filters that cut your speed further. Today, with the ability of high speed digital, and what you can do in post, I personally consider these lenses silly obsolete relics - especially given their bulk. These are for film purists only.
 
Are you kidding! Fast lenses are better than ever.

Better coatings, better glass, and much smaller and lighter than the Canon 50/0.95.
 
I shot a lot of live events and let me tell you having a fast lens is super important. Being able to fire the shutter even a little bit faster when people are up on stage moving about gives you a better edge to getting a nice shot.

Also, I love shallow DOF. So since I can't always shoot medium format it's the next best thing :]
 
NickTrop said:
… Today, with the ability of high speed digital, and what you can do in post, I personally consider these lenses silly obsolete relics - especially given their bulk. These are for film purists only.
Click to expand...

They might be for you, but many people indeed shoot in light, where there is either f1 or flash.

This has nothing to do with being spec drunk.
I think, people could afford, to get spec drunk, when huuge V8 engines in ordinary cars didn't cost the price of a Porsche.

When you are talking a few grand for a Noctilux, how could somebody possible shell that kind of money out just for bragging about having a stop more ?

That makes no sense.
People buy these lenses either out of curiosity or out of need.
The people, who don't sell these lenses soon afterwards tend to stick to them out of need.

I am very surprised by this thread by the way - seems, to go some narrowminding going on, I was not aware of.
 
The Canon 50/0.95 is just the most beautiful piece of machinery in the class of Canon Rangefinder lenses. That's all about it. Why don't have it, use it?
Of course, from a practical point of view, the 50/1.4 is a much better (daily user) lens.
It's high speed enough for most cases. But there might be some cases when you need the extra speed.
 
NickTrop said:
I think that people get spec drunk. Same reason why people get ridiculously powerful engines in their cars. These had a purpose back in the day - film speed was slower and if you wanted to shoot color, you often put correction filters that cut your speed further. Today, with the ability of high speed digital, and what you can do in post, I personally consider these lenses silly obsolete relics - especially given their bulk. These are for film purists only.
Click to expand...

As an owner of a F1 E60 noctilux I can tell you my opinion on the matter.

I used to shoot canon. My favorite lens, 85L simply because it allowed me to shoot available light. Its downfall, it is hard to shoot in avaialable light because you can't see through the finder. On top of that, the focus ring feels fake. After practice, I got decent. I still have some good shots from that lens.

I eventually went to my leica full time. I always wondered about the noctilux but the price...Well, I got a "deal" on one. Yeah right. :D

Basically anywhere I can see to focus with my M, I can capture moments. That is the difference between f/1 and f/2.8. I shoot a 50 elmar-m alongside my noctilux for day time. When the sun goes down, how can you beat it?

High-ISO canon body but then you loose the rangefinder.

Flash? Ugh! That screws things up.


I am shooting a few wedding coming up and I am going to put the noctilux to the test to see if I really "deserve" it or not. f/1 can really save you at times.
 
I read a few posts here tonight. Maybe I missed something new, but I doubt it. The rational seems to always be either "I need/want it for low-light situations" or "I like the 'look' it produces". But I was just now trying to think if I've ever seen a photograph by any of the photographers of note that I know of where it appeared they used one of these 50/1.0 lenses. I can't think of one. I've heard many times about a fast lens that was used to film the candle-lit scenes of the "Barry Lyndon" movie. But other than that, can you think of any well-known photographs where lens speed was a big issue?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom