haempe
Well-known
Depends on what you want.
If you shoot in real low light, a half stop less pushing your film during development can save you sometimes much shadow detail.
If you don't bother about shadows like black holes, you can push a TX 4 stops. I spoke to photographers they called this a "style". Maybe. For me is (for IQ) a 2 stop push the limit. And here starts for me the thinking about fast lenses...
... just my two €-cents
ampguy
Mentor
If you shoot color film, and want low grain, in low light, the f1.0 is a real advantage over f1.4.
Last edited:
kram
Well-known
I was wondering when peole would mention Bokeh of lens wide open. have my ZM C Sonnar f1.5, and at f1.5/2.8- it certainly is different in a good way, so I can't justify a f1.1 for this reason. If I won a 50 Noctilux ASPH f0.95, I would use it and keep it. Lieca pulled out all the stops to make sure it was a fantastic lens (at a fantastic price), so I will not be getting one of them. I have read (and looked at photos) of the old 50 Noctilux f1.0, I like the Notkon f1.1 as much (I can pick it up for les than half the price of the old f1.0 Noctilux. The 35mm f1.2 get good reviews but has poor contrast (most people say, until f2.8). Has anyone (there must be lots of people), who have got these fast lenses, used them wide open, and found they prefer the slightly slower lens for their overall performance.
I used to have a f1.4 50mm nikon AF lens, didn't get on with it, always seem to use the 60mm f2.8 marco - because at all aperatures it was better.
It was only when I got my Zeiss ZF f1.4 50mm, I started to use the lens wider than f2.8 - and was happy with the results.
How do the fast 50mm RF lens (wider than f1.4, compare to f1.4 SLR lens 35mm and 50mm focal lengths). Any body carried out their own tests/observations.
I used to have a f1.4 50mm nikon AF lens, didn't get on with it, always seem to use the 60mm f2.8 marco - because at all aperatures it was better.
It was only when I got my Zeiss ZF f1.4 50mm, I started to use the lens wider than f2.8 - and was happy with the results.
How do the fast 50mm RF lens (wider than f1.4, compare to f1.4 SLR lens 35mm and 50mm focal lengths). Any body carried out their own tests/observations.
Last edited:
maddoc
... likes film again.
A well serviced Noctilux (50/1.0) is challenging and fun to use in low-light conditions and yes, it pretty much equals a 35/1.4 for hand-held shooting.
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.
I use the Nokton for low-light, and the J-3 or Zeiss Sonnar for Bokeh.
jaredangle
Photojournalist
The unique signature from the lens was one of the deciding factors for me when I bought the Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 to replace my 50mm f/1.8. I wanted to trade the sharpness and higher contrast of the f/1.8 lens for the character and lower contrast for black and white that the faster lens offered. The 50mm f/1.8 was too harsh in my opinion when shooting black and white. The extra stop in speed is also great, as it helps keep my shutter speed closer to 1/60th when I'm shooting in a dim environment with faster film.
overtoom
Established
Because it suits my style. For my wedding work (mainly with DSLR), I often need to shoot wide open. Even with ISO 4000.
Sometimes of course, I like to shoot with f8 or even f11. But I rather stop a fast lens down then to carry a slow lens with me.
Sometimes of course, I like to shoot with f8 or even f11. But I rather stop a fast lens down then to carry a slow lens with me.
Ariefb
Established
I found 50/1.2 saved me many times in a very dark church. Higher IQ of today's digital sensor also helps.
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
I'll never understand why people who shoot at moderate apertures buy this expensive glass. But for those of us who shoot a lot of available light in dim places, that half or one full stop of extra light can mean the difference between a usable shot and an almost usable shot.
matthewm
Well-known
Well personally, I like faster lenses because they're usually sharper sooner... What I mean is that most lenses aren't tack sharp wide open. Usually, if you jump down a stop or two, you start getting into the sweet spot. By f/5.6 or f/8, there usually isn't much of a difference.
I use a 35 f/1.4 on my EOS system. By f/2 it's as sharp as I'd ever want a lens to be. Wide open, it's acceptable. I had the 35 f/2 lens, but had to stop down to f/2.8 or so to get to that sweet spot. Wide open, it left a lot to be desired. On my 50/1.4, it's tack sharp at f/2. On my 50/1.8 that I had before, it was soft until f/2.8 or so.
I rarely shoot wide open. But being able to shoot at f/2 vs f/2.8 or 3.5 is helpful.
I use a 35 f/1.4 on my EOS system. By f/2 it's as sharp as I'd ever want a lens to be. Wide open, it's acceptable. I had the 35 f/2 lens, but had to stop down to f/2.8 or so to get to that sweet spot. Wide open, it left a lot to be desired. On my 50/1.4, it's tack sharp at f/2. On my 50/1.8 that I had before, it was soft until f/2.8 or so.
I rarely shoot wide open. But being able to shoot at f/2 vs f/2.8 or 3.5 is helpful.
Mablo
Well-known
Rangefinder cameras are ment to be small, light and agile. I tried the fast lens route but just couldn't justify the added weight and size. Why not use a SLR instead of a rangefinder then?
haempe
Well-known
The RF has especially in low light his advantages over SLR in focussing and framing because the bright viewfinders.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
secksthoi
Established
You make it sound like it's a bad thing.
lemalk
Rebel Without Applause
EXACTLY.
I have an M8 which isn't necessarily known for being great at high ISOs so having a 1.5 and a 1.2 has helped me get some almost-impossible shots in very low light.
I also have a 1.4 50mm for my DSLR and E-P2 which outperform the M8, but focusing that lens in darkness is an exercise in patience and extreme frustration.
God bless the rangefinder patch.
Neare
Well-known
It's not a bad thing.
There are good uses of Bokeh and not so good uses of Bokeh. But that is the same with anything.
However, the current flickr & co. trend is that if you can't shoot your lens wide open, don't bother taking the photo.
I was on the Bokeh buzz for a little while but have since stopped, the reasons are my own.
Voe
Member
To answer the OP, latest Leica aspherical lenses are designed to be sharp even wide open which is needed for low light.
kram
Well-known
I agree, but is the extra cost/mass of of shooting at f1.2/1.1/1 over F1.4 (that's is a half stop, three quarter stop, one stop max worth it).
I ahve just purchased a 28mm f2 ultron, it weighs 244g (I think) i plan to use this instead of my Nikon f2.8 28mm lens.
matthewm
Well-known
Well, it's worth it for me because I shoot with a 5D gripped or an EOS 1N for a lot of my stuff. When I had my Bessa R2a, I put a 50/1.1 on it and immediately regretted it. When I want to pack light and still shoot with an SLR, I use an OM4, but no big glass.
I think if size is a non-issue, get the fast glass. But in the RF world, the smaller the better usually so I can see where putting a giant lens on the front is counter-productive.
I think if size is a non-issue, get the fast glass. But in the RF world, the smaller the better usually so I can see where putting a giant lens on the front is counter-productive.
kram
Well-known
post was posted before I finished typing??
There is no weight penalty of the Ultron f2 over the f2.8 (even compared to range-finder lens (a few grams at the most) But the Nokton 35mm f1.2 over any f1,4 design big increase for half a stop.
There is no weight penalty of the Ultron f2 over the f2.8 (even compared to range-finder lens (a few grams at the most) But the Nokton 35mm f1.2 over any f1,4 design big increase for half a stop.