Why use slow lenses?

[btgc]

In a word, different characteristics of lenses (applies to any kind of gear, for sure) is perfect reason to justify GAS attacks 🙂 "I need to find out difference myself, not relying on collective consciousness of forums". Yes, this is way it happens. Not that this is wrong, if gear is used.

 

[dlove5]

Sometimes size matters. It has been dark and cloudy at most of my daughter's soccer games this spring. Faster, but heavier lenses have been necessary. Today is bright and sunny. I look forward to taking slower, but much smaller and lighter lenses. Looks like it might be a 90 f4 Elmar and a 135 f4.5 Hektor day today. The 90 Cron and 135 Elmarit are staying home today.

 

[harry01562]

As have already been said here, size, weight and character make bg differences in what lens decisions to make. I own an older Serenar 28/3.5, that Raid mentioned earlier, as well as the much newer Canon 35/2. The Canon is still a small lens, but the chrome 3.5 is really tiny. There is also a big difference in the character of the lenses. For many scenes, I prefer the 3.5, but the 35/2 is one of my favorite lenses, overall. If I were carrying a Barnack or a bottom load Canon, I would probably put the 3.5 on it, to make a nice, compact package. That's an outfit that works well for street work, and with modern films, it is still versatile.

If I were doing landscapes, I might well go for MF, where weight and size can be compensated by tripod use. I can also have great fun with a MF and a 30/2.8 full frame fisheye. Great fun at places like amusement parks or family outings. The 35mm equivalent is a 16/2.8, and there is a Russian lens that adapts nicely for that. DOF is so wide at that point, that focusing by quesstimate is not a problem.

You will find that as you progress you will either find yourself condensing and focusing on just a small group of lenses, or just the opposite... wanting specific glass to do special tasks,and needing much more equipment. There are also a few people who occupy a middle course, who may be the lucky ones. Anyway it works out will be the right option, if you enjoy what you're doing.

At bottom, fun is where its at....

Harry

 

[projectbluebird]

The first lens I bought for my M3 was a faster v1 summilux (1.4). It was the only lens I was able to use for almost a year. A great lens. The second lens I bought was a DR summicron (2.0), which has since become the lens I use for general photography.

It isn't much lighter, and only slightly smaller. But it is much sharper, and less prone to veiling flare. Something that the summilux is quite good at.

That said, the typical scenario for using each lens is different.
I generally shoot with the summicron during the day, with 200ASA film.
The faster lens comes out at night, with 3200ASA. (typically) Which gives me 5 stops greater range. (4 from the film, 1 from the lens.)

I could use the faster lens for everything, but slower lenses make good photographs too!

 

[hans voralberg]

For me, because they are smaller. And on occasion when fast lens just dont get used at all, like high noon in SEA, 17-19EV, you'll burn out everything with large aperture

 

[Bill58]

Check this out as an answer to your question: http://www.dantestella.com/technical/fast.html

 

[oftheherd]

I don't have a stable of many different aperture lenses in RF. I do in SLR. I will almost always opt for the faster lens so I will never be bothered by not getting a photo that could have been taken if I had the faster lens. Evidently I am either in the minority, or there is something I don't know. I have never tested lenses against each other. Mostly I have more lenses because I got them at a price no one could have passed up, or they came with something else I wanted, or sometimes to get something I could use and loose without too much crying. I can tell you that my Fujica lenses don't flare, even directly into the sun. They are better than the T* Planars I have, which are otherwise great lenses. My Yashinons are pretty good too, but the Yashikors will flare if you just say that word within 30 paces.

Don't know if that helps you any.

 

[Colman]

Size and weight, especially when you're throwing in a second lens just-in-case?

 

[TheHub]

3.5 is slow? Back when I did digital I was using 5.6 lenses

My personal rule is not to spend more than $400 on a lens, I don't care how good it is or how much people rave about it. If an f3.5 or f4 is cheap (and doesn't suck) I'll buy it.

I try to get the best equipment I can for the lowest prices I can.

 

[vieri]

... Back when I did digital ...

Reading this nearly cracked me up! 😀 IMHO it's fantastic to see that so many are back to film from digital, and to see the "back when I did digital" attitude, normally we get this just in reverse from digital converts telling us "back when I did film"... 😉 by the way, I am happily doing both according to what the job needs.

 

[ferider]

There is a lot of wrong perceptions around "fast" lenses; here are a few also found in this thread:

- a fast lens must be bigger. Not true, compare a 35/1.4 Nokton to a 35/2 Biogon for instance.
- a fast lens has very shallow DOF when compared to any other slower lens. For example, "the Noctilux is the hardest lens to focus". Not true, a 90/2 is as hard or harder to focus when compared to a 50/1. If it existed, a new 50/.85 Noctilux will still be easier to focus than a 75/1.4 Summilux.
- a fast lens flares more. Not true if you compare a CV 35/1.2 Nokton to a 35/1.4 classic Summilux, for instance.
- the faster a lens, the easier to hand-hold. Not true, a 35/1.2 is as easy to hand-hold as a 50/1, for instance.

Etc.

It's all really lens and focal length dependent.

Roland.

 

[Matthew Allen]

There is a lot of wrong perceptions around "fast" lenses; here are a few also found in this thread:

- a fast lens must be bigger. Not true, compare a 35/1.4 Nokton to a 35/2 Biogon for instance.
- a fast lens has very shallow DOF. Like the Noctilux is the hardest lens to focus. Not true, a 90/2 is as hard or harder to focus when compared to a 50/1.
- a fast lens flares more. Not true if you compare a CV 35/1.2 Nokton to a 35/1.4 classic Summilux, for instance.
- the faster a lens, the easier to hand-hold. Not true, a 35/1.2 is as easy to hand-hold as a 50/1, for instance.

Etc.

It's all really lens and focal length dependent.

Roland.

-Fast lenses do tend to be bigger though. The maximum aperture of a lens determines the size of the entrance pupil so a fast lens must be a certain minimum size for that maximum aperture. The differences in lens dimensions are accounted for by the differing approaches of manufacturers.

-For the 90mm focal length, I would call f2 pretty fast. For 35mm, f1.2 is as fast as it gets. Fast doesn't mean f1/1.2/1.4 by definition, it just means a pretty big aperture for a given focal length.

-Some fast glass is more flare prone and given two lenses of similar overall design that sport similar coatings, the one with the greater expanse of glass at the front will be more prone to flare.

These aren't misconceptions, they are generalities which quite often apply.

Matthew

 

[ferider]

These aren't misconceptions, they are generalities which quite often apply.

They just don't - misleading generalities is what they are. Let's pick a set of typical fast 50mm lenses, for instance. Look at the range of sizes:

In increasing size:

- Canon 50/1.5 (40mm filter thread, arguably smaller than the rigid Summicron)
- Nikkor 50/1.4 (43mm filter thread)
- Zeiss ZM C-Sonnar 50/1.5 (46mm filter thread)
- Summilux preasph 50/1.4 (46mm filter thread)
- Canon 50/1.4 (48mm filter thread)
- CV Nokton 50/1.5 (52mm filter thread)

All good lenses, similar spec. The last one, volume-wise, is probably 3 times or more the size of the first one.

Roland.

 

[TheHub]

Reading this nearly cracked me up! 😀 IMHO it's fantastic to see that so many are back to film from digital, and to see the "back when I did digital" attitude, normally we get this just in reverse from digital converts telling us "back when I did film"... 😉 by the way, I am happily doing both according to what the job needs.

I'm glad I was able to bring some humor to your day 🙂

I see quite a few people who've come back to film these days. Maybe there's hope still ... :angel::dance:

 

[vieri]

I'm glad I was able to bring some humor to your day 🙂

I see quite a few people who've come back to film these days. Maybe there's hope still ... :angel::dance:

I am sure there is hope 😀 film manufacturers still up and running, new films or emulsions coming out, more people going back to it, it all looks like a (small) virtuous circle that will (hopefully) keep film alive and around for quite a while. Not sure about distribution though, here (Istanbul, Turkey) film seems to have been slowly disappearing from the shelves of general photography shops, but in turn this seems to have reinforced the position of the very few specialty shops dealing just with film and film related products. Ilford is going strong here, Kodak slightly less present... we'll see what the future will bring.