Do You Really Need Fast Glass

[Spirit Vision Photography]

I love fast glass, but I don't really need it, often. Currently shopping for a 70-200 f/4 because the cost and weight penalty of 2.8 just isn't worth it to me. Your subject separation gets better and better as your focal length increases, so your bokeh at f/4 at 200mm is pretty nice, actually.

The 70-200 f/4 is a fantastic lens!

 

[The Tinkerer]

Recently purchased a Nikon 85mm f1.4 (AiS) only because the price was too attractive to pass up. With a focus confirm chipped adapter on my Canon it gives excellent results indoors or fading golden hour light. It is a specialist, but one that can be useful in certain situations. Big and heavy though.

 

[AlanKlein]

Fast glass had a real advantage in the past when shooting through an SLR's optical eyefinder which allowed you to see the subject better especially in dim light. LED amplification on new cameras eliminates that problem.

Also, with slower films, you needed more glass to increase the shutter speed, another requirement not needed as much with higher effective ISOs in today's digital cameras.

So today, you're basically spending more for more costly glass that weighs more to carry around. Of course, some consider all this a badge of honor.

 

[smoke665]

@SquarePeg and @CherylL for me its not so much a need, as a nice to have. 85mm is a good focal length for portraits, but I have a choice of zooms that cover that focal range and since most portrait work is with supplemental lighting, having a wide aperture isn't really relevant. In fact shooting at either end of the aperture can be detrimental.

Never had much success with rental.

 

[smoke665]

So today, you're basically spending more for more costly glass that weighs more to carry around. Of course, some consider all this a badge of honor.

Alan I think I agree with you.

 

[webestang64]

I recently got a Pentax 135mm 2.5 lens for free but I'll still use the 3.5 version. I guess because that 3.5 lens has been with me for so long I'm so use to how it feels plus I rarely shoot lower than 400 speed 35mm film anyway.

 

[Spirit Vision Photography]

I'm loving the use of the older AF-D glass on my modern DSLR.

 

[smoke665]

I'm loving the use of the older AF-D glass on my modern DSLR.

Like wine not all years are the same. I have some Legacy glass that's as good as any modern. It's a little more difficult to use without communication with the camera, but not impossible.

 

[cgw]

My only beef is that the tsunami of adapters for MILCs jacked prices and drained down the ocean of MF lenses that once flooded eBay and camera stores(what's that???).

 

[Spirit Vision Photography]

Like wine not all years are the same. I have some Legacy glass that's as good as any modern. It's a little more difficult to use without communication with the camera, but not impossible.

My older AF-D glass communicates perfectly with my D780. And I AI'd my Nikon pre-AI 105 f/2.5 to meter properly on the digital bodies.

 

[smoke665]

I recently got a Pentax 135mm 2.5 lens for free but I'll still use the 3.5 version. I guess because that 3.5 lens has been with me for so long I'm so use to how it feels plus I rarely shoot lower than 400 speed 35mm film anyway.

I have the Asahi 135 f2.5 great little lens. Beautiful creamy OOF tends to be slightly soft at wide open. The only negative is it has a slightly subdued color rendering. Which could actually be a positive given Pentax oversaturates the red and green channel.

 

[smoke665]

older AF-D glass communicates perfectly with my D780. And I AI'd my Nikon pre

You're talking more modern glass, not the same as what's considered Legacy. The Ashai 135 I mentioned is manual focus/manual aperture ring. Later models with the "A" designation allowed the camera to control aperture and several more years before AF became available.

The Pentax 70-200 came out as a manul focus manual aperture f4-5.6 uncoated. Then came the coated SMC, then power zoom which didn't go over.

 

[cdd29]

Depends on use. I tried a 70-200 f/4 but due to the type of photography, went with a 70-200/2.8 as I did need the extra stop. I honestly don't shoot wide open often but the capability comes in handy so I try to get the fastest glass I can, but balancing budget too. I don't see the need to spend $2000 on a 50/1.2 when a $600 50/1.4 will work just fine.

 

[Soocom1]

As per the previous post of weddings and sports-wildlife

I can personally attest to this due to the wedding I shot where the bride was susceptible to bright lights.

I had a total of one lens in the F2.0 range that I used and it helped greatly.

My 85mm f1.8 manual lens was broken by that point in time so I couldn't use it.

But if that's the intent, and especially if you want old school style shooting then yeah I could justify it, and it looks cool as hell on a camera.

 

[Spirit Vision Photography]

You're talking more modern glass, not the same as what's considered Legacy. The Ashai 135 I mentioned is manual focus/manual aperture ring. Later models with the "A" designation allowed the camera to control aperture and several more years before AF became available.

The Pentax 70-200 came out as a manul focus manual aperture f4-5.6 uncoated. Then came the coated SMC, then power zoom which didn't go over.

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