Roger Hicks
Mentor
Dear Al,
Absolutely! I'm going to steal that one...
What I really like about the responses here is that most are by people who know what they are talking about, i.e. they take low-light pictures and know whether they have adequate kit or dream kit. They also, in most cases, know what effect they want. A major improvement over receding fence-posts!
Tashi Delek,
R.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
I could not agree more. The only thing I'd add is that sometimes, we change. What we liked 40 years ago, or 30, or 20, or 10, or 2, is not necessarily what we like now.
And even if we like the same things as 40 years ago, we may approach them differently.
Tashi delek,
R.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Al Kaplan
Mentor
Roger, I'm probably one of the few folks here that not only was shooting 40 years ago but still have all the negatives and contacts numbered and filed. Over the years I've tried new cameras, films, and techniques. I've shot studio stuff and learned lighting and view camera techniques because there were bills to pay.
When I look back over the journalistic stuff I shot in the 60's and 70's and compare it to what I'm shooting now, just for fun for the most part, I think that the same "me" is very obvious in both groups of photos. I still have a penchant for the widest lens available~ 19mm Canon then, 15mm Heliar now ~ B&W film, rangefinder cameras, similar compositions, the same kinds of available light. What has changed are the subjects. They mostly tend to be a lot older now. On the other hand, when I'm shooting younger folks, they're often dressed like their grandparents were back then. Faded jeans, shaggy hair on the guys, long straight hair, too much eye liner, hip hugging jeans or miniskirts on the girls. They even listen to acid rock! Who could have imagined that The Doors, Cream, Pink Floyd, etc. would still be getting radio play, or that 20 year olds would be jealous of me because I still have the original vinyl. And it's also amazing how many of them see me and say "Ooh,that's a Leica!"
I'd love to meet some college girl who's grandmother I once photographed. It would be interesting to go around with her to some of the same locations where I photographed her grandmother way back when...
When I look back over the journalistic stuff I shot in the 60's and 70's and compare it to what I'm shooting now, just for fun for the most part, I think that the same "me" is very obvious in both groups of photos. I still have a penchant for the widest lens available~ 19mm Canon then, 15mm Heliar now ~ B&W film, rangefinder cameras, similar compositions, the same kinds of available light. What has changed are the subjects. They mostly tend to be a lot older now. On the other hand, when I'm shooting younger folks, they're often dressed like their grandparents were back then. Faded jeans, shaggy hair on the guys, long straight hair, too much eye liner, hip hugging jeans or miniskirts on the girls. They even listen to acid rock! Who could have imagined that The Doors, Cream, Pink Floyd, etc. would still be getting radio play, or that 20 year olds would be jealous of me because I still have the original vinyl. And it's also amazing how many of them see me and say "Ooh,that's a Leica!"
I'd love to meet some college girl who's grandmother I once photographed. It would be interesting to go around with her to some of the same locations where I photographed her grandmother way back when...
projectbluebird
Film Abuser
Unfortunately, I prefer 35mm focal length, there are much less option there...
In terms of compactness, or speed?
canon had a 35/1.5, canon and nikon both made 35/1.8's, canon and leica made/make 35/2's, there's always the leica 35/1.4 and the speed king the CV 1.2, which is neither cheap, nor compact.
If you want truly compact, find a nikon 35/2.5. It's about half a stop slower than f/2, but you can't get much smaller.
Soeren
Well-known
Last night I did some shots of my wive and the youngest of my sons (3 months).
I had my F100 loaded with Neopan 1600 @ boxspeed and f/1,4 the shutterspeed was 1/80sec. My Ikonta was loaded with Tri-X 400 rated @1250 (Soup in Diafine) giving 1/10 sec, f/3,5. I think I need the speed, even with D3200 I'd come out with 1/160 @f/1,4 or something like 1/25 @ f/3,5 on my Ikonta.
Furthermore I like the pics from the 85mm @ f/1,4
Kind regards
I had my F100 loaded with Neopan 1600 @ boxspeed and f/1,4 the shutterspeed was 1/80sec. My Ikonta was loaded with Tri-X 400 rated @1250 (Soup in Diafine) giving 1/10 sec, f/3,5. I think I need the speed, even with D3200 I'd come out with 1/160 @f/1,4 or something like 1/25 @ f/3,5 on my Ikonta.
Furthermore I like the pics from the 85mm @ f/1,4
Kind regards
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Oooh, you're right. But where can you find let's say, Nikon 35/1.8 nowadays? isn't that only packaged with the SP special edition?
Fast 35mm Canon lenses are big, I've seen them. So are leica's and I'm not paying their price of admission.
I'll investigate the 35/2.5, screwmount only, right?
The Canon RF mount 35/2 is fairly small, and quite sharp. Higher contrast than the Canon 35/1.8. I will have to do a side-by-side between the Canon 35/2 (LTM) and Nikkor 3.5cm F1.8 (S-Mount). It's close between the two. The latter lens is rare in LTM.
sanmich
Mentor
I have a Canon 35mm 1.5. It's not tiny, but not huge.
Much bigger than the 1.8 though. 48mm filter, but half the length of a 50 1.4.
a bit too big for a barnack but feels comfortable on an M.
Much bigger than the 1.8 though. 48mm filter, but half the length of a 50 1.4.
a bit too big for a barnack but feels comfortable on an M.
notturtle
Well-known
people talk about shooting a lot of the time at f1.4 or so with their 50 velvia or Efke 25/50, but what about the DOF? I find that I want selective focus some of the time, but more often I want shots with a mondicum of DOF and so if shooting one roll of film, faster film is better because I can get DOF when I want it and open up and shoot faster when I want narrow DOF. What is it you guys are doing that you can chug thru a roll of 36 with every composition needing narrow DOF? I have mainly f2/2.8 lenses and find them adequate. A fast lens in the bag would be handy, but generally losing more DOF is not going to work for me. Faster film, a monopod or bracing myself against a wall or similar is likely to give the more appealing neg.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
I very much agree, but I've always been into 'available darkness' and there are times when I've shot 1/8 @ f/1 and ISO 2500. It's a question of having the choice: you can always stop down a fast lens, but there's a limit to how far you can open up a slow one.
Tashi delek,
Roger
projectbluebird
Film Abuser
You've got some good points notturtle, but as someone who shoots a lot of efke 25 and 50 I can honestly say that I've never shot an entire roll wide open. My standard walkabout lenses are f1.4/2, but outside during the day it's too bright to shoot at those apertures, even if I wanted to.
However, having the choice of those apertures allows me to have selective DOF, if I want or need it. Comes in handy in shadows, and when you need it, you NEED it. Also, one lens on the camera is easier to carry than a second lens in a bag. Especially if you don't have another lens, or a bag.
Some of the reasons I like slower films are the smoothness and the tonal range I get from them, they do have their limitations though. High speed films have their own limitations too, but I've also shot at 1.4 around 1/8-1/15 of a second with 3200 speed films.
One of the things I enjoy about photography is balancing the trade-offs to reach a useful setup for shooting. Be it film/lens/camera speed, cost, size, or quality.
However, having the choice of those apertures allows me to have selective DOF, if I want or need it. Comes in handy in shadows, and when you need it, you NEED it. Also, one lens on the camera is easier to carry than a second lens in a bag. Especially if you don't have another lens, or a bag.
Some of the reasons I like slower films are the smoothness and the tonal range I get from them, they do have their limitations though. High speed films have their own limitations too, but I've also shot at 1.4 around 1/8-1/15 of a second with 3200 speed films.
One of the things I enjoy about photography is balancing the trade-offs to reach a useful setup for shooting. Be it film/lens/camera speed, cost, size, or quality.
projectbluebird
Film Abuser
Here's the only photo I could find that shows the size of my 35/2.5 LTM.
(the rest of the gear is my IIIf w/summitar and SBOOI that you see in my avatar, both the canon and nikon 85/2's and some reloadable FILCA's)
Brian, I didn't have any trouble finding my nikkor in LTM, and they pop up frequently on the 'bay that dare not speak it's name. I saw one a few weeks ago that was the newer black and chrome in LTM, very nice.
The going rate seems to be ~$300 more or less. Now if only I could find a 28mm canon or nikon LTM that isn't too expensive...
(the rest of the gear is my IIIf w/summitar and SBOOI that you see in my avatar, both the canon and nikon 85/2's and some reloadable FILCA's)
Brian, I didn't have any trouble finding my nikkor in LTM, and they pop up frequently on the 'bay that dare not speak it's name.
I saw one a few weeks ago that was the newer black and chrome in LTM, very nice.The going rate seems to be ~$300 more or less. Now if only I could find a 28mm canon or nikon LTM that isn't too expensive...
Attachments
Last edited:
Ronald_H
Don't call me Ron
For me photography will never be something to pay the bills. But nevertheless Al, when I have your age I would love to do that with the (grand)daughters of the girls I'm shooting now.
Brian, I didn't have any trouble finding my nikkor in LTM, and they pop up frequently on the 'bay that dare not speak it's name.
The going rate seems to be ~$300 more or less. Now if only I could find a 28mm canon or nikon LTM that isn't too expensive...
I meant that the Nikkor 3.5cm F1.8 in LTM is somewhat hard to find. The Nikkor 3.5cm F2.5 in LTM is more widely available than the Nikkor 3.5cm F1.8 in LTM. I have both lenses in S-Mount. Both are "about" as sharp, but you lose a full stop with the F2.5 lens. I'm liking the Canon 35/2, which I picked up super-cheap. It had some oil on the surface behind the aperture that cleaned off, and was mistaken for Fungus.
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
In reference to the original question...
I find f/2.0 is enough for the vast majority of my work, even nighttime street shooting. However, there are times when I want a faster lens... so I grab one of my Nikons with 50/1.2.
I had a Noct many years ago. Yes, it's an amazing lens but I feel RF generally isn't the best platform for ultraspeed lenses (>f/1.4) due to RF calibration errors. I've always told myself that if I were to get another RF speed lens I'd dedicate and calibrate a body just for that one lens.
I find an SLR to be much more reliable for wide open shooting!
I find f/2.0 is enough for the vast majority of my work, even nighttime street shooting. However, there are times when I want a faster lens... so I grab one of my Nikons with 50/1.2.
I had a Noct many years ago. Yes, it's an amazing lens but I feel RF generally isn't the best platform for ultraspeed lenses (>f/1.4) due to RF calibration errors. I've always told myself that if I were to get another RF speed lens I'd dedicate and calibrate a body just for that one lens.
I find an SLR to be much more reliable for wide open shooting!