back alley
IMAGES
i often read that people want at least one fast lens in their kit...my fastest lens is a 2.5 50mm and while i admit to at times thinking i need a fast lens i always talk myself out of it.
i rarely shoot at night...i'm happy with the rd1 at 800iso if i need it...
yet...i wonder why everyone else seems to need that one fast lens?
where are you guys at with this?
i rarely shoot at night...i'm happy with the rd1 at 800iso if i need it...
yet...i wonder why everyone else seems to need that one fast lens?
where are you guys at with this?
Nomad Z
Well-known
I sometimes think people want/have fast glass 'just in case'. I haven't felt restricted by the f2.5 35mm Skopar that's my main lens, although I'm quite happy hand holding at slow speeds (down to 1/8th seems okay for me). I have almost never used the f1.5 of my J3 (about twice, I think - it's my 'just in case' lens).
kshapero
South Florida Man
I have often felt that I need a fast lens but I have found that my 50/2 cron is fast enough.
Aristophanes
Well-known
Marketing departments say you must have one because you need one.
They are never wrong.
They are never wrong.
[email protected]
Mentor
well, pub shots in the evening works very well at iso 1600, 1/15 and 1.5f.
roundg
Well-known
f2 is fast enough for me, but a 2.5 or 2.8 is not enough.
rbelyell
Well-known
there is a new breed of 'photographer' who want to shoot as fast as possible all the time. i recently bought a used x100 and i asked the young owner if it suffered from the 'sticky aperture' problem where the lens stays open at apertures smaller than 2.8. he literally said' i dont know, never shot it over 2.8. i mean thats why you buy this camera, right, to shoot at 2.0’!
i constantly see pictures on this and other forums shot 'wide open' when the scene demands another aperture, and i constantly read posts about how good this or that lens is 'wide open'. its like chimps at the zoo, all doing the same thing without the slightest thought why.
i learned photography in a way that made use of a variety of apertures, understanding their differences and using them to achieve a result. we really only shot 'wide open' out of necessity or to achieve a certain artistic effect. today its the norm, and shooting at anything else is questioned.
yes this has turned into somewhat of a rant, but i'm really kind of sick of this mindless fast wide open shooting. its just dumb and imo its not photography.
tony
i constantly see pictures on this and other forums shot 'wide open' when the scene demands another aperture, and i constantly read posts about how good this or that lens is 'wide open'. its like chimps at the zoo, all doing the same thing without the slightest thought why.
i learned photography in a way that made use of a variety of apertures, understanding their differences and using them to achieve a result. we really only shot 'wide open' out of necessity or to achieve a certain artistic effect. today its the norm, and shooting at anything else is questioned.
yes this has turned into somewhat of a rant, but i'm really kind of sick of this mindless fast wide open shooting. its just dumb and imo its not photography.
tony
dmc
Bessa Driver
Easy Toni, back away from the coffee pot. The OP just asked the question because he's embarrassed about being too cheap to buy faster glass
Gumby
Mentor
You sure have a way with words. I feel the same way when I see portraits with such shallow DOF that even the nose is OOF. [This is nost often seen on sites dedicated to large format photography, BTW.] I also really kind of sick of this mindless fast wide open shooting. its just dumb and imo its not photography.
KarlG
Established
This is a topic I've been thinking a bit about recently. Since I got a 50 Summicron, I've noticed that it's generally fast enough for the majority of my shooting & I've picked it up over my Nokton 1.1 most of the time due to the size.
Where the light is REALLY low, I'll either be using flash & shoot at f/2.8-4.0 or I'll just take my 5DII (which can shoot relatively cleanly up to 1600 or even 3200 if needs be) & 50/1.4 - that combo isn't actually too big & heavy and I don't mind taking it out to a bar etc (or somewhere else that is really dark!)
Where the light is REALLY low, I'll either be using flash & shoot at f/2.8-4.0 or I'll just take my 5DII (which can shoot relatively cleanly up to 1600 or even 3200 if needs be) & 50/1.4 - that combo isn't actually too big & heavy and I don't mind taking it out to a bar etc (or somewhere else that is really dark!)
Gumby
Mentor
p.s. There is nothing cheap about not wanting to buy faster glass... it's just htat some photographs may always remain unachievable without it.
p.s. my fastest glass is f/1.4 and that lens has rarely even been used at f/2.
p.s. my fastest glass is f/1.4 and that lens has rarely even been used at f/2.
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
Joe, nice thought for discussion. Thanks.
Last week, on Mike Johnston's The Online Photographer blog, John Kennerdell contributed a column about this idea of lens speed as it pertains to depth of field. Here's the link:
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/06/in-defense-of-depth.html
Kennerdell is one of the people that can honestly lay claim to bringing the term "bokeh" into the modern lexicon of photography. The point he makes in this column is that new photographers these days spend a lot of their efforts trying to produce images with VERY thin depth of field. Kennerdell thinks this is a mistake because of all the information that gets left out of a photograph by doing this. His column provides some examples. I agree with John. More often than not (in my experience), providing multiple layers of information by using more depth of field creates images that hold my interest longer.
Last week, on Mike Johnston's The Online Photographer blog, John Kennerdell contributed a column about this idea of lens speed as it pertains to depth of field. Here's the link:
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/06/in-defense-of-depth.html
Kennerdell is one of the people that can honestly lay claim to bringing the term "bokeh" into the modern lexicon of photography. The point he makes in this column is that new photographers these days spend a lot of their efforts trying to produce images with VERY thin depth of field. Kennerdell thinks this is a mistake because of all the information that gets left out of a photograph by doing this. His column provides some examples. I agree with John. More often than not (in my experience), providing multiple layers of information by using more depth of field creates images that hold my interest longer.
maddoc
... likes film again.
My fastest lens for the XPAN is a ...
My fastest lens for the XPAN is a ...
f/4.0 lens (Hasselblad 4/45). While I can live with that principally (and push at least to 1600ISO, sometimes to 3200ISO) it is sometimes (at night) limiting.
One of the "big" advantages of using rangefinder cameras is available light photography and I don`t see any reason to exclude myself from this part of photography by limiting my aperture choices. On the other hand, I agree with the argument that constrained use of f/1.4 or larger (worse if coupled with a ND filter in bright light conditions) reduces the possibilities to arrange multiple layers in a frame by a margin.
My fastest lens for the XPAN is a ...
f/4.0 lens (Hasselblad 4/45). While I can live with that principally (and push at least to 1600ISO, sometimes to 3200ISO) it is sometimes (at night) limiting.
One of the "big" advantages of using rangefinder cameras is available light photography and I don`t see any reason to exclude myself from this part of photography by limiting my aperture choices. On the other hand, I agree with the argument that constrained use of f/1.4 or larger (worse if coupled with a ND filter in bright light conditions) reduces the possibilities to arrange multiple layers in a frame by a margin.
JayM
Well-known
Fast lenses are nice for shooting slow film indoors but with 400 speed film f/2.8 would get in what I consider a hand holdable shutter speed in just about everything but candle light.
Low light is usually weird light and a little motion blur usually spruces it up a bit
Low light is usually weird light and a little motion blur usually spruces it up a bit
ferider
Mentor
Two reason for fast lenses: (1) shallow DOF and (2) speed.
Regarding (1) I don't really care much about fast lens/wide open "bokeh" any more. These days, I'm a sucker for "f5.6 bokeh", just enough to get some 3D but recognize what's in the background. Regarding (2) fast lenses are nice indoors, or when traveling and limiting myself to 400 ASA.
Roland.
Regarding (1) I don't really care much about fast lens/wide open "bokeh" any more. These days, I'm a sucker for "f5.6 bokeh", just enough to get some 3D but recognize what's in the background. Regarding (2) fast lenses are nice indoors, or when traveling and limiting myself to 400 ASA.
Roland.
Livesteamer
Well-known
I do like fast lenses and have a few but.... For the past three years I have been doing most of my photos with a IIIc and 50mm f3.5 Elmar. It's a bit slow at times but it's very pocketable. I also think of when I started taking photos in the early 60's and f2.8 was reasonably fast. As a young man I just had to have a 50mm f1.4, now I don't use them much. Joe
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
I think anyone taking pictures should have one fast lens at least, say f/1.4... Not a technical luxury at all: low light indoors can be real low sometimes, around 1/30 f/1.4 at 3200, close to night shooting...
And just as important for selective focus...
I do most of my shooting on normal light, with a slow (f/3.5) lens, at f/8 and f/11, though...
Cheers,
Juan
And just as important for selective focus...
I do most of my shooting on normal light, with a slow (f/3.5) lens, at f/8 and f/11, though...
Cheers,
Juan
NickTrop
Mentor
Your 50mm (or APS-C equivalent) MUST be at least f2. That is the purpose of this focal length. I can't imagine buying/using a 50mm slower than this. (Your 35mm (or APS-C equiv) should be no slower that f2.8...) If you have only one fast lens in your prime line-up, it should be the 50 and it can not be slower than f2. You almost have to go out out your way to find slower glass in this focal length!
Steve Bellayr
Mentor
In Canada? In the summer in Mexico f2.8 is fast enough but in the winter or indoors f1.5 or f1.5.
gdi
Mentor
What a refreshing "thread"! It is nice to know that there are a few RFFers who know true meaning of "photography".
I agree that nothing keeps me up at night more than knowing that someone out there took a photo the "wrong" way. I check Flickr every evening and there is always some dumb "photographer" who used a faster-than-I-would aperture; I am tired most of "the" time.
I buy fast "lenses" because it is easier for my subjects to check how they "look" in the front element reflection, but I only shoot at F16 (or maybe "F8" if the subject is running, or if I am).
However, I still need to work on the "purity" of my practice in other areas. For example, I have a keyboard with a shift "key" that I just can't prevent myself using to "capitalize" stuff like the first word in a sentence or certain first person singular pronouns.