Future of Super Fast Lenses?

[batmobile]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The faster the lens, no matter the max ISO available, the less ISO required OR//the darker the space you can shoot in. I was recently shooting at EI 1200 ,1/15th and f2.8 and I think I needed about another four or five stops in one area I wanted to photograph. A f1.4 would have gotten me much closer to being able to shoot (over the f2.8 I had) and I could have pushed the EI to 3200 for a tiny bit more shadow detail with film, but even with high ISO digital, that F1.4 would have been handy.

 

Personally I rarely enjoy limited DOF, preferring something either tack sharp from front to back or pleasant but not excessive separation. But at middle distances, you need a really fast lens (esp if usign wides) to get ANY separation.

[Guest]

It would be interesting to find out when the word "bokeh" was first printed in English and how long it took to become an ubiquitous term in photo publications.

[KM-25]

Do people think that leica ISO's will get so good that lens speed, while not irrelevant due to depth of field control, becomes much less important.

 

First off, what has caused this habit of taking the abbreviation of "International Organization for Standardization" and truncating it to just "ISO"instead of high ISO or low ISO?

It' almost as bad as "Great Capture".

 

When you just say ISO, you are not being specific as to what end of the spectrum. The term ISO does not mean just higher range of sensitivity of a sensor or film.

 

Secondly, there are no limits to what a talented shooter can do with a F 1.4 or faster lens with max ISO of 640,000. So as long as they keep ramping it it up, I will use it.

 

I was shooting the Winter X Games last night, all at ISO 1,600-6,400...and of course, Kodachrome...

[innerimager]

Just acquired the 21 summilux. Without question having such a fast lens makes the difference at least with the M9. This shot was iso 1600, 1.4, 1/15. Until or unless the Mxxx has an iso 6400 this good, just acquiring the shot would not be possible with a slower wide angle. And, I love having the ability to exploit either foreground or background selective focus, not relevant to this shot. Long live the very fast lenses!! best....Peter

[Bo_Lorentzen]

Peter,

 

Ahhh, 15th at 1600iso f 1.4 - now finally somebody have a meaningful reason for a 24LUX.

 

BTW. looks like there are lots of good glass on the table in a great company.

 

.

[innerimager]

Peter,

 

Ahhh, 15th at 1600iso f 1.4 - now finally somebody have a meaningful reason for a 24LUX.

 

BTW. looks like there are lots of good glass on the table in a great company.

 

.

Yes lot's of good glass Bo, including the 21 summilux! I'll tell you, I love this lens, and for me it's the wide lux to have on the M9. best...Peter

[batmobile]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've just ordered the 24. it'll be the most expensive expenditure on photography to date, so why? Shooting inside dark buildings. While I normally shoot from f4-f11 outside, even f2-2.8 is marginal at best inside buildings. I also don't go for the 'blurry is good' concept and therefore I do not embrace shutter speeds that do not guarantee me sharp frames unless I have no choice in which case I go very low and hope to get some that work. With a bit of adrenalin and the odd 'pulled' shot (shooting speak) the whole notion of shooting at super low speeds just is not practical in a pressurised or dynamic setting. I am not buying it for subject separation, though I will use this as creatively as I can. I am buying it because the I was recently very limited in what I could do on one of the most important parts of a documentaryu project and I feel that another two stops over my 28 and 21 2.8 will help me work to a higher standard and with more options.

[Jerry_R]

Then you are right candidate for light and flexible tripod\monopod, aren't you?

 

I don't know, why so many Leica people are treating them like a last option.

In fact there are many light en very flexible options there.

And you can still have bigger DOF thanks to increased slightly exposure time.

 

Very often - small movement of people is not spoiling the photo, but gives nice look.

You can still freeze action using slightly the flash.

 

Now you can kill me for heresy ;-)

[batmobile]

Not heresy, just not always practical. I used a monopod a lot in India when working in a more leasurely fashion and often shooting low light sceneics at distance, but not in Afghanistan because I need to work much faster, with greater flexiblity and constant mobility. Often opportuinities are fleeting and a monopod will not solve the issues I face. I think monopods are great and have one here, but either the the subject moves or you have to and in messing with the monopod you always end up 'behind' and thats no good. Great for scenic work or subjects you know will stay still!

 

As for flash, you deserve to be excommunicated from the forum for that

[Jerry_R]

As for flash, you deserve to be excommunicated from the forum for that

I can give lots of example, when f/1.4 and ISO 100 000 won't give me nice pictures, which I got thanks to flash.

 

Many people do not realize that - as they simply do NOT KNOW how to use flash. Using flash does not mean flat results, like from compact cameras, but used slightly, more as fill, can give results, that NEVER can be obtained with fast lenses and high ISOs.

[batmobile]

I can give lots of example, when f/1.4 and ISO 100 000 won't give me nice pictures, which I got thanks to flash.

 

Many people do not realize that - as they simply do NOT KNOW how to use flash. Using flash does not mean flat results, like from compact cameras, but used slightly, more as fill, can give results, that NEVER can be obtained with fast lenses and high ISOs.

 

Unfortunately there are lots of circumstances when flash would be a total no-no either because being noticed spoils the shoot or being noticed from afar is dangerous. Flash can be used to great effect, but it also has the tendency to put nervous people on the back foot or blind them in a very dark interior. It has a place but I never use it myself. I guess its personal, but also very much affected by the circumstances under which you are working.

[innerimager]

I've just ordered the 24. it'll be the most expensive expenditure on photography to date, so why? Shooting inside dark buildings. While I normally shoot from f4-f11 outside, even f2-2.8 is marginal at best inside buildings. I also don't go for the 'blurry is good' concept and therefore I do not embrace shutter speeds that do not guarantee me sharp frames unless I have no choice in which case I go very low and hope to get some that work. With a bit of adrenalin and the odd 'pulled' shot (shooting speak) the whole notion of shooting at super low speeds just is not practical in a pressurised or dynamic setting. I am not buying it for subject separation, though I will use this as creatively as I can. I am buying it because the I was recently very limited in what I could do on one of the most important parts of a documentaryu project and I feel that another two stops over my 28 and 21 2.8 will help me work to a higher standard and with more options.

Congratulations. I swallowed very hard purchasing the 21/1.4. I've been very good, and lucky acquiring used lenses before the run up of recent years, and never have spent anything like this on a lens, though even with the 21 I got it for $5350, not the $6450 it now lists for. For instance my 35 lux asph, cost $1500, coded for free, my last version noctilux pre-asph was $2000 coded for free. I made this decision believing that these ultra wide 1.4 lenses add an important set of new options and capabilities, and my initial impression of the 21/1.4 has not disappointed me at all. Looking forward to hearing your impressions and experiences with the 24/1.4....Peter

PS - I won't be buying a 24/1.4 as well. One of these horses is enough for my stable! ;>)

[wstotler]

Why buy a Noctilux when a bit of blur and vignetting in Photoshop will give you the same results?

 

Please demonstrate these "same results."

 

Same results? No. Similar enough for over 99.9% of casual viewers? Yes.

 

Cheap Photoshoppery that adds obvious blur/vignetting is an effect so unlike the Noctilux. But it doesn't matter. Mostly nobody (e.g., way, way less than 1% of people) really care where the "blur" comes from. They can see it. It's an effect. That's it.

 

More than one person I've shot with the Nokton at f/1.2 has attributed the OOF look of those shots to software--not the lens.

 

Having said that, *I* certainly prefer to get the look I want *in camera* so I don't have to dick around with Photoshoppery in post. That's the real benefit to me. (And I know better, regarding the look.)

 

Later,

Will

 

P.S. Why hasn't anyone suggested using this on location yet, BTW?

 

Forget the tripod and high ISO. Just freeze your SUBJECT.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[swamiji]

 

You can still freeze action using slightly the flash.

 

Now you can kill me for heresy ;-)

 

No, but where I shoot, the guards may, or at least beat the living daylight out of you, and take your camera to boot.

[tdtaylor]

Same results? No. Similar enough for over 99.9% of casual viewers? Yes.

 

Cheap Photoshoppery that adds obvious blur/vignetting is an effect so unlike the Noctilux. But it doesn't matter. Mostly nobody (e.g., way, way less than 1% of people) really care where the "blur" comes from. They can see it. It's an effect. That's it.

 

More than one person I've shot with the Nokton at f/1.2 has attributed the OOF look of those shots to software--not the lens.

 

Having said that, *I* certainly prefer to get the look I want *in camera* so I don't have to dick around with Photoshoppery in post. That's the real benefit to me. (And I know better, regarding the look.)

 

Later,

Will

 

P.S. Why hasn't anyone suggested using this on location yet, BTW?

 

Forget the tripod and high ISO. Just freeze your SUBJECT.

 

Who carries these in stock?

[Alnitak]

Same results? No. Similar enough for over 99.9% of casual viewers? Yes.

 

Cheap Photoshoppery that adds obvious blur/vignetting is an effect so unlike the Noctilux. But it doesn't matter. Mostly nobody (e.g., way, way less than 1% of people) really care where the "blur" comes from. They can see it. It's an effect. That's it.

 

More than one person I've shot with the Nokton at f/1.2 has attributed the OOF look of those shots to software--not the lens.

 

Having said that, *I* certainly prefer to get the look I want *in camera* so I don't have to dick around with Photoshoppery in post. That's the real benefit to me. (And I know better, regarding the look.)

 

Later,

Will

 

P.S. Why hasn't anyone suggested using this on location yet, BTW?

 

Forget the tripod and high ISO. Just freeze your SUBJECT.

 

Some folks actually do literally freeze their subjects, for example, macro work with insects. Its not necessarily viewed as ideal, but its done.

[Guest BigSplash]

My Canon 5D, Mark II has video capabilities. Have never bothered with it. You may be right about convergence, but there is something completely different about a photo vs a video. Thinking about the difference strikes me as a good way to define the "decisive moment," something of an open ended term. The reason I can't stand video travelogues is that who needs 10 minutes of footage showing a world famous monument. Not a lot of insight from that. Yet when I take a photo of that monument, I need to think about how my photo will be different from others--that means really thinking about what I am trying to convey about what I see. You can do that with video, but I rarely see it coming out of consumer camcorders.

 

Jack Siegel

Fully agree.

I have a semi pro Canon (XL2) camcoder with all the associated kit and it is difficult enough to make a quality video fottage with that......I cannot imagine doing this with a Canon 5D, Mark II other than maybe a few seconds video in an underwater housing. The size, ergonomics to avoid camera shake etc. and zoom capability seems to me would be poor with the 5D for a quality video shoot. The Canon EOS lenses for still are also unlikely to give the super wide angle with zoom within a widescreen format.

 

What does work for me is taking high quality still images and including these within a video clip using Adobe Premier Pro which will add timecode plus allow for zooming in or out from the still image and at the same time allowing the image to traverse the screen ...up / down/ sideways / diagonally. This gives a very effective quasi movie effect and looks great with an appropriate sound track together with video footage edited in.

[Nikkor AIS]

 

Taken with Leica M7 and 50 1.0 Noctilux @ 1.0 on XP2

 

 

 

Taken with Nikkor 28 1.4 AF D on D3 @ 1.4

 

 

 

 

Taken with Nikkor 300 2.0 IF ED AIS 2.0

 

Taken with 58 1.2 Nocturnal on D3

 

 

 

]There has been so many "things" thrown out in this thread. I'll just let some of my images do the talking for my first post on the subject

[Nikkor AIS]

 

Taken with Leica M3 and 50 1.0 Noctilux @ 1.0 on XP2

 

 

 

Taken with Leica M9(store demo) on 50 1.0 Noctilux @ 1.0

 

Taken with Nikkor 28 1.4 AF D on D3 @ f1.4

 

Taken with Nikkor 300 2.0 IF ED AIS on D3 @ 2.0

 

If I having anything to say about it the future of Super fast lenses is safe and sound. Despite "claims" that photoshop can do all things I believe there will alway be a place for optical solutions to subject isolation and shallow depth of field. Digital changes nothing in these regards. As far as high ISO , I was shooting 50,000 ISO almost 20 years ago with "pushed" T-Max 3200.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Nikkor AIS]

 

Nikkor 600 4.0 IF ED AIS on D3

 

The other thing I want to say is "super fast" is relative to focal length. For instance while F?stop 4.0 isnt what most people consider fast.It is with a 600 mm

 

Taken with Leica M7 Voigtlander 28 1.9 on XP2 @1.9

 

 

Taken with Leica M6 with 50 1.0 Noctilux on Ektar 100 @1.0

 

 

 

Taken with leica M3 and 50 1.0 Noctilux on XP2 @ 1.0