What's your fastest lens?

[jkruppa]

I was watching a documentary on Stanley Kubrick over the weekend and there was a discussion of the lens he used to shoot the indoor scenes (by candlelight!) in the film Barry Lyndon (1975). The lens was made in Russia, I believe, and could open all the way to f0.7.

That got me thinking about still lenses. My 50mm and 85mm are both f1.7, and I love the effect both give when I shoot outside at the lowest aperture setting -- the subject just pops out from the out-of-focus background. For shooting indoors with natural light or lots of candles, I've thought it might be good to get a faster lens, maybe a 1.4 or even a 1.2, which I saw recently for the first time.

I'm just curious what everyone's thoughts are on using these lenses and what applications come to mind.

Jason

 

[Big Mike]

Low light (hand held), shallow DOF (& hopefully nice Bokeh) and faster shutter speeds...that's what I think of when I think really wide apertures.

Also, most lenses are best when stopped down a few stops. So an F1.7 lens will probably look really good at F2.8 while and F2.8 lens will probably be better at F4 than it is at F2.8.

 

[jkruppa]

Yes, I've noticed that when I stop down even just one stop I get a more pleasing image. Mainly, the details are sharper. At 1.7, everything's a little too soft (unless that's the effect you're going for), and it doesn't work well for a crisp headshot.

 

[Big Mike]

That's pretty much true of most lenses. I recently did a quick test of my 50mm F1.8...and it was quite poor at F1.8 but much better when stopped down.

 

[usayit]

I love shooting with fast primes.. this is especially true in low light. 50 f1.4, 85 f1.8 are most used primes for indoor. In my opinion, there's not much difference between f1.7, f1.8 and f1.4. If you do decide on a new lens to replace your f1.7 with something else (assuming more expensive too), it should bring to the table other advantages. For me, I went from a Canon 50mm f1.8 to the 50 f1.4 lens because of the more pleasant bokeh the f1.4 produced. It is a very subtle difference. Whether or not it is worth the extra cost is really up to each person to decide.. .for me .. .it is a bit of luxury but I was willing to spend the extra. Besides, my cousin has been wanting that 50mm f1.8 lens for some time.... so I sold it to him.

 

[molested_cow]

I've got a 50mm F1.2.

 

[darin3200]

All i got is f/1.8
But one is a 20mm f/1.8 so it's sort of nice

 

[964]

the 50mm f1.4 in my sig is really nice. I use it mainly for portraits and also to force myself to use a prime once in a while. I become lazy with all the zooms...

 

[JamesD]

I also have the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM. It's a very nice lens, and I use it probably 90% of the time. The next fastest is the EF 24mm f/2.8, which I don't use anywhere near as much as I used to.

For my Mamiya 645, I have the 80mm f/2.8. It's actually the only one I have for that system, so it's cool.

For the Canon AE-1P, I have a 28mm f/2.8, which is also a pretty nice lens. I use it most often on that camera, because the next one up is the 80-200mm, which just isn't practical for me.

The slowest lens I have is the 150mm f/294 in my pinhole camera. Not really a lens, and has nothing to do with fast lenses, but I thought it was interesting.

 

[LWW]

A 50MM F1.4 and a 35MM F2.0 in manual focus. In AF it's a 50MM F1.8. In medium format it's an 80MM F2.8. In a telescope it's a 1000MM F10.0.

LWW

 

[Don Simon]

Pentax Takumar f/1.4 (thanks Jon!) and a Russian 85mm f/2.0. Neither are 'extreme' wide apertures but about as fast as I could need or want. There must be a point at which the glass becomes too big. As others have said though, those kind of lenses are often best stopped down a bit.

 

[usayit]

There must be a point at which the glass becomes too big. As others have said though, those kind of lenses are often best stopped down a bit.

The Canon EOS 50mm f1 is a prime example. Extremely fast aperture but produced results often regarded as inferior to that of the significantly cheaper 50mm f1.8.

 

[ksmattfish]

I have a Takumar 50mm f/1.4 for my Pentax Spotmatics (fast and radioactive! ), and a Nikon 50mm f/1.4 manual focus lens for my FM2n's.

My Norita 66 has an 80mm f/2, which is pretty fast for medium format.

The fastest commercially available, still photography lens that I've heard of is the Canon 50mm f/0.95 for old Canon rangefinders.

Extra fast lenses definately are sexy, but overall I usually find the several hundred dollar price difference a bigger issue than the difference between f/1.4 and f/1.8. I wait until the extra fast lenses are 30+ years old, and then pick them up for a bargin.

 

[logikalone]

I recently purchased a 50mm f/1.4 USM lens for my EOS Elan 7NE. After that my older Canon FD lenses which run 1.7, 1.8 and up are my fastest. I would have to disagree, I notice the speed in the photography I do, which lighting conditions never cooperate(sports). So I feel the need to put out an extra $100-200 for the little faster speed.

 

[elsaspet]

I've got several prime 1.4s and couldn't live without em!