Fast glass with mid-range Apature

[EIngerson]

What?

When both shot at 50mm, of course, sorry.

I'm just saying I wouldn't be surprised either way if the 50mm 1.8 for $100 looked better at f/3, or if the 24-70L f/2.8 for $1800 looked better at f/3 and 50mm. That's about the only extreme comparison I can think of where a slower lens might prevail at the same f/stop, and it's still not obvious.
And when you have lenses actually close to each other in price and class, it virtually guaranteed the faster one would win at the same aperture and focal length.

Even my large format lenses from 60 years ago are sharper than their slower modern equivalents at the same apertures and FLs...

Actually, I understood the comparison you were making. What baffled me is how you argued for both lenses at the same time, didn't stand behind either decision and then stated that the information you provided had no substance because you never actually did the comparison.

 

[JeffjjMoore]

Is there a benefit to having fast glass when you are shooting with mid-range apertures?

Brighter view finder, and more usable autofocus.

 

[dxqcanada2]

Is there a benefit to having fast glass when you are shooting with mid-range apertures?

Yes, no, sometimes ... depends on the lens. You cannot make it a general rule.

example ... compare these Nikon lenses at f/5.6 or 8 ... similar
Nikkor AF 28mm f/1.4 D - Review / Lab Test Report - Analysis
Nikkor AF 28mm f/2.8D - Review / Test Report - Analysis

but in this case ... much different
Canon EF 24mm f/1.4 USM L - Review / Test Report - Analysis
Canon EF 24mm f/2.8 - Review / Test Report - Analysis

 

[manaheim]

Faster lenses also tend to be made of better overall stuff... better build quality, and more importantly... better optics. So when you buy the faster glass you don't just get the ability to open up the lens more, you also get overall higher quality images with sharper edges and better color.

 

[Derrel]

 

[minicoop1985]

Is there a benefit to having fast glass when you are shooting with mid-range apertures?

Just because you have fast glass doesn't mean you should always shoot wide-open. That's like buying a car and only driving WOT.

There's another way to drive?


Better glass tends to be faster. It also tends to be exponentially more expensive, unless we're talking primes. A 50 1.8 prime Sony can be had for less than $200, and is pretty sharp, though I prefer the 50 2.8 Macro, personally. And then there's third party. A Sony KIT 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 (note the lack of constant aperture) is $500 by itself, MSRP. My Tamron 17-50 f2.8, an absolutely fantastic lens, was $510.

 

[Steve5D]

What?

When both shot at 50mm, of course, sorry.

I'm just saying I wouldn't be surprised either way if the 50mm 1.8 for $100 looked better at f/3, or if the 24-70L f/2.8 for $1800 looked better at f/3 and 50mm. That's about the only extreme comparison I can think of where a slower lens might prevail at the same f/stop, and it's still not obvious.
And when you have lenses actually close to each other in price and class, it virtually guaranteed the faster one would win at the same aperture and focal length.

Even my large format lenses from 60 years ago are sharper than their slower modern equivalents at the same apertures and FLs...

Actually, I understood the comparison you were making. What baffled me is how you argued for both lenses at the same time, didn't stand behind either decision and then stated that the information you provided had no substance because you never actually did the comparison.

LOLOL!!

 

[JoeW28]

Is there a benefit to having fast glass when you are shooting with mid-range apertures?

Yes, but probably not what you're thinking.

1. "Fast glass" (like an f2.8 200mm zoom) is generally more expensive than mid-range aperture lens. And those mid-range aperture lens (say...an f4.5 200mm zoom) are more likely to be kit or amateur lens. Which means by the nature of their market, they're usually not going to be as good. Not necessarily b/c one is faster or slower, but b/c one is of better build quality than the other. Again, I'm generalizing here...there are always exceptions to this (like comparing a zoom to a prime...the prime will almost always be sharper even if it's a slower lens). So using this perspective (that faster glass is often but not always a better engineered lens) it's like asking "is there a benefit to having a better quality lens even if it has the same focal length and aperture as the kit lens?"

2. Lens are more likely to display chromatic aberration and fuzziness at their extremes. So if I'm shooting with a 200mm zoom that has a maximimum f2.8 aperture but it's set at f4.5 and you're shooting with a 200mm zoom that has a maximum f4.5 aperture and you're shooting at that f4.5 aperture setting, you're more likely to have chromatic aberration and fuzziness. To put it another way, the "sweet spot" for any zoom is rarely at the extremes. So if your zoom is an f4.5 that's often times NOT the ideal aperture for your focus. Again, this a generalization on my part.

3. Contingencies. It's like asking "is there a benefit to carrying a second lens (like a 200mm zoom) when you are shooting with a 50mm prime?" It's nice to be able to call on resources even if you don't intend or plan on using them b/c sometimes you're confronted with shooting situations you didn't anticipate. You may never need it but being able to get f2.8 on a 200mm zoom or f1.8 on a 50mm prime is a nice capacity to have.

 

[JerryLove]

That video is... unfortunate. Lots of ISO changes, and camera moves where there shouldn't be.