Speed - why go for fast lenses?

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sorry, terminology adjustments required to my previous post!

[Advertisement]

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

[batmobile]

if you need the aperture, you need it and there is no debate, but I feel very few people fall into this category. If you dont, save your money, buy a smaller lens and one that will likely meet or often exceed the performance of a faster lens in the mid range.

 

I prefer SLRs for wide aperture work, esp if anything might move. RFs, to me, excel for mid range stuff where you can zone focus or where movement is not going to ruin things. It seems there are a lot of people who spend $3K on 75 APO Summicron for 'portraits' often shoot inside when a SLR is arguably a FAR better tool for the job, which with a lens probably costs a third the amount. I am not suggesting for a minute that RFs are totally ill suited to fast aperture work, but I think there are a lot of people who use wide apertures for the sake of it or for novelty. Combined with long FL it adds up to a difficult experience with small frame lines. Same arugument says that if you shoot at 5.6-11 there is no point in buying the 28 Summicron asph for your walkabout stuff.

 

If shooting portraits a lot, you can buy a Canon eos 3 and new 85 1.2Mk 2 the price of a used 75 summilux. The latter has some utility, but if things are going to move, even a fraction..... The former, as with the 85 1.8, is a stellar performer too, so there is no argument to be made for lesser image quality. It also produces shallow focus that is ridiculous if that floats your boat.

 

The 35 1.4s and 50 1.4s offer decent compromises of OOF areas, useful FL and general utility. The 50 1.0/0.95 is seriously specialist and the super fast new 21 and 24 in the same category. All are huge and seriously increase the weight of your kit as well as your insurance!

 

The more I use RFs the more I am gravitating towards f2 being as fast as I personally will ever need with 2.8 giving me 99% utility. But then again i don't do pop concerts, portraits inside poorly lit rooms etc. Most of my work demands some DOF to work and so I use faster film when things get tough. I find differential focus overused to justify fast lenses often resulting in boring images. the aperture is there to support the image not the other way round. If you need it, you need it, but suspect some want the lens then go round shooting stuff wide open when they get it.

[jaapv]

A bit puzzled. I find AF virtually useless for portraits and moving objects. One loses all control over the plane of focus. Just try to focus exactly on the eye with a SLR! On RF one will need a learning curve to get focus right to the mm but that does not condemn the system, on the contrary, it leaves a DSLR far behind in the situations you mention. It is a bit strange to proclaim a RF suitable for zone focus only, it is just the other way around. I have the 24/1.4 and that has turned into my standard lens, nothing specialist about it. A narrow DOF is one of the most powerful symbols we have in our toolkit. It seems a pity to waste it on from nosetip to horizon photography.

[batmobile]

I did not say zone focus only, but where movement is likely to be limited. If you think a RF is better in rapidly changing focus situations, where you have to focus quickly with pin point precision and there is limited DOF (i.e you are not zone focusing and your aperture is wide), you are getting things very wrong in your use of a top end AF SLR. With multiple focus points, either auto selected or manually, you will be spot on or darned close when things start moving. No RF technique can come remotely close otherwise sports/nature photographers would all be using M8s and Leica would be producing 600mm lenses due to popular demand! FWIW, a 24 1.4 has far more DOF than a 75 1.4 and so your margin for error is miles wider than even a 50 lux. In fact your 24 1.4 is comparable to a 50 2.8 in that regard (double FL = two stops)

 

I find your last sentence puzzling as it seems that an anlysis of most opinions as well as the portfolio profiles of famous photogs/accomplished users, tends to show that RFs are used very differently. When the action is fast they can be great, as you say, but at moderate apertures and with zone adjustment to keep up. I cannot think of anyone who excels using RFs as you suggest - with pin point to the mm precision focus at very wide apertures (shallow DOF) when movement is chaotic. I can think of plenty who used them to get things right or good enough at f5.6-11 when there was action, or at wider apertures when there was not too much movement.

 

I too often like to ditch AF for some portraits (slow moving), but SLRs are still far better due to offering a sizeable view rather than a postage stamp. For snap portraits of restless subjects (i.e in a photojournalistic setting) AF is again a boon. Focus snaps in an instant and you have the frame a split second later. no farting about as the person shifts back and forth on their seat you and have to refocus or move with the 75 Lux . Ask a wedding photographer. RFs are great, but SLRs/AF are not there for no reason.

[jaapv]

I'll give you an example of an image I would have found very difficult with a DSLR and easy with a RF:

The bird just touches the water here. I could get it because I saw it coming from outside the frame, I caught the moment because I did not need to work a joystick for the AF point nor had to wait for autofocus to catch up. Just my fingers working the focus ring in coordination with the shutter button. And I am not even arguing shutter lag, because one can anticipate.

 

 

 

 

 

And I like to have fast lenses for shots like this:

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/members/jaapv-albums-animals-picture834-horse-bysummilux-24.html

[Gentleman Villain]

I'm beginning to lean towards the opinion that the more refined photographers tend to prefer owning multiple lenses in the same focal length as opposed to owning multiple lenses in different focal lengths.

 

It's impossible to find one lens that does everything well....so after awhile....a photographer starts wanting multiple lenses in the same focal length so that he can choose the best one for a given situation.

 

That's just my personal experience. I've noticed that hobbyists in DSLR forums tend to try and cover every focal length..They want everything from fisheye to 300mm or so....But the photographers I've met and respected the most tend to only work in a few focal lengths...and own multiple lenses in each focal length. Just an observation...might not be true always

 

 

A bit puzzled. I find AF virtually useless for portraits and moving objects. One loses all control over the plane of focus. Just try to focus exactly on the eye with a SLR! On RF one will need a learning curve to get focus right to the mm but that does not condemn the system, on the contrary, it leaves a DSLR far behind in the situations you mention. It is a bit strange to proclaim a RF suitable for zone focus only, it is just the other way around. I have the 24/1.4 and that has turned into my standard lens, nothing specialist about it. A narrow DOF is one of the most powerful symbols we have in our toolkit. It seems a pity to waste it on from nosetip to horizon photography.

 

Exactly! Have you noticed that it's almost impossible to find a properly placed plane of focus in an image anymore? Take a look through magazine ads or whatever....it's very easy to spot where the retouchers are sharpening eyes and other places that should have been in the focal plane.

 

I've tried mentoring a few hobbyists in the past...and it never works out too well because they don't like being told that all of their pictures are not focused properly. They seem to think as long as something is sharp in the image then the whole image is sharp...but that's not the case....an image is only really considered really sharp if the focal plane is positioned in the correct spot.

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Lens diffraction is not the same as diffraction limitation, although the two are related.

Aperture diffraction is the loss of resolution of the lens on stopping down, i.e. the size of the Airy disk the lens produces. Other lens faults are of influence on this value as well, obviously.

Diffraction limitation is the interaction between the size of that Airy disk and the pixel size of the sensor, in other words the projected resolution of the lens and the resolution of the sensor.

 

 

Diffraction Limited Photography: Pixel Size, Aperture and Airy Disks

 

 

And then, to confuse matters, a lens can be diffraction limited as well, which means so well corrected that the Airy disk has the size of the theoretical disk produced by the diffraction of the aperture, in other words, the resolution loss caused by aberrations in the lens system are smaller than the resolution loss caused by the diaphragm. Very few lenses meet this criterium, a prime example being the Apo-Telyt 280/4.0 R

 

Jaap, I found the Cambridge site tutorials very useful for this and other concepts. As a relative newbie to this forum, I really appreciate learning new things virtually every time I log on.

 

Jeff

[batmobile]

jaap,

 

You can switch off the AF on and AF camera and set manual focus, focus lock, or select the focus point where the subject will appear. There are plenty of options. I too like to anticipate and use my Ms satisfatorily much of the time, but there are times when a good quality AF SLR is the better tool for the job.

 

With an AF SLR and doing portiature you can select the AF point that is smack on the eye for the composition you want and then when the subject shifts, you just keep that point on the eye and a fraction of a second later you have your next few frames and so on (there is no recomposition because the focus point is off centre and you get to see the image magnified nicely (commone to MF SLRs as well of course). Just because some people dont use their tools properly does not make them inappropriate. I far prefer MF and RF to be precise for most of what I do, but when things are moving about a lot and the plane of focus is very shallow and could be anywhere in the fram, RFs dont cut it. Try looking at your shot and comparing it to top end bird photography in terms of the challenges. You would not stand a chance with a M8.

 

I have shot quite a few Afghan street football games recently with a RF, but I have been generally shooting at moderate apertures and allowing slight motion blur. I have not been trying to freeze the action with paper thin DOF from near to far. Were I to try, I would fall flat on my face compared to what I could do with a SLR. It happens that I dont want those sorts of images, so I use the RF.

 

Please lets acknowledge that the RF is not King of all trades. Thats self delusion. It is fantastic for a few things, OK at a few more and downright poor at others. Shooting at wide apetures where the focus point is all over the place, near to far, with longer lenses is one of them!

[jaapv]

jaap,

 

Please lets acknowledge that the RF is not King of all trades. Thats self delusion. It is fantastic for a few things, OK at a few more and downright poor at others. Shooting at wide apetures where the focus point is all over the place, near to far, with longer lenses is one of them!

You stole my standard text Having said that I suspect our discussion is based in shooting style. I regard the SLR as an auxilary camera, you an RF. In the end the only differences are in the grey area where both cameras are usable.

[kenneth]

Why indeed- search me

[JBA]

Why? Because I mostly shoot with slow films and appreciate the performance characteristics of fast lenses. Pretty simple. All the technical discussion is academic.

[Guest darkstar2004]

I'm beginning to lean towards the opinion that the more refined photographers tend to prefer owning multiple lenses in the same focal length as opposed to owning multiple lenses in different focal lengths.

 

It's impossible to find one lens that does everything well....so after awhile....a photographer starts wanting multiple lenses in the same focal length so that he can choose the best one for a given situation.

 

That's just my personal experience. I've noticed that hobbyists in DSLR forums tend to try and cover every focal length..They want everything from fisheye to 300mm or so....But the photographers I've met and respected the most tend to only work in a few focal lengths...and own multiple lenses in each focal length. Just an observation...might not be true always

 

I'm discovering that there's a fair amount of truth to that.

 

I have a 50/1.4 Summilux (last pre-ASPH version) which is my all-around lens. I like the 50mm angle of view - with my 0.72 MP, it takes up a good chunk of the viewfinder, yet has some breathing room to allow you to reframe based on what you can see in the viewfinder without "searching" - moving the camera and your head around.

 

From what I have read & heard, the non-ASPH 50/1.4 is preferred over the ASPH version for B&W work, which is why I held onto it rather than upgrading to the 50 ASPH - and I love the fingerprint that this lens puts on Fuji RVP (Velvia 50).

 

I can't imagine that the 50 ASPH would be significantly better than the Summilux I have (I may be wrong on this,though, having never had a chance to shoot with one) because stopped down, the chromes that this lens produces are almost frighteningly sharp with outstanding color saturation and contrast, IMHO.

 

I also have a Noctilux f/1.0 which I got for the fingerprint of the lens. Wide open, it produces a painterly effect compared to the eye-popping sharpness of the 50/1.4; I love the bokeh of the Noctilux and the extreme shallow DOF (although wide open, the DOF of the 50/1.4 is pretty thin, too).

 

Both of these lenses have their own unique signature, which is why I keep them both.

 

Every now and then, I think of selling off the 50/1.4 and going with just the Noctilux as my 50, but I always come to my senses and hang on to the Summilux.

[doug_m]

darkstar,

 

You should try the 50 lux ASPH and then tell us what you think. I bet you may have something different to say.

[Gentleman Villain]

Darkstar, you're definitely describing a POV that is similar to my own.

 

Experience has taught me that every lens has a weakness. I used to discover the weaknesses and then trade up to lenses that were promised to solve the problem. Inevitably, one problem will be solved by the new lens but another problem will creep up. So now, I'm just resolved to the fact that it takes multiple lenses to cover a particular focal length. I might prefer one lens for the way it renders contrast in portraits, and another lens for it's minimum focus distance, and another lens for it's speed, and another lens for the way it renders background blur etc etc.

 

Experience has also taught me that the photographers who have the most defined styles tend to only work in a handful of focal lengths. For example, I spent about 10 years shooting with just a single 24-70 lens on a 1.5x crop camera....I had many other lenses but just never felt the need to change...It felt like a radical departure from my style just to wander into another focal length.

[pgk]

Fascinating. Having owned lenses from 14mm to 600mm over the years, I have now pared down and find that the vast majority of my work is shot on focal lengths from 24 to 85 on 35mm (full frame) format and from 21mm to 50mm on the M8 (I don't like smaller than 1.3x crop formats). I only own and use fixed focals, no zooms, and am aware that I prefer to use fast lenses more often than not wide-open. Sometimes I do find that its useful to own more than one lens of a particular focal length though.

[bill]

I'm beginning to lean towards the opinion that the more refined photographers tend to prefer owning multiple lenses in the same focal length as opposed to owning multiple lenses in different focal lengths.

 

It's impossible to find one lens that does everything well....so after awhile....a photographer starts wanting multiple lenses in the same focal length so that he can choose the best one for a given situation.

 

I have followed this thread with great interest. There are a number of views that have been expressed that align with my own, not least this one from Gentleman Villain.

 

My "journey" has been similar to those described by others. I have gravitated from the "depth" approach to the "breadth" approach as time has passed. I now have duplicates in particular in the 35, 50 and 90mm focal lengths, in both LTM and M mount. For 50mm in particular I have lenses that range from f3.5 Elmar(s) to a Canon f1.2. My choice of lens at any one time is informed by a number of factors - speed and size being foremost. These days I think of my lenses as a set of brushes and I choose their use accordingly.

 

In terms of focal length, I generally see the world in 50mm terms. I remember reading a book once, by John Wade, I think, who pointed out that a large proportion of stock travel photography was shot between 35 and 70mm with 50mm predominating. At the time - with SLR lenses from 18mm to 600mm - I couldn't see the point - or the wood from the trees - but the last time I went on a trip I took my D-Lux 4 and shot almost everything at 50-60mm.

 

I also think that one needs to be as adroit to use a slow lens as a fast one - they simply require different techniques in use to get the best from them. You have to be in tune with the equipment you are using - you choose it, rather than it choosing you, don't forget - and you have to be cognisant of, and able to manage, a given lens' capabilities, strengths and weaknesses.

 

I don't carry all my lenses at all times, of course; that in turn means by default that the more compact, slower lenses get more outings than the bulkier, faster ones. but I do try to think ahead, to the point of considering the conditions I will most likely face and previsualising the result I want to attain.

 

Finally, there is a pleasure in successfully getting a lens to deliver at the edge of it's performance envelope - or beyond. I have used my Elmar before now in low light on the London Underground and in other places to capture acceptably sharp images. I could have done so more easily with the Canon, but it would not have been as challenging or rewarding to do so.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[StS]

This is certainly an interesting thread.

 

Should I have to do with one lens only, it would be the 1.4/50 Asph. For film, it is perfect, for the M8 it is a tad too long but still the most universal lens I have. Since I don't like flashlight pictures, it is used fairly often at 1.4, where the image quality is already impressive. I traded it for a Summicron, since I missed the extra stop.

 

Adding a second lens, it would be the 2.8/24. The 1.4/24 is tempting, but the 2.8 was bought, when the 1.4 was not available yet, so the 2.8 has to do the job. 24mm is wide enough on the M8 but not that wide to require a tripod and meticulous alignment

 

The other two lenses are not necessary, strictly speaking. I like the 1.4/35 pre-Asph for it's compactness and am learning to handle it's sensitivity to point light sources. The 2.5/90 is my most dispensable lens, for the occasional use a Summarit is sufficient.

 

For the very few images with macro, long or very short focal lenghts, there is still the Nikon. I have to make do with the tunnel view then...

[Guest darkstar2004]

darkstar,

 

You should try the 50 lux ASPH and then tell us what you think. I bet you may have something different to say.

Good point - I think I'll see if I can rent one for a week or so.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Guest darkstar2004]

Darkstar, you're definitely describing a POV that is similar to my own.

 

Experience has taught me that every lens has a weakness. I used to discover the weaknesses and then trade up to lenses that were promised to solve the problem. Inevitably, one problem will be solved by the new lens but another problem will creep up. So now, I'm just resolved to the fact that it takes multiple lenses to cover a particular focal length. I might prefer one lens for the way it renders contrast in portraits, and another lens for it's minimum focus distance, and another lens for it's speed, and another lens for the way it renders background blur etc etc.

 

Experience has also taught me that the photographers who have the most defined styles tend to only work in a handful of focal lengths. For example, I spent about 10 years shooting with just a single 24-70 lens on a 1.5x crop camera....I had many other lenses but just never felt the need to change...It felt like a radical departure from my style just to wander into another focal length.

 

I have also found this to be true.

 

With my MP, I work with what I have - a four lens set consisting of 28/2, 50mm (1.0 and 1.4) and 90/2.

 

With my Nikon gear, the majority of my work is accomplished with a 20-35mm zoom, a 50mm and a 105mm with defocus control which produces a mushy, nebulous bokeh. I will also use the 200mm f/4 micro for abstract and macro work, but the majority of my work is done with the three lenses mentioned.

 

Regardless of the format, I tend to do most of my work using a lens set consisting of medium wide, standard and short telephoto focal lenghts (I sold off my Mamiya 7II kit since I rarely used it and invested the cash in my f/1.0 Noctilux; I have never regretted doing so).

 

I don't even own a digital camera, BTW...