fast glass

[table1349]

When I was just a yonker helping my grandad with some cattle on a hot July day I noticed that he had on a long sleeve, and realized he wore a long sleeve shirt every day. I asked him about wearing long sleeves on a hot July Kansas day and the simplicity and truth of his statement was not lost.

"Boy" he said, "I can always roll these sleeves up and make a short sleeve shirt, but there's nothing you can do with them short sleeves of yours but wear em."

I can make a f1.4 lens a f4 with a quick change of aperture. I can't make an f4 lens an f1.4 no matter how hard I try.

 

[TimothyHughes]

people always talk about how important fast glass is, but i rarely hear of people using them wide open, we all know it isnt sharpest there anyways.

For low light shoots like bands in a nightclub, or twilight cityscapes-fast glass is extremely important. I love my 35, 50 and 85mm primes!

 

[usayit]

I can make a f1.4 lens a f4 with a quick change of aperture. I can't make an f4 lens an f1.4 no matter how hard I try.

Oh yes.. but you can't really have a full discussion without first deciding zooms or primes. Just like an f/4 lens will never open up to f/1.4, a fast zoom doesn't handle like a nice compact zoom nor the fast f/1-1.4 aperture found in primes.

The way I see it... (and how it fits my shooting habits) fast zooms are practically a waste of money. They typically are heavy, not compact, and often limited in focal range. This all negates the advantages of the convenience of a range of focal lengths. What do you get out of it?.. a max aperture for f/2.8 which in my mind is not good enough.

If you need speed, get primes with f/1.8 or faster max aperture and excellent IQ.

If you need flexibility, get a high quality zoom focused on wonderful handling and good IQ.

I just find fast zooms a compromise not worth taking... Timothy above my post figured out the same.

 

[table1349]

usayit;1567985]Oh yes.. but you can't really have a full discussion without first deciding zooms or primes. Just like an f/4 lens will never open up to f/1.4, a fast zoom doesn't handle like a nice compact zoom nor the fast f/1-1.4 aperture found in primes.

Sure you can. My whole premise was simple. Right tool for the right job.

I've owned both the 70-200 f4 and the 70-200 f2.8. They handle the same. Zoom speed was free, easy, and quick. Manual focus was smooth, easy, & quick. Weight wise we are are talking about the difference between 1.55 lbs and 2.8 lbs. A whopping 1.2 lbs difference.

I carry the 70-200 f2.8 for 8-12 hours at a time along with a 400 f2.8. Right tools for the job and the 1.2 lb difference is not even noticeable. But then I come from the days when cameras were steel, motor drives were steel and lenses were metal and glass and weights were heavier. In terms of weight were not talking about the difference between a Yugo and an oil tanker here.

Scissors are easier to handle than a lawn mower. But I still choose to push a lawn mower to cut my grass. Right tool-right job. For some reason I have never convinced my wife to use the lawnmower to cut out a dress pattern though. Go figure. :lmao:

The way I see it... (and how it fits my shooting habits) fast zooms are practically a waste of money. They typically are heavy, not compact, and often limited in focal range. This all negates the advantages of the convenience of a range of focal lengths. What do you get out of it?.. a max aperture for f/2.8 which in my mind is not good enough.

Thank-you for supporting my premise, right tool for the right job. That is the right tool for you.

If you need speed, get primes with f/1.8 or faster max aperture and excellent IQ.

If you need flexibility, get a high quality zoom focused on wonderful handling and good IQ.

I just find fast zooms a compromise not worth taking... Timothy above my post figured out the same.

Speed and flexibility can call for fast zooms. Nothing handles better than the right tool for the right job.

As for Timothy I think that he too has the concept. Right tool for the right job. I'm not much of a concert shooter, but the two or three that I have done were all done with fast primes. R.T.- R.J.

The OP was wondering if people really use fast glass wide open. When the need calls for it I do. When it doesn't, I don't. But I have the ability to do so when needed. :mrgreen:

 

[dxqcanada]

I have lenses ranging from f/1.7 to f/5.6 ... I shoot primarily wildlife.

When lighting conditions are good I will not shoot wide open.

When lighting conditions are poor I will shoot wide open. Even though the image quality will suffer, it is better than getting a shot with camera shake or subject motion blur.

Even on an sunny day, shooting in a forest cuts a lot of light. Handholding a 300mm or 400mm lens of moving subjects in the woods is not a thing for f/5.6 or higher.

... and I always shoot with nature light.

 

[zemlin]

I have a Nikon 80-200. Even if I'm not shooting wide open, it focuses wicked fast and rarely misses. I've done a few stage shows though, and the 2.8 made it all worthwhile.

 

[usayit]

Sure you can. My whole premise was simple. Right tool for the right job.

Yup... btw... I wasn't arguing with yah... sorry.

I've owned both the 70-200 f4 and the 70-200 f2.8. They handle the same. Zoom speed was free, easy, and quick. Manual focus was smooth, easy, & quick. Weight wise we are are talking about the difference between 1.55 lbs and 2.8 lbs. A whopping 1.2 lbs difference.

I found them to handle very differently. The f/2.8 version is practically twice the size and weight. A long time spent behind the f/2.8 required me to leverage a monopod while I could steady the f/4 lens all day long. I have no problems dangling the 70-200 f/4 from my neck attached to a backup body while 70-200 f/2.8 slows me down. When I'm planning to spend the next several weeks on foot, 1.2 lbs is a VERY big deal. We are talking days not hours. For the same weight, I could pack a 100-400L AND 50mm f/1.4 and still have more focal range and faster glass for low light.

Thank-you for supporting my premise, right tool for the right job. That is the right tool for you.

That's exactly my point (in agreement). Different needs different tools. If low light is what I am shooting for, forget f/2.8.... f/1.8 and faster is ideal. 1.2lbs heavier and the larger size might not seem much to you BUT you are only getting 1 more stop. My primes which consisted of a 24L 1.4, 50 1.4, 85 1.8, and 135L 1.4, provide a faster aperture and just slightly heavier than just the single 70-200mmL f/2.8 IS zoom.

As said before, fast glass IS not overrated but it is not the end all answer for everyone. There is only 1 lens I own that is consistently shot at wide open...

 

[table1349]

usayit;1568352]Yup... btw... I wasn't arguing with yah... sorry.

No need to be sorry. I didn't see it as an argument and if we can't express opinions around here then we might as well shut this forum down. Besides we all shoot differently depending on what it is we shoot and what we are trying to accomplish.

I found them to handle very differently. The f/2.8 version is practically twice the size and weight. A long time spent behind the f/2.8 required me to leverage a monopod while I could steady the f/4 lens all day long. I have no problems dangling the 70-200 f/4 from my neck attached to a backup body while 70-200 f/2.8 slows me down. When I'm planning to spend the next several weeks on foot, 1.2 lbs is a VERY big deal. We are talking days not hours. For the same weight, I could pack a 100-400L AND 50mm f/1.4 and still have more focal range and faster glass for low light.

This is where our view of handling differs. I look at the mechanics and found them the same. The weight is not much of a factor to me. After shooting F2's with motor drives, bulk backs and heavier glass then either of these two lenses, the stuff these days is so much lighter that I don't notice it.

That's exactly my point (in agreement). Different needs different tools. If low light is what I am shooting for, forget f/2.8.... f/1.8 and faster is ideal. 1.2lbs heavier and the larger size might not seem much to you BUT you are only getting 1 more stop. My primes which consisted of a 24L 1.4, 50 1.4, 85 1.8, and 135L 1.4, provide a faster aperture and just slightly heavier than just the single 70-200mmL f/2.8 IS zoom.

True, but you can't reach 100 - 200mm at f2.8 if you needed it. My low light needs come in the form of lots of sports and nature, often in low light as well.

As said before, fast glass IS not overrated but it is not the end all answer for everyone. There is only 1 lens I own that is consistently shot at wide open...

The one real advantage I see for fast glass, especially fast zoom glass is that fast glass usually means top quality glass. This usually means better performance wide open over consumer grade glass when wide open is necessary.

 

[JerryPH]

The one real advantage I see for fast glass, especially fast zoom glass is that fast glass usually means top quality glass. This usually means better performance wide open over consumer grade glass when wide open is necessary.

There is one more advantage... that fast glass is almost always going to give you better results at the same apertures than that slower lens, even if at the same apertures that both can reach.

At F/4 a lens that does F/2.8 is a lot closer to it's sweet spot than a lens that is wide open at F/4.

 

[astrostu]

Just had an experience last night where I needed my f/1.4. I have two lenses with me on this trip, and I was trying to photograph the orchids this hotel has in the lobby. Low lighting, indoors. My f/4.5 telephoto zoom was just worthless ... I was under-exposed at 1/15th sec and ISO400. My f/1.4 was STILL underexposed at 1/30th sec and ISO200, but I may be able to pull something out of it rather than a blurry mass. And yes, I tried flash, but the on-camera flash (didn't bring anything else) resulted in highlight saturation and just unnatural-looking flowers.

 

[bhop]

I shoot wide open all the time. I like shallow dof.

Try holding a Nikon D700 and Nikkor 70-200 for a 4 hour concert, man you'd better be a gym person, becuase that left arm is going to shake, burn and get cramps and do all kinds of wierd things on you by the 3rd hour... lol

I gotta agree, but I use a D200+grip and Sigma 70-200. After shooting a car show a couple weeks ago, my shoulder was getting sore..

 

[Phranquey]

Try holding a Nikon D700 and Nikkor 70-200 for a 4 hour concert, man you'd better be a gym person, becuase that left arm is going to shake, burn and get cramps and do all kinds of wierd things on you by the 3rd hour... lol

I gotta agree, but I use a D200+grip and Sigma 70-200. After shooting a car show a couple weeks ago, my shoulder was getting sore..

I won't argue with that, but I do have one slight edge in that area....I shot competition rifle for 10+ years. The same muscle groups and breathing rhythms translate great to handheld photography. But, shooting & panning for a full weekend at a racetrack will still kill the shoulders/arms (D2Xs & 70-200).

 

[table1349]

Ok, I just have to toss this out after hearing the weight issues being mentioned. I am in my mid 50's (That's all ya need to know :lmao and have been shooting since I was 16. Dudes, the old guy here is telling ya, you all got to get out of the studio and to the gym once in a while. :lmao:

This is what I was using years ago.

http://www.netaxs.com/~cassidy/images/equipment/f2/pic00200.jpg

With the bulk back on the front body. Notice the MD underneath.
http://mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/nikonf2/motordrives/images/bulkfim750250.jpg
(I would have loved to have had the rear bulk back. That thing is awesome.)
With one of these old beasts on it.
http://www.destoutz.ch/slides/lens_200mm_f4_598528.jpg

Now granted, I was younger then. But the weight of that setup compared to today is not even in the same ball park. I do believe I hear Gold's gym calling or at least Nordic Trac.


And no, I don't have a photograph of Henry Ford with his first horseless carriage. (con sarn, smart alecky, young whipersnappers. ldman

The previous message was brought to you just for fun. :mrgreen::lmao:

 

[Phranquey]

Ok, I just have to toss this out after hearing the weight issues being mentioned. I am in my mid 50's (That's all ya need to know :lmao and have been shooting since I was 16. Dudes, the old guy here is telling ya, you all got to get out of the studio and to the gym once in a while. :lmao:

Hey, I ain't that young, ya old fart.... I'll say you've been at it about 10 years longer than me, and that's all anyone needs to know. I used to sling around an FM2 / MD12.

 

[table1349]

Hey, I ain't that young, ya old fart.... I'll say you've been at it about 10 years longer than me, and that's all anyone needs to know. I used to sling around an FM2 / MD12.

Them was the days weren't they? All metal all manual gear made to last. Lenses you could take a tank out with. Wooden tripods that weighed near the same as a mini cooper or at least the wheel and tire from one. Developer and fixer fumes always frying the brain. That was photography by golly.

None of this mamby-pamby shrunk down.... plastic...carbon fiber...and computer stuff.

Have you still got the FM2 and MD12? I sold the bulk back a few years ago to a fellow that was needing one, but I still have the bodies and the MD1 & MD2. I always wanted an MD100, but they were way out of the ball park expensive.