Discussion on fast lenses vs. not so fast lenses

[Alexander108]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I just got my first Leica M, an M10 Monochrom after shooting for more than a year now with a Q3. Now I need to add a few lenses. I already got the Leica Summicron 35mm f/2 v3, Canada which I honestly bought because it was more budget friendly. Extremely happy with the lens. I am now looking into a 24/25mm lens. 21mm is too wide for my taste. 20% of my images within the last 5y were around 24mm as I shot with a Canon R5 24-105. Later I want to add a 50mm lens. Not sure if I need a 90mm for that very camera.

But that is not the question. The question is: as I learn more and more about old style photography and lenses from the 1950ies & 60ies I realized that back then very fast lenses (even f/1 or f/.95) were built. Diving deeper and reading a lot I came to the conclusion that this was mainly due to film limitations where ISO/ASA 100 (DIN 21) was already considered a fast film. Shooting in low light conditions required a wide open aperture. With it came a limited DoF which may be less relevant in 21mm to 28mm if your subject is further away.

My M10 Monochrom shoots in low light with ISO 12.500 with barely visible noise. Shooting wide open in low light is absolutely no necessity anymore.

Having said that, how important is a fast lens these days? Certainly for background separation (blurry background) in portraits. But for street photography? In that genre where you need to capture the moment fast, focus fast (manually on the M10M, or even zone focus) a fast lens might not be as relevant anymore.

I'd like to hear your comments and maybe I am missing something. Thank you.

 

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[burchyk]

For me size and weight are really important. I've even quit photography for several years as I did not want to haul the large and heavy SLRs with me all the time. Among the lenses I have, the smallest get used the most.

[FrozenInTime]

As camera ISO is cranked up dynamic range decreases equally fast, so a fast lens and modest ISO should retain more tonality and scope for post processing.

A fast 50 is fun, and a 50/1.2 Nokton or 50/1.4 Summilux give noticeable separation  without the extreme cost or size of a 50/0.95 or 50/1 lens; these would be like jumping in at the deep end. The Voigtländer 50/1.5 Heliar leans heavily into 1950's character if would want a less modern look, including lower contrast and muddy corners. ( would embed examples, but my internet extremely slow today ).

 

Edited August 20 by FrozenInTime

[pgk]

A long time ago I owned and used a 50/1 Noctilux professionally and had pictures published from it. It was not an easy lens to use well and I got rid of it when I no longer required its attributes. Later I owned Canon 50/1.2 and 85/1.2 lenses. Both were tricky to get good images with, not least because the area on the dSLR's screen which was used to focus them was equally tricky to work with precisely. These days my fastest lenses are M 35/1.4 and 50/1.4. I don't often use them wide open. I do find that EVF cameras with Live View and magnification will nail focus well with the f/1.8 lenses I own from Sony, but this way of working isn't fast.

I suppose that fast lenses are as important as your utilisation of their fast apertures makes them. Would I buy fast lenses again? I doubt it. Been there, done that, unlikely to go back to working in a way that requires their use wide open with high precision focus. But that's me, you may have other ideas but generally I wouldsay that from the tone of your OP, if you ask in the way you have its unlikely that you will use a fast lens specifically because it is a fast lens.

[BWColor]

In the modern digital age the use of fast lenses is much a matter of style should you be looking for shallow depth of field and beautiful bokeh.  Beautiful is a personal preference.  Leica and some Voigtlander lenses have managed small and fast, but with some resulting negatives, like more vignetting.  Personally, I generally use moderate/slow speed lenses, some APO and fast lenses depending upon subject and intent.  My f/2.0 APO lenses usually prove great optics edge to edge and smooth bokeh when shot wide open.

Edited August 20 by BWColor

[Eoin]

I buy the widest aperture in a given focal length, it adds versatility to my photography in terms of exposure, depth of field, rendering when wide open or closed down. Subjectively I believe fast aperture lenses handle the light differently than their f2.8 of f4 counterparts, resulting in more pleasing images to me!, but irrelevant in general viewing. 
My rational thinking is simple, buy Leica and I’m done… mentally at least. Practically speaking, size and weight don’t bother me at all.

 

To answer the OP, the Elmarit 24 f2.8 ASPH offers both value and excellent performance. I shoot it and the 24 Summilux exclusively on my M11M. 
Either would do, but again subjectively I have a preference for how the Summilux handles the light differently on the monochrome.
 

 

[Pieter12]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

There can be compromises to image quality associated with a fast lens used wide open. Plus, they are exponentially more expensive and heavier. For street photography, especially when zone-focusing, a fast lens is an extravagance since you would be using it stopped-down anyway. If you were doing a lot of night work or in other low-light situations, sure. Plus, one of the advantages of a rangefinder camera is the viewfinder is just as bright with a slow lens as its is with a fast one, unlike an SLR.

[Luke_Miller]

Most of my M mount lenses are f2 and slower. I am primarily an event shooter, so I frame and shoot quickly since the shots I am trying to capture are fleeting. In selecting my lenses rangefinder blockage is a factor. I don't have the time to check out what is hiding in the lower right portion of the viewfinder.

[TomB_tx]

I also prefer small size over extreme aperture. Even in film days & available light work I stayed with Summicrons (35 & 50 ) & Elmarit (90) on my M cameras. I have a 50 Summilux, but it sits in a drawer. On M10 I usually use 35 & 50 Summarit f2.5 as I like the handling, size, ergonomics, etc.

I recently added the new small VC 50 & 35 f1.5 lenses , but mainly for film use, as I like finer grain (thus slower) films, and I'm not as steady as I used to be. I only use wide open when needed for exposure.

[lct]

There is only one fast 24mm lens, the Summilux that is both expensive and bulky, 2 reasons for me not to acquire it. Not-so-fast 24? Not sure i've ever seen such a beast among M-mount lenses. f/2.8 is the faster i know of. Seems like the OP asked about the Elmarit 24/2.8 asph already. I have no personal experience with it but it looks like a kind of mix of classic and modern lens as far as iQ is concerned. Same as the Elmarit 21/2.8 asph sort of. A more "modern" 24 would be the Elmar 24/3.8 asph but it is neither fast nor not-so-fast a lens. Unsure this can help.

[Carlos cruz]

For me faster lenses is mainly aesthetical choice, not necessity. They come at price literally and metaphorically if you want fast glass you have to accept a bit lower resolution, distortion, etc. There are no fast lenses that are optically superior to slower usually better corrected ones. I never liked 24/25 mm it was always 21 for wide angle, I’ve used nokton 21 for a while but too heavy for me.

Edited August 20 by Carlos cruz

[Stef63]

14 minutes ago, Carlos cruz said:

There are no fast lenses that are optically superior to slower usually better corrected ones. 

Leica Noctilux-M 75mm f/1.25

[Carlos cruz]

5 minutes ago, Stef63 said:

Leica Noctilux-M 75mm f/1.25

Maybe I should add “from the same era”  don’t know when summicron 75 was updated but probably construction is quite old. I wouldn’t be so sure about the tests outcome of noctilux vs summarit. 

[MindsEye]

3 hours ago, Alexander108 said:

Having said that, how important is a fast lens these days? Certainly for background separation (blurry background) in portraits. But for street photography? In that genre where you need to capture the moment fast, focus fast (manually on the M10M, or even zone focus) a fast lens might not be as relevant anymore.

I'd like to hear your comments and maybe I am missing something. Thank you.

You're not missing anything. I have made much of my living over the years selling large prints (1-2m/3-6 ft not uncommon) so lens quality is usually important. I also come from the film age. I also thoroughly test every lens I buy. Your assessment is sound.

Some might argue that a faster lens will give you better quality at a working aperture close to wide open, such as portraits shot at f2.8. My own tests show me that at portrait distance, the 50mm f2 Summicron and 50mm f1.4 Summilux at f2.8 are similarly great. The Summicron has a little more vignetting at f2.8. If you are doing street photography with zone focus this is all a moot point. Further, all of this is situationally dependent not to mention differences among specific lenses and sample variation.

I bought the previous generation 50mm f1.4 Summilux for my M11. My decision for the 1.4 over the 2.0 had more to do with desire and personal preference than necessity. My images would not be suffering in the least with the 50mm f2 Summicron.

Loss of dynamic range at high ISO is relative. Your M10M at 12,500 still has 6 stops of dynamic range (photons to photos) The faster lens argument only works if you are wide open, then you might gain a stop of DR from f/2.0 to f/1.4. But wide open you likely wouldn't be at that high of an ISO. If you were using a regular color M10 you would have a stop less of dynamic range.

As others have pointed out, the slower lenses are lighter, smaller, and block less of the viewfinder.

There aren't very many poor lenses if you're looking at Leica and Voigtlander. Go with your needs and budget.

Happy Shooting,
Joel

Edited August 20 by MindsEye
correct mistakes

[TomB_tx]

I remember talking to the Leica Rep when he came to our college camera store in 1968 and I was looking at the M4 (which I bought). He advised Leica lenses were "equivalent" and normal apertures, and the extra money for Summilux only made sense if you needed f1.4 for low light. I was using a borrowed 2.8 Elmar at the time and stayed with it until I graduated and got real income - then went with Summicrons for 40+ years. I did have f1.4 on my Canon SLR at the time, but switched to a LeicaflexSL and Summicron after that.

[Alexander108]

Thank you all very much for your insights. I highly appreciate taking your time to contribute! This has been extremely helpful. 

As I am looking into a 24mm lens as well as a 50mm lens and as I have my Q3 w/28mm my next lens will be a 50mm around f/2. For budget reasons I am leaning towards the Voigtländer APO-Lanthar 50mm f2,0 asph. Or a preowned Summicron 50mm s/2.  

[spydrxx]

It sounds like you're pretty well grounded and not drinking the kool-aid of ultra fast lenses for street photography!. Although I only dabbled in street photography over the years, there were a few occasions I decided to try the Noctilux and Canon 0.95 dream lenses. Witthin a year I sold them...they were beasts to use, and I found the Summicrons and the Canon equivalents of the 1960-70s to be much smaller and do the job well for me. I've got a couple of Voigtlanders to fill in where I don't own Leicas or they were too expensive. Depending on the renditions you prefer, there are many choices out there without resorting to ultra fast, humongous lenses. Just my opinion.

[mdrips]

I only use Leica lenses on my Leica cameras. I research each lens before purchase to ensure that it will meet my requirements. I have yet to be disappointed with a Leica lens.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Pieter12]

2 hours ago, Alexander108 said:

Thank you all very much for your insights. I highly appreciate taking your time to contribute! This has been extremely helpful. 

As I am looking into a 24mm lens as well as a 50mm lens and as I have my Q3 w/28mm my next lens will be a 50mm around f/2. For budget reasons I am leaning towards the Voigtländer APO-Lanthar 50mm f2,0 asph. Or a preowned Summicron 50mm s/2.  

The Zeiss 50mm Planar f2 is no slouch, either.

[vkdev]

Interesting question. I want to buy the voigtlander 50 f/1.0. It's ultra-fast, but also very very big. I know I’ll use it rarely and more as a toy. On my Leica M I usually shoot at f/5.6, and I don’t really need fast lenses. But I bought them anyway — I have a Summilux and a Summicron. I only use them wide open when I specifically want to separate subjects or to see the rendering the lens produces. And that’s less than 10% of my shots. But size is very important to me. Compare the size of the voigtlander 50 f/1.0 and the Summicron.

My answer to your question would be this: you shouldn’t choose fast lenses just because they’re fast. You should choose a lens for its character and individuality. Otherwise, just buy a sony – they’re all so sharp my eyes start to bleed.

By the way, high ISO values are not only useful for making things look good, but also for allowing you to use colored filters. For example, a red filter cuts out a lot of light.