Are the D3s of the world killing fast lenses?

[FidelCastrovich]

Well, that's basically the whole discussion.

When we're able to shoot at ISO 6400- which is close to science fiction if you ask a photog. from the 70s - do we really need to have zoom lenses that are f2.8 or faster? I mean, the fast primes will hold their ground, i'm sure - superior IQ and such.
But a 16-35 f2.8? 70-200 2.8? Who needs the weight and the size when you can just bump the ISO up a notch, or two, or all the way to 25000?

Is "the chip" pulling the carpet from underneath the quest for the fastest lens? Are the photo companies shooting themselves in the leg?

 

[Digital Matt]

Aperture is a not only a factor of exposure. It also controls depth of field.

 

[sabbath999]

No, the D3's of the world are enhancing the effectiveness of fast lenses. Fast lenses plus higher ISO = expanded creativity & more options.

 

[Big Mike]

Most people will always want more...few of them will be satisfied enough to give up something that was previously so coveted...and the camera companies feed this behavior happily.

There may be a few, or even more than a few photographers who opt for F4 lenses rather than F2.8...but there are millions more who won't be happy until they are getting sharp hand held shots at 3 seconds, shooting noise free at ISO 128000, using a 16 billion color gamut and getting a 15 stop range in one exposure. :er:

 

[nossie]

Funny you ask I was just reading this guy's words about what these little extras do to how he works... http://planetneil.com/tangents/

 

[FidelCastrovich]

Aperture is a not only a factor of exposure. It also controls depth of field.

But that's a side dish, never the MAIN reason people invest in fast lenses.
When a sports photographer chooses a 300 f2, he does so to allow for faster shutter speeds, mostly . A 300mm from 80 ft will give you a pretty shallow DOF, at 2.8 as well as at 4.

sabath999-These enhancements make me feel like i used to feel when i employed cheat codes in computer games. It's fun to have unlimited armor and ammo, but i makes the game a total bore. My opinion is that limitations make us think and adapt and explore.
But that's just me - I'm Russian, we thrive under limitations. Too much freedom feels awkward.

Big Mike - So do you feel these changes/upgrades/improvements/developments (otherwise blessed and welcome) are detrimental to Photography?

Nossie - looks interesting, i'll give it a read tomorrow.

 

[Digital Matt]

I don't know about you, but depth of field is never a side dish to my images. It's a huge factor in how I shoot, and I think the same is true for most photographers who impart creativity into their photography. Sports photographers are not the only photographers investing in fast glass. (and I'm not saying that sports photogs are not creative either)

 

[Jestev]

But that's a side dish, never the MAIN reason people invest in fast lenses.
When a sports photographer chooses a 300 f2, he does so to allow for faster shutter speeds, mostly . A 300mm from 80 ft will give you a pretty shallow DOF, at 2.8 as well as at 4.

I disagree with you, here. I don't want a f/2.8 lens just because it's faster than a f/4-5.6. It's got better DOF and I love being able to have a wide range when it comes to DOF.

I don't think improvements of camera bodies will ever make lenses (of any variety) un-needed. As camera bodies become better and better, photographers will be able to push the line between possible and impossible even further and come closer to it. I think that what it does, if anything, is enable photography as an art to continue to evolve much better than many other art forms.

 

[JIP]

I buy fast lenses for more than one reason. The better light gathering is one factor but it is equal to depth of field plus a faster lens is sharper than a slower one. Honestly a statement like this makes me seriously question your knowledge. Besides seriously fast film has been around alot longer than you might think.

 

[craig]

I get your point and I believe you are correct. Lens manufactures are psyched that the standard is 2.8 or smaller. Personally my work is generally at ƒ8 or smaller. None the less I have a Nikon 50mm ƒ1.4. I have scene the Leica ƒ1.0 not a pretty sight.

Love & Bass

 

[jstuedle]

I love my fast glass, and plan to use it just as much if not more when the D3 gets here. The DOF isolation with the big aperture is just very special. Being able to use it in low light hand held is so sweet, I'll never let go of them. Hopefully them manufactures will only promote big/fast glass even more.

 

[Garbz]

Then there's the general quality issues with the f/2.8 lenses. They are generally made for more serious types rather than consumers so even if it weren't for the light or the DOF a f/2.8 lens at f/5.6 is often significantly sharper than their kit equivalents.

 

[FidelCastrovich]

Okay, i guess i should have made a differentiation between serious hobbyists who choose fast glass and primes for their other qualities, and professionals whose main concern is to be able to shoot in any condition. The quality taking the passenger seat to that.

(Of course, that's not to say that OTHER professionals, like portrait photographers, fall in the same category. Everyone has different needs.)

I'm just saying that my feeling is that a wedding photographer or PJ, in ten years time, will be able to "settle" for an f4 zoom, and go with a body that gives him incredibly (to us) wide ISO range.

Garbz - that's a good point, but again, people who need to shoot in low light, do so at f2.8, for the SOLE reason of being able to capture the moment, with IQ taking a back seat.

Consider the constant discussion of whether to go with Canon's 24-70 f2.8L or the 24-105 f4L, or their telephoto cousins, the 70-200 f4L and f2.8L (IS or not).
How many times do we tell people here, who are deliberating between the 2.8 and the f4 (IS or not), that only a faster lens can stop action, and all that?
Even if both lenses are amazing, pro-grade L glass, that outperforms 90 percent of anything that was available thirty years ago, we still tell them that f2.8 is the only way to go if you want to be able to stop the action in low light.

I'm just asking if at ISO 12800 or higher, this will continue to be a consideration.
And how many people will choose the f2.8 just for its bokeh.

Or on the flipside - how many people will prefer the lighter , smaller 70-200 f4 IS, over the heavier (double the weight, actually) and bigger 2.8 IS.

 

[Digital Matt]

Okay, i guess i should have made a differentiation between serious hobbyists who choose fast glass and primes for their other qualities, and professionals whose main concern is to be able to shoot in any condition. The quality taking the passenger seat to that.

(Of course, that's not to say that OTHER professionals, like portrait photographers, fall in the same category. Everyone has different needs.)

I'm just saying that my feeling is that a wedding photographer or PJ, in ten years time, will be able to "settle" for an f4 zoom, and go with a body that gives him incredibly (to us) wide ISO range.

Garbz - that's a good point, but again, people who need to shoot in low light, do so at f2.8, for the SOLE reason of being able to capture the moment, with IQ taking a back seat.

Consider the constant discussion of whether to go with Canon's 24-70 f2.8L or the 24-105 f4L, or their telephoto cousins, the 70-200 f4L and f2.8L (IS or not).
How many times do we tell people here, who are deliberating between the 2.8 and the f4 (IS or not), that only a faster lens can stop action, and all that?
Even if both lenses are amazing, pro-grade L glass, that outperforms 90 percent of anything that was available thirty years ago, we still tell them that f2.8 is the only way to go if you want to be able to stop the action in low light.

I'm just asking if at ISO 12800 or higher, this will continue to be a consideration.
And how many people will choose the f2.8 just for its bokeh.

Or on the flipside - how many people will prefer the lighter , smaller 70-200 f4 IS, over the heavier (double the weight, actually) and bigger 2.8 IS.

The D3 is a $5000 camera, so we are talking about professionals, or at least people who care about the quality of their glass. If you've got $5k for a camera, you don't put a $200 f/5.6 kit lens on it.

 

[chris]

Cranking up the ISO is fine but you also get image degradation, noise etc. If you want the best possible quality then go for a fast lens and keep the ISO down.

As far as weight goes I've never considered it to be a factor when buying a lens, but then I used to hand carry a RB67 around without any problems. I've always preferred fast lenses - focussing is generally faster and easier (both manual and automatic), I can continue in handheld mode in dimmer conditions, use the reduced DoF at or near full aperture to clearly isolate a subject from the background, use faster shutter speeds to reduce motion blur or camera shake and use flash at greater ranges than with a slow lens. As far as I'm concerned a fast lens wins out every time.