Do You Really Need Fast Glass

[smoke665]

My Nikon 105 f/2.5 is the original 1959 version. Works great.

Leica & Konica via for the first release of an auto focus lens/camera in the 1970-78 range. Pentax hit the street in 1981, and it was 1983 before Nikon would come out with Auto Focus. Aperture control was manual as well. How are you "communicating" with a lens with no means of "communicating"?

 

[Original katomi]

Fast Glass.. Emmmm
not so long ago I Went full frame This meant I had to traded in all my EFS class Decided at the time that the amount of lenses I was going to trade I went for some fast glass in the L series. Its made a huge difference to my out of the box and low light photography. Having that extra stop or two...

 

[smoke665]

made a huge difference to my out of the box and low light photography. Having that extra stop or two...

But what are you shooting? Is it as discussed, specific use, or all around?

 

[cgw]

Leica & Konica via for the first release of an auto focus lens/camera in the 1970-78 range. Pentax hit the street in 1981, and it was 1983 before Nikon would come out with Auto Focus. Aperture control was manual as well. How are you "communicating" with a lens with no means of "communicating"?

A footnote:

Introduction to the F3AF

 

[Original katomi]

 

[Original katomi]

I have an out of the box approach to photography as you can see,

 

[smoke665]

I have an out of the box approach to photography as you can see,

As do I, but tend to use all thd points of the Exposure Triangle like this one 135mm, at f/40, ISO 12,800, 1 sec.

 

[bobthetog]

I mainly shoot the northern lights and fast glass is a definite advantage in reducing coma.

 

[petrochemist]

I see there's currently a fairly fast lens on e-bay the Zeiss Biotar 100mm/0.73
Could be fun but wouldn't work with any of my medium format cameras (which are all fixed lens).

I've blown my budget several times over already this month, so I'll try & resist

 

[greybeard]

I started shooting 35mm film cameras back in the mid 70's. In those days the fastest color film available was ASA 400 but, if you really wanted brilliant colors you had to go with kodachrome 25!!!! slide film. That's ASA 25 (same as ISO) A tripod and a fast lens was a must if you wanted that COLOR. Today I don't think there is a camera that will shoot at ISO 25 and ISO's in 6 figures are common these days. So (imho) fast glass isn't as important for low light photography as it was when I started out but, it is still as important as it ever was when it comes to DOF and boake.

 

[smoke665]

it is still as important as it ever was when it comes to DOF and boake.

I started with 35mm in late 60's, in 70's/early 80's I was shooting for newspaper. I was buying Tri-X 400 in bulk and rolling my canisters. With my own darkroom film speed wasn't such an issue to push it a stop or two when needed.

As to DOF, aperture isn't the only thing that determines the DOF. Focal length and distance to subject also contribute. With Bokeh not all glass is equal, the quality of the out of focus area is dependent more on the construction of the glass, and the quantity/shape of the aperture blades. I have an old legacy Pentax 135mm that produces a creamy smooth Bokeh, but the 70-200mm because of the perspective compression gives a more pronounced effect.

 

[adamhiram]

I'm glad someone brought back this older post, I must have missed it. When I switched to full-frame/mirrorless, I made the decision to only get high quality glass with no compromises. That didn't necessarily mean getting the widest aperture lenses, but I wanted to ensure that anything lacking in my photography wasn't due to cutting corners on gear.

Rarely do I shoot wide open, especially on portrait work

I wholeheartedly agree with this. Most of my portrait work starts at f/8 and is adjusted from there, based on the desired DoF. Last year I collaborated with a natural light family photographer and we were both amused at the differences in our approaches. I shot headshots in a studio environment at f/8 and smaller, and she somehow got the entire family in focus at f/1.4.

I have an old Pentax legacy 135mm f/1.8 that beats out everything in the bag on OOF

That is hands-down my favorite focal length. I learned to shoot portraits on an APS-C body with an 85mm lens, and now 135mm just feels like the sweet spot. It's not always the right lens, but when it is I love the results.

Build quality

This is the main reason I use an almost-2lb 24-70 instead of a 6oz 40mm plastic prime. Again, I don't always need the wider aperture, but the better build and image quality are where it's at.

85mm is a good focal length for portraits, but I have a choice of zooms that cover that focal range

I made the same choice, but the other way around. I've had an 85mm and 135mm in my bag for a few years now, and just picked up a large heavy 70-200 f/2.8 this year for sports. The guys at the camera shop joked that I'd be back in a few weeks to sell them my 85 and 135 now that I had a large fast zoom that covered that range, but that never happened. For sports, the 70-200 is unrivaled - that's what it was designed for. But for portrait work, such a large heavy lens is just unwieldy, and I still prefer the relatively smaller and lighter primes. Technically the 135mm is neither small nor light, but I refuse to give it up.

 

[smoke665]

I shot headshots in a studio environment at f/8 and smaller, and she somehow got the entire family in focus at f/1.4.

Hey Adam...Good to see you're still around. Shooting in Studio, I try to standardize my settings as much as possible. I believe the face should be in focus from the tip of the nose to the back of the ear when I'm dead on tack sharp on the eyes. Give or take a little that will be between 6-7" on most adults, less for kids. Not only is f5.6-8 sweet spot on most glass, but it offers sufficient DOF to get that without backing way off.

I have to roll my eyes at those who shoot family shots at f1.4. If you look close you'll see where they may appear sharp but blow them up for print and you'll see how soft they really are. With an 85mm you'd have to get roughly 30' from the typical family of four to get sufficient FOV and then it would be tight. 30' with f/1.8 on that 85 would give you roughly 32" of DOF, sufficient to get them all in focus, but that's total DOV meaning approximately 48% tapering off to the front of the focal plane, and 52% tapering off from behind the focal plane. Nothing will be as sharp in the DOF as the exact focal plane. Then you have the issue with the inherent lack of sharpness as you go to the opposite extremes on a lens. Course you can drop down to a wide angle but then as you get closer to the subject you have perspective distortion to deal with. Grandma already had a big nose......now she's got a honkin trumpet. LOL If I'm outside I don't generally shoot ambient anyhow. I like to have a flash contributing, so I get that eye highlight and the pop in the subject color.

But for portrait work, such a large heavy lens is just unwieldy, and I still prefer the relatively smaller and lighter primes. Technically the 135mm is neither small nor light, but I refuse to give it up.

My FA 70-200 f2.8 does a fantastic job, but between it and the K1-II body it's bumping 10lbs. Doesn't seem like much until you start hauling it around all day. For walk around comfort the DA 18-135 Ff/3.5-5.6 on the crop frame is my go to. Light weight, good range of focal lengths, sharp, and if I need to the K-3II handles high ISO up to 25,600 quite nicely.

 

[adamhiram]

My FA 70-200 f2.8 does a fantastic job, but between it and the K1-II body it's bumping 10lbs

That's wild! My Z6II with 70-200 f/2.8 lens comes in at around 4.5 lbs. Definitely something to be said for the size and weight savings with newer mirrorless technologies.

I have to roll my eyes at those who shoot family shots at f1.4. If you look close you'll see where they may appear sharp but blow them up for print and you'll see how soft they really are.

I looked through the metadata and most shots were between f/2 and f/3.5, with very few wide open. Those with wider apertures tended to be wider shots, both in terms of focal length (35mm or 50mm) as well as field of view (capturing more of the environment). A few were a little soft on one subject if they were slightly out of the focal plane, but overall no real issues. Definitely not my area of expertise though.

 

[ac12]

I'm glad someone brought back this older post, I must have missed it. When I switched to full-frame/mirrorless, I made the decision to only get high quality glass with no compromises. That didn't necessarily mean getting the widest aperture lenses, but I wanted to ensure that anything lacking in my photography wasn't due to cutting corners on gear.

This is the main reason I use an almost-2lb 24-70 instead of a 6oz 40mm plastic prime. Again, I don't always need the wider aperture, but the better build and image quality are where it's at.

That is because you are still relatively young, and in good physical condition.

I'm past that.
I'm at the stage in life where weight matters.
I shoot what I can carry, or I don't shoot at all. IOW, I have to compromise, to keep on shooting.
My heavy pro lenses, are only used where I can cart them, or close to the car.
If I have to do significant walking or carrying, I bring my lighter non-pro lenses and gear.