my fastest lens is a 2.5...

I have a CV 1.5 but have never found a need for it. In 35mm format, I much prefer to shoot a 50 at F/5.6 and a 35 at f/2.8 which gives me a nice out of focus background. This is similar to how the human eye sees.
 
I suck at this. But I shoot what I shoot. And I even like some of it. :-J

Recently, I've been toying with exposure calculations & DOF calculations. So I went back and randomly picked out 100 of my photos from various rolls shot in the last couple of years. 77 of the 100 were shot outdoors/plenty of light. (probably in the f8 category.) Another 21 shot indoors were all near a window with good sunlight coming in. (likely slower shutter speed, probably @ f5.6) A very major portion of the 100 were shot with the 35mm f2.8 Jupiter or 28mm f6 Orion.

I've got f2s sitting on the shelf and a Yashica w/f1.4 in a drawer ... somewhere. But to nail down the settings I like - exposure & DOF calculations - and lenses I'm going to need in the future, I took a look at what I liked shooting in the past.

Conclusion: I don't need fast glass. :cool:

My 2 копейки
 
Gid said:
Yes, but size does matter :D
Click to expand...

I don't know, I don't think it would be any heavier than a .5m f1.4.

I have to say that as someone who has been wanting to get into more serious photography for a bit that I'd bought into the faster glass being necessarily better. This thread has made me think about that and I'm noticing that what I'd picked up over the years from the net and Nikon (which is all I've used up till now) may just be wrong. Comparing some of the images on here taken with Jupiter lenses verus newest Nikon 70-200 f2.8 I've been drooling over I'd say right now I've have to go with the Jupiter.
 
back alley said:
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?
Click to expand...

An ultra-fast lens is handy to have for when a shooting situation really needs it, either due to poor light or the desire to reduce the depth of field. That said, the vast majority of the time my lenses are stopped down to between f/2.8 and f/8, even the fast ones.

For RF cameras, I'm generally happy enough with f/2.8 and f/4 lenses. Ultra-fast lenses are more critical with manual focus SLRs, where the lens speed limits the brightness of the viewfinder for focusing and framing.

I do have a few ultra fast lenses for the RF—the Ultron 28/2, Nokton 40/1.4 and Nokton 50/1.5—but I find I often carry the Skopar 35/2.5 and Skopar 50/2.5 instead as they are much smaller, lighter and handier.
 
I use medium format these days and while I'd like a 1.4 to work with a reasonable shutter speed at the end of the day it just doesn't work. Even 2.8 doesn't give enough depth so you're stuck with 1/8s or 1/4s when using 400 film. And then we're not even talking about the weigth.
 
Favorite lens is a 35/2.8 C-Biogon. Good straight from wide open, and I usually shoot it at f/4 to f/5.6. Just like I did with the 35 Summilux ASPH that I had previously. But at those apertures the C-Biogon is a better lens.
 
back alley said:
i am sincerely asking folks about their reasons for fast glass...
Click to expand...

The reason for fast glass for me is 1) to get shots like the one below, and 2) because there are 6 months of rather dark winter here and lots of cafes and pubs to seek joys in ;)

This is the very last shot taken yesterday on my Cron 50, just before I sold it. Now waiting for a Lux 35

l1006164.jpg
 
I use a 50 Recent Elmar and a 35 Summaron 2.8. It's good for what I like to do.

Some people don't need these extra stops, it depends on your technique and aesthetic. I'm not against a very good blurry image, it's part of my work.
 
max = f2.8 is fine with me, as I shoot 80% of my stuff at f4.0 or f5.6.
max = f2.0 makes me feel good about my lifestyle ;)

I buy fast prime lenses (f1.8 - f2.0) when they are not expensive.

You didn't ask, but . . . . I personally feel the shallow DOF technique is way overdone, and sadly mis-applied.
I see noses and ears out of focus in portraits that people gush over, and for the life of me, I just don't get the point.
 
ChrisN said:
Fast glass gives you options.

Narrow DOF is one of the options. Best example I know is Phillip Toledano's Days with my Father

Of course, such lenses can also be used at smaller apertures for a greater DOF. What's not to like? (Perhaps the weight and the price of entry! But if you buy good lenses the chances are that you can get your money back after enjoying them for a while - treat it like rental.)
Click to expand...


Chris thanks for sharing the link. Loved the photographs and the storyline.


On another note: I have fast glass and do love it. The best part is that I have the option to shoot wide open or step it down. At times I love a thin DOF to isolate and other times a wide DOF to capture the entire scene. I love the capability of shooting hand held without a flash in twilight, at night, and indoors. Its all good, what ever your preference, as long as you like it.

Good luck with sorting it all out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top