Need the speed?

Like "Don't Call Me Ron," i never have enough light.

I have a 5DMkII, which goes up to ISO 25,000 or somesuch, but i'll never use it. I don't even like going above 800. Not because 1600 on a modern dSLR isn't far better than 800 on film, but because 1600 isn't good enough for my needs/wants. When we used fast film in the past, we had to accept the grain. Or, you just didn't shoot in those situations. I generally chose the latter, if i wanted to shoot color, because i can't accept the grain in 35mm ISO 800 films. Even 400 is too much in 35mm....

I shoot indoors a lot. There's NEVER enough light indoors, without strobes. Even if i could get f2 at 1/30, that's not enough. I want to shoot at 1/125 and higher whenever possible. My hands aren't that steady, and even with a rangefinder, at 1/30, i'm not confident i can get sharp results. I'm not content with getting a 'usable' image. I want consistent, repeatably sharp results.

Lastly, a GOOD fast lens probably gives better performance at slightly smaller apertures than a slow lens wide open. I have three f1.2 lenses (CV 35 Nokton, Canon 85/1.2L and a Nikon 50/1.2 AI-S), and quite a few 1.4s. They will all perform better at f2.8 than an f2.8 lens will at 2.8.

As far as size goes, sure, the CV35/1.2 and Canon 85L could be smaller and i'd probably use them much more if they were. But, then again, when i do use them, it's because they go to 1.2. Either for selective DOF reasons, or just for light gathering. And, in those situations, if i didn't have them, i'd probably Not Shoot At All. I just wouldn't go out at night with a 2.8 lens and grainy film, or expect to use ISO3200. I just wouldn't. If we're talking about B&W, it's only a slightly different story. I'd have to WANT grain as an aesthetic component in the picture, not just be able to settle for it. And, most of the time, i just don't want grain under those circumstances.

I love B&W grain. Just not 'in desperation.' It can be really beautiful — Ralph Gibson is always my first example. But, he doesn't shoot at f1.4. Most of the stuff i remember has pretty deep DOF. Wide open, it would just be a lot of 'sludge.'
 
I rarely feel the need for more than f1.8 - f2 for compositional reasons. I like playing with very very shallow depth of field in medium format but not in 35mm where around f2 is enough.

I do wish I could shoot in lower light more effectively, though. F1.7/f1.8 with a 3200ASA film is just about enough, but not always.

I don't have any lenses faster than f1.7.
 
Secret me: "This 1.2 21mm Summi Leissanon is all I need to impress at my next photoclub show off. Gotta send douchebag to get it from rational me. Oi douchebag!"
poor me: "yeah what it this time?"
Secret me: "I need a 1.2 21mm. you go talk to the scroogy guy!2
poor me (to rational me):"I am in desperate need of a 1.2 21mm Summi Leissanon!"
rational me: "Oh yeah what does it do your VC 21 does not?"
poor me:"Well...well you can take photos in dark bars......"
rational me:"...you rarely visit.."
poor me:"I can use it for homework, for research..."
rational me:"C'mon I heard that when you wanted a second netbook!"
poor me (whispers to himself): Crikey what will the secret guy do to me this time!
"....Yeeees and just like the netbook, whose usefulness you doubted it will enhance our potential as a photographer...."
rational me:"...Ok but the costs.."
poor me:"..I'll make cuts and save money!"
rational me": Still the money...."
poor me:"I won't buy myself a treat for xmas!"
rational me:"that's still a gazillion we talk..."
poor me:"no treat for my birthday....and for easter! an and I won't rent DVD's for 7 month!"
rational me: "OK go on then...(mumbles to himself) I'm sure to regret that later on..."
Me Me (wakes up with a terrible headache):"OMG, I have this terrible longig for that Leissanon...I'll post "What do you think about this lens" tbc
 
Stanley Kubrick often used a 50mm f/0.7 Zeiss lens when shooting low light scenes in his films. A 21mm f/1.2 is kind of slow.
 
Al, but what was the T-value ? Not 0,7 I'll bet.

The situation when I was really glad of a f1,4 was in the Arctic autumn. The dawn and dusk last many hours in that season and that far North, and typically the weather was overcast. The favourite pics in my first (group) show for fourteen years were from those times of day. To get the same results from a f2,8 lens would knock a couple of hours off the shooting day, and/or mean bog-trotting with a tripod.
 
I couldn't find anything about the T value. I'd guess more like T 8. Between all those thick chunks of glass and the internal reflections it probably lost 1/4 stop or more.
 
When it comes to RF gears, I value compactness more than speed. Of course I like fast lenses, but if it makes the lens big and cumbersome, I'd settle with "slower."

My current target for upgrade (I only have one body and one lens at a time) is the Nokton 35/1.4, which is smaller than the Ultron I have now. The fact that it's faster is a bonus, not a requirement.
 
Norway gets dark in the winters, so I appreciate every extra notch of speed.

Also, being somewhat passionate about Kodachrome, fast lenses are nice. In Taiwan recently I had to shoot in the range of 1/3 - 1/8 wide open (f/1.5 and 1.7) for most of the time with 64 ISO. I got by, but really could make a use of an extra stop.

Also, when using longer lenses (admittedly not too often by me) there's never too much speed really.
 
> When it comes to RF gears, I value compactness more than speed.

The Canon 50/1.5 is smaller than the 50/1.8. Much smaller than the 50/1.4. I tend to use SOnnar formula lenses over the bigger Planar lenses. The 50/0.95 rarely comes out. Status symbol, maybe.... But for a $200 BIN it was a good buy.

I like shallow depth of field. In the 1980s, I wrote a lot of code that performed image clutter characterization and rejection. Spatial gradients, T-score, background clutter metrics, scene segmentation, real in-depth image analysis stuff. maybe that's why...
 
There are a number of times my camera is half-way through a roll of 400-speed when a subject presents itself indoors in low-light. In this situation, there's no replacement for aperture since I don't generally carry two cameras and changing out film mid-roll is generally not practical if I'm moving both inside and outside.

And even when I know the venue will be low-lit and I take fast film, a fast lens is comforting because too dark seems to be more of a problem than too light.

Though before investing in fast 35's, my interest in fast lenses wasn't very great. I found a 50 often just too long for what I wanted to capture indoors. Thus, I'd just limit myself to f2/f.2.8 and make do, or pop on a little flash unit where I could.
 
Jason Sprenger said:
There are a number of times my camera is half-way through a roll of 400-speed when a subject presents itself indoors in low-light. In this situation, there's no replacement for aperture since I don't generally carry two cameras and changing out film mid-roll is generally not practical if I'm moving both inside and outside.

And even when I know the venue will be low-lit and I take fast film, a fast lens is comforting because too dark seems to be more of a problem than too light.

Though before investing in fast 35's, my interest in fast lenses wasn't very great. I found a 50 often just too long for what I wanted to capture indoors. Thus, I'd just limit myself to f2/f.2.8 and make do, or pop on a little flash unit where I could.
Click to expand...
yep 2.8 is fast enough






[URL="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3611/3354620532_644e305c97.jpg"]
[/URL]
 
Last edited:
fastest lens for the widest framelines on the m8, you can avoid using the higher ISO settings. take away the crop factor and the noise, and it doesn't look as sexy. it just looks heavy, a little too wide angle, and really expensive.
 
Last edited:
2.8 could be fast enough for handheld photos, but the depth of field is much different when you use a f1.4

With a crop-size sensor this could be important, because you need even more speed to get a shallow DOF.

Still I dont think with that price those lenses are an option at all for "regular people".
 
Al Kaplan said:
Take a pistol shooting course at your local gun range.
Click to expand...

Been there, done that, though actually my late father-in-law taught me pistol shooting. He was captain of the pistol team at Cornell in the early 30s and a champion shot for decades afterwards. We still have his Colt .45 National Match and stainless-frame .44 magnum (Ruger) in California, though here in France we have to rely on air pistols. Long before that, in the 1960s, I got my Marksman badge on the Empire Test (Rifle). I'm quite a good shot, and appreciate the cross-fertilization of the two kinds of shooting.

I agree with those who say that (a) there are all too many times when there's not enough light and (b) there are also times when you can have lenses that are too fast (not enough depth of field).

As things stand, I have persuaded myself I need a 24/25mm lens. I don't want to go even slower than f/2.8; I can't think of any f/2 (no, I DON'T want to use a reflex); so it's the marginal cost of the Summilux. Yes, it's a lot more than an f/2.8. But I am leaning towards the view that it's probably worth it.

Oh: and Stewart. Thanks for some really nice shots, which have reduced my already wavering certainty about how much I need a fast 24.

Tashi delek,

Roger
 
Last edited:
There are no too fast lenses, because you can always stop them down. You cant open up a f2.8 more than to 2.8

Probably there are anyway more times when the depth of field is too long, especially with croppy digital cameras and slow zoom lenses (2.8 or 4 max).

Also if you want the same kind of photos with M8 than with film-M, you need shorter focal length and larger or as large maximum aperture (as the longer compared focal length has).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top