Do You Really Need Fast Glass

[smoke665]

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).

I have a Pentax FA 50mm f1.4 and FA 35mm f2 that are both great choices when I need to widen my field of view, and the camera is stationary. However I still try to stay close to the aperture sweet spot. 85mm is somewhat the standard for rendering facial features in the most accurate perspective. Going above or below creates perspective distortion especially up close. Going wider seems to be the most noticeable, it can be a problem or advantage depending on how you use it. In this shot I wanted to beef him up, which using a wide angle did in the arms but check out the hand. You can't selectively control the distortion, you can only simplify what it can effect. I should have hidden the hand, but I missed it.

This was shot using an FA 28-105 @ f8, an excellent all around lens. Some like the softness of a shallow DOF on a skin. I know some use it to soften/hide skin imperfections, I tend to embrace imperfections and use lighting/post processing to minimize where needed.

 

[snowbear]

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.

My walk-around is the 24-70/2.8 Nikkor and if I take other lenses with me, they are usually in a backpack case. Last weekend I only took the 24-70 and an older MF 135/3.5 Nikkor in a small pouch (with belt loop). Half-way through the day I pulled the grip and put the big lens in the truck. I needed the rangefinder to focus but it was a lot easier to carry. I might have to go back to the 24-50-105-135 for the extended days and keep the heavy stuff in the backpack.

 

[ronlane]

My answer to this question would be that it depends on what you are shooting and what you want to do with said lens.

For what I do most of the time, sports, I do need fast glass. I work a lot in low lighting situations and need that wide open lens to let in as much light as possible.

Are there times I don't, sure but since that is the "standard" for sports then I have and use them.

I have have said ever since Canon come out with the bigger RF mount, that the f/4 on it is letting in the same light and the EF f/2.8 does. So if you have a canon mirrorless, you could in a lot of cases not need that fast glass and save the money.

If you are a landscape photographer, no you don't need fast glass, since you are mostly at f/8-11 or even f/16.

But Smoke, for shooting portraits, those 85mm primes are way up there on the list. I have the 85mm f/1.8 but I don't use it a lot. Just nice to have if I decide to use it.

 

[smoke665]

But Smoke, for shooting portraits, those 85mm primes are way up there on the list.

Way up on the list for weight and price also. considering I have fast primes on either side and a fast zoom that covers the range i just can't seem to part with the cash for something "I might use occasionally:.

 

[ac12]

Way up on the list for weight and price also. considering I have fast primes on either side and a fast zoom that covers the range i just can't seem to part with the cash for something "I might use occasionally:.

he he
Back in the film days, I had an 80-200/4.5 (a really NICE lens to use), but I got a 105/2.5 for portrature. Not that I took much portaits.
Turned out the 105 was my FASTEST lens, and I used it for low light conditions.

 

[smoke665]

he he
Back in the film days, I had an 80-200/4.5 (a really NICE lens to use), but I got a 105/2.5 for portrature. Not that I took much portaits.
Turned out the 105 was my FASTEST lens, and I used it for low light conditions.

Lot of zooms being used but no comments on advantages of a zoom over a prime. From a personal observation I haven't seen any real IQ difference between my fast primes I have now and my constant aperture fast zooms wide open. The 85mm I was looking at is only 1lb less than the 70-200 and gains 1 stop. Just not seeing the need.

 

[ronlane]

Lot of zooms being used but no comments on advantages of a zoom over a prime. From a personal observation I haven't seen any real IQ difference between my fast primes I have now and my constant aperture fast zooms wide open. The 85mm I was looking at is only 1lb less than the 70-200 and gains 1 stop. Just not seeing the need.

Agreed Smoke. I have 2 zoom lenses in my kit now, the 24-70 and the 70-200 both f/2.8. While I do use them a lot, I have far more prime lenses because of the IQ and the look that you get. (16mm, 50mm, 85mm, 105mm, 185mm, 400mm)

 

[bulldurham]

Interesting read. Fast is relative to the manufacturer. Arguably, a Nikon 50mm 1.4 lens will be better than a Tamron 50mm 1.4, both primes, both advertised as fast though while the Tamron might be "fast" it gives up sharpness at the edges and the Nikon is heavy.... To me, when someone asks about a fast lens, I generally direct them to Zeiss but for quality, fast glass, there is a generally a pretty heavy price to pay.

 

[smoke665]

Agreed Smoke. I have 2 zoom lenses in my kit now, the 24-70 and the 70-200 both f/2.8. While I do use them a lot, I have far more prime lenses because of the IQ and the look that you get. (16mm, 50mm, 85mm, 105mm, 185mm, 400mm)

That's the thing Ron, at equal aperture and equal focal length I'm not seeing the difference between primes and a quality constant aperture zoom for IQ. Typically there's going to be a significant difference in the build quality of the constant aperture lens. Now I'd agree there might be between a prime and a variable aperture zoom.

@bulldurham Yes I've seen noticeable IQ difference in the lower end 3rd party glass.

 

[ac12]

Lot of zooms being used but no comments on advantages of a zoom over a prime. From a personal observation I haven't seen any real IQ difference between my fast primes I have now and my constant aperture fast zooms wide open. The 85mm I was looking at is only 1lb less than the 70-200 and gains 1 stop. Just not seeing the need.

As for advantage of a zoom over a prime. That is FAST focal length changes.
When I use my 35/1.8 in the gym, I am STUCK at 35mm. A third of the time it is too long, a third of the time it is too short. The loss of FL flexibility is the cost of the extra stop. But in LOW light, FAST glass wins.

For me, there are two places where that 1-stop makes a difference
- On the field for high school sports, at night. I shoot with a 70-200/4 at 1/800, f/4, ISO 10000. 1-stop f/2.8, would let me shoot at ISO 5000. And in the DIM corners of my field, I would not need to be up at ISO 25600. Football tends to run into the DIM corners of the field for a TD.
- In the gym. I shoot with either a 35/1.8 at 1/800, f/2, ISO 3200. Or a 17-50/2.8 at 1/800, f/2.8, ISO 6400.
In the gym I can see the difference between ISO 3200 and 6400. I can't see that difference out on the field.

In these situations, the FASTER the lens the better.

But, if I am NOT shooting on the field at night or in the gym, nada.
I'll take a good slower zoom over a fast prime, for the flexibility.

Having said all this, about FAST glass, my short experience with AI Noise Reduction (AI NR) has been eye opening.
Some NOISY low light pictures have been salvaged to better than just usable, some look pretty darn good. Especially considering what they looked like without AI NR.
But AI NR comes with a cost; a GPU $$$ and more processing time.

 

[smoke665]

As for advantage of a zoom over a prime. That is FAST focal length changes.
When I use my 35/1.8 in the gym, I am STUCK at 35mm. A third of the time it is too long, a third of the time it is too short. The loss of FL flexibility is the cost of the extra stop. But in LOW light, FAST glass wins.

I was talking about a 2.8 constant aperture zoom, vs a 1.4/1.8 prime. Their would be the advantage of the stop 1.4 vs 2.8, but generally at a loss of sharpness, so most stop down a stop or two anyhow to overcome it. Then there's the razor thing DOF. Granted with sports at a distance, the DOF wouldn't be as much an issue. As to ISO, I routinely shoot at ISOs of 800-12800 when I have to and clean up post. My avatar is and extreme crop at ISO 25600. You just have to make sure your exposure gives you a full data file. Boosting the exposure post on a high ISO shot is a recipe for noise.

 

[greybeard]

I have a AFS 50mm f/1.8 that I use with a FTZ adapter on my Nikon Z5. I use it for its' beautiful bokeh.

 

[Don Fischer]

I have about no need for fast lense's. Could have used on at a cutting horse show a couple years ago but I don't frequent them. Only other time it might have helped was at a meeting os horse people doing some kind of show themselves. Went three times and first two were outside and fast wasn't needed. last time was indoor arena and I did get some photo's but nothing to brag about! When I used to do dog field trials I was alwaysoutside and again fast didn't matter. I think if you get into fast glass ya really should askyourself how much use would youreally get out of it. I've done to weddings, Both my son's, and used flash did a fe portraits and did them outside, no need for fast. From what I read there are people that can't live with out some fast stuff. They might need it and might not. Seem's I mention adding a flash and they go nuts! Have had portraits done a few times over the years, every time inside and every time the photographer had light's set up! But I think about it and going to something fast and actually needing it means I lose depth of field. I guess for every up there is a down!

 

[Don Fischer]

I have a AFS 50mm f/1.8 that I use with a FTZ adapter on my Nikon Z5. I use it for its' beautiful bokeh.

One of those photo words I have no idea what it means. What's a bokeh? Nice photo BTW!

 

[Don Fischer]

I was just thinking. One of my brother's took his son and son's wife to Africa on a photo safari a number of years ago. Christopher though he'd need a really long lense so went shopping. What he found out was that the lense he was interested in was expensive, really expensive and when he got home he wouldn't probably have that much use for it. So he fixed the problem, he rented it! Still wasn't cheap but didn't break the bank either and Christopher got some really great shot's of wild animals with it. He figured it was his one shot in Africa so he jumped in and never regretted it. Truth be known he's made several more trips over there, I envy him! Funny thing, when he got home from that trip, 3 weeks, he started printing photo's and ended up got a 24" Epson! His dad, my brother, is extreamely well to do but did not get that way by being stupid!