kram
Well-known
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.
hans voralberg
Veteran
Cool factor, DOF, sometimes that 3/4 of a stop matters, etc. There's always hundred of justification out there if you want it badly enough 
Richard G
Veteran
Have a look at threads on the ZM C Sonnar: that is an extraordinary lens. Have a look at the 2000+ posts to the Leica M...post your portraits thread. The 50 Summilux ASPH is one of the stars there. Apparently even HCB used a 1.5 50. There really is something to it. But look at the Zeiss 50 Planar thread. No-one with that f2 50 is unhappy.
Frank Petronio
Well-known
Been there, done it. Feels too trendy, like you are shooting for the bokeh and not the subject. Plus they are big and expensive, and RF cameras are rarely that accurate unless you frame and focus on the center... which is probably why 90% of the examples people use have things centered.
In other words, they are expensive crutches.
In other words, they are expensive crutches.
hteasley
Pupil
They render differently than other lenses, and have their own look. And they're big, but not super-enormous, like most SLR lenses.
Mackinaw
Think Different
Depends on the lens of course, but the fast lenses I own, when used wide-open or near it, have a very distinctive "signature" I don't find with slower, normal lenses.
Jim B.
Jim B.
Sometimes it's dimly lit.
50/1.1 Nokton on the M9, wide-open and ISO2500. Focus first, then composed.
The FASTER shutter speed attained with a FAST lens means a crisper image. That's how FAST lenses got their name.
50/1.1 Nokton on the M9, wide-open and ISO2500. Focus first, then composed.
The FASTER shutter speed attained with a FAST lens means a crisper image. That's how FAST lenses got their name.
Damaso
Photojournalist
I think that it is more about the way they render than speed. Stopped down to 5.6 or f8 the nocitilux has an amazing sensibility...
Neare
Well-known
It's all about the Bokeh, it's the cool thing right now.
kshapero
South Florida Man
I agree but oh that CV 35/1.2 lens is a wonderful performer.
Richard G
Veteran
I'd say the same of the C Sonnar. I can pick my photos with that at 5.6 from other 50s. I'm not sure what it is.
back alley
IMAGES
fast lenses have always been popular, along with fast film and now fast sensors...
umcelinho
Marcelo
well, i got into rangefinders after frustrating myself trying to manually focus a canon 50/1.8 mounted on a 450d, after the autofocus just wasnt being useful at all. i started looking for info on what would be the best kind of camera to take low light pictures, which is something i really like. so i was looking for fast lenses, my first was a 50/1.5 nokton, then a 35/1.4SC nokton.
nowadays, i'm usually packing faster film (mostly 800 lately but also 400), which allows me to take shots in dim street lights at 1/15 and f2 with a 35. i also have the 1.2 nokton which i take when i don't mind the weight/size and am leaving home already in the dark. with it i shoot at 1/30 or 1/60. the advantage over the f2 is that 1/30 leads to almost no camera shake, due to focal length to shutter speed relation (speeds below the number of the focal length tend to come out shaky). so it does help in that sense. with the canon 50/0.95 for instance i can shoot at 1/60 in street lights, so again less camera shake. but focus is indeed a PITA, as the focus throw is so long, so i get different shots - more "snipery" - than when i'm with the 50/1.5 nokton or the 50/1.8 ltm canon - which can be more spontaneous due to faster focusing.
iso 800 film is usually the higher i like going (i shoot colour), in my current development/scan flow i'd need to take to a different lab to push, and iso 1600 film is a bit too grainy for my taste. but of course that if the situation calls for it i can push it to 1600, 3200, if i'm not with a faster lens. but 800 has been proving to be quite versatile, i can take shots in pretty much any kind of light situation.
nowadays, i'm usually packing faster film (mostly 800 lately but also 400), which allows me to take shots in dim street lights at 1/15 and f2 with a 35. i also have the 1.2 nokton which i take when i don't mind the weight/size and am leaving home already in the dark. with it i shoot at 1/30 or 1/60. the advantage over the f2 is that 1/30 leads to almost no camera shake, due to focal length to shutter speed relation (speeds below the number of the focal length tend to come out shaky). so it does help in that sense. with the canon 50/0.95 for instance i can shoot at 1/60 in street lights, so again less camera shake. but focus is indeed a PITA, as the focus throw is so long, so i get different shots - more "snipery" - than when i'm with the 50/1.5 nokton or the 50/1.8 ltm canon - which can be more spontaneous due to faster focusing.
iso 800 film is usually the higher i like going (i shoot colour), in my current development/scan flow i'd need to take to a different lab to push, and iso 1600 film is a bit too grainy for my taste. but of course that if the situation calls for it i can push it to 1600, 3200, if i'm not with a faster lens. but 800 has been proving to be quite versatile, i can take shots in pretty much any kind of light situation.
ferider
Veteran
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.
Lilserenity
Well-known
I've often wondered that myself but then, I don't really care what people use either, it's up to them.
Personally the smaller and the lighter the better works for me, not that I'm some feeble little flower, but well, maybe I am then because my wrists get very tired very quickly carrying cameras (I tend to carry in my hand if I am on the street, keep the camera out of sight until I need it and snap, back down to my side again) so the lighter the package the better.
I'm also still a film shooter and I have somehow managed to persuade myself that great pictures were taken donkeys ago with slower film than today, and they have still managed great low light shots; so I have spent a bit more (but not nearly enough) time investigating how to get the most out of the film and developer before trading on a lens.
To that end, generally I find I can be as versatile as I need with a 50mm f/1.8 and on the whole I can't say I have ever missed a shot for the lack of a 1/3rd of a stop of extra lens speed.
I'm sure there are lots of other reasons for using fast lenses, frankly that's up to the user, I can't afford a Noctilux but I'll never begrudge someone who can and does have one, if it works for them, yay!
Anyway use and buy what you please, they wouldn't make them if there wasn't a market for them, it's a free market.
Vicky
Personally the smaller and the lighter the better works for me, not that I'm some feeble little flower, but well, maybe I am then because my wrists get very tired very quickly carrying cameras (I tend to carry in my hand if I am on the street, keep the camera out of sight until I need it and snap, back down to my side again) so the lighter the package the better.
I'm also still a film shooter and I have somehow managed to persuade myself that great pictures were taken donkeys ago with slower film than today, and they have still managed great low light shots; so I have spent a bit more (but not nearly enough) time investigating how to get the most out of the film and developer before trading on a lens.
To that end, generally I find I can be as versatile as I need with a 50mm f/1.8 and on the whole I can't say I have ever missed a shot for the lack of a 1/3rd of a stop of extra lens speed.
I'm sure there are lots of other reasons for using fast lenses, frankly that's up to the user, I can't afford a Noctilux but I'll never begrudge someone who can and does have one, if it works for them, yay!
Anyway use and buy what you please, they wouldn't make them if there wasn't a market for them, it's a free market.
Vicky
Neare
Well-known
Like how Ferrari's are cooler than Toyota's because they're faster?
When most people think about buying equipment, they want the best they can get. Often the best means the piece of equipment that will offer the most creative opportunities.
But there are always priorities for each person, the f1.4-f16 or the f2-f22?
Personally I'd use f22 far more than I would use a f1.4. Though I suspect most would disagree with me.
B.S.
Member
I got my Nokton 1.1 for the DoF. After about a month with it I got over using it at the fastest speed at all times-- Selectively used a fast lens like this is a great tool to have, it just gives you an extra trick up your sleeve.
Personally I think that extra quarter stop can be pretty nice in certain situations.
--Though I will concede that I feel 1.4 would be a perfect speed for a fast 50. I typically only drop down to 1.1 if I absolutely have to... These days, at least.
But I'd buy the noctilux for it's signature. It's got a great, unique look to it. Don't really care that it's .95, I mean, that's awesome that it can go that fast, but mostly I just like the look that lens gives off at any F-stop.
Personally I think that extra quarter stop can be pretty nice in certain situations.
--Though I will concede that I feel 1.4 would be a perfect speed for a fast 50. I typically only drop down to 1.1 if I absolutely have to... These days, at least.
But I'd buy the noctilux for it's signature. It's got a great, unique look to it. Don't really care that it's .95, I mean, that's awesome that it can go that fast, but mostly I just like the look that lens gives off at any F-stop.
Last edited:
charlesholland
Member
![a>](http://<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/charlesholland/5793510792/" title="fishlips by charlesholland, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5188/5793510792_e564541d2b.jpg" width="336" height="500" alt="fishlips"></a>)
![a>](http://<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/charlesholland/5793130526/" title="eyes eyes eyes by charlesholland, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3216/5793130526_38d2e8b026.jpg" width="500" height="336" alt="eyes eyes eyes"></a>)
![a>](http://<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/charlesholland/5793512808/" title="fair by charlesholland, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5105/5793512808_b0dce79ab3.jpg" width="336" height="500" alt="fair"></a>)
back alley
IMAGES
Like how Ferrari's are cooler than Toyota's because they're faster?
When most people think about buying equipment, they want the best they can get. Often the best means the piece of equipment that will offer the most creative opportunities.
But there are always priorities for each person, the f1.4-f16 or the f2-f22?
Personally I'd use f22 far more than I would use a f1.4. Though I suspect most would disagree with me.
i like to drive fast and my guess is that the ferrari would handle better than the toyota...
as for 'cool'...at 60 i am no longer really impressed by a coolness factor.
my fastest lens is currently a 2.5 and i rarely shoot above 400 iso...works for me.
Brian Legge
Veteran
My fastest lens is a 1.8. Anything faster sounds appealing right now as between evening shooting and dark winter days, I need all the speed I can get. I like shadow detail so pushing film to 1600 isn't ideal all the time..