View Full Version : Which Fast Lens?
If given the choice of choosing only one fast lens, which one would you get and why?
The CV Nokton 35/1.2 which I don't have ... or
The 75/1.4 which I have.
I voted for a Hex 60/1.2. WHy? I like Hexanons and everything I have seen from this lens, not much though, I like better than others.
Noctilux f/1. That's the one I chose. It is one of the more readily available ones. Obviously performance is great as well.
thomasw_
01-21-2008, 18:55
summilux 50/1,4 asph....plenty fast and a great all-round lens to boot; i can't think of a faster lens i'd rather own than it.
The CV Nokton 35/1.2 which I don't have ... or
The 75/1.4 which I have.
I wanted only f1.2 and lower. I have missed this out and the Angenieux 50mm F0.95 (modified).
Can I modify the poll to add these 2 in?
Zen-shooter
01-21-2008, 19:25
I never owned or had the pleasure of using any of the listed lenses. But from what I read, seen posted and discussed with other photogs, the 50/1.0 Noct is probably the finest - performance-wise. I've seen O.O.F. and bokeh renderings from just about all listed and the Noct appears to me to be the smoothest and shows better coma control (subjective of course).
Being a Nikon shooter, I like the Nikkor 50/1.1 for the cache and trophy. But then again a small quantity of Zunow came in S-mount also... A coin flip between the two...
BillBingham2
01-21-2008, 20:05
I'm with Roland, the CV 35/1.2, though I would like mine in S/C mount please and thank you!
B2 (;->
Same here.
Noctilux f/1. That's the one I chose. It is one of the more readily available ones. Obviously performance is great as well.
I voted Noctilux 50/1.2. It has my favorite barrel design of Summilux versions I/II. Posted images look great (no swirly bokeh), and the MTF is very impressive. Even more impressive is the current price!
As a practical matter, I would choose the "Beast".
Morca007
01-22-2008, 01:57
I haven't used any of the lenses on that list, heck, the fastest glass I own is an F-mount 50 1.4, but I covet a canon 50mm 1.2 in LTM.
50 0.95, 50 1.2 or 60 1.2 .
Im used to the 0.95 and how it performs. I would like to try both 50 1.2 and 60 1.2 because I find the very few pictures I have seen from them interesting. Choose one: Not sure. I would need to test them. The same goes with the Noctilux.
Are you referring to the Canon or the Hexanon 50mm f1.2? You are always welcome to test the lenses, just leave the North Pole and come to our sunny island. Don't forget to bring some of your classmates :). :D
He he. Thanks:) Im reffering to the Hexanon. ;) Did you get the 60 as well?
Yes I did. From the poll, the Noctilux has a large lead. :rolleyes:
I wanted only f1.2 and lower. I have missed this out and the Angenieux 50mm F0.95 (modified).
Can I modify the poll to add these 2 in?
It looks like you are collecting fast lenses for "the vault" rather than for frequent use, no? ;)
If that's the case you should get the 1.2 Noctilux, Zunow 1.1 or Nikon 1.1 - the most collectible...
It looks like you are collecting fast lenses for "the vault" rather than for frequent use, no? ;)
If that's the case you should get the 1.2 Noctilux, Zunow 1.1 or Nikon 1.1 - the most collectible...
I have Tennis Elbow for so many months now it is not funny :( . Does it still hurt? Yes, it does. Have I seen the specialists? Yes I have. Do I really want to go for surgery? No, I don't. What was the cause? Taking too many photos using heavier equipment. :bang:
I limit myself now to only maybe a shoot per month, 100 shots maybe. What else can I do? My mind wanders.....of course, I also carry my P&S camera.
I have Tennis Elbow for so many months now it is not funny :( . Does it still hurt? Yes, it does. Have I seen the specialists? Yes I have. Do I really want to go for surgery? No, I don't. What was the cause? Taking too many photos using heavier equipment. :bang:
I limit myself now to only maybe a shoot per month, 100 shots maybe. What else can I do? My mind wanders.....of course, I also carry my P&S camera.
Good idea, and while you use P&S, you could send me the 60/1.2 for a test drive. ;)
"None of the above".
A 85/f1.8 or 85/f1.2 for the SLR is pretty much the only thing I would actually have use for. A fast 50 would be just to satisfy a craze for numbers and then there'd be only boring pictures from it.
Philipp
"None of the above".
A 85/f1.8 or 85/f1.2 for the SLR is pretty much the only thing I would actually have use for. A fast 50 would be just to satisfy a craze for numbers and then there'd be only boring pictures from it.
Philipp
Wouldn't how "boring" the pictures be depend on a photographer and not a lens one would use? ;)
Wouldn't how "boring" the pictures be depend on a photographer and not a lens one would use? ;)
Only partly.
The whole point of using a superfast lens is using it wide open, so people tend to take lots of wide open photographs with it. Many of those I tend to find rather boring, pictures taken to satisfy the inner geek. Since I would only get a fast 50 because of the exercise in numbers myself, I would fully expect to take a disproportionately large amount of boring pictures with them.
It's not all about the photographer.
Philipp
I'm with Philipp, which is why I voted 75/1.4. Shallow DOF has great application in portraiture. Plus, at 400ASA, 1/60 in a bar, you can actually hand-hold it wide open. Or use it with ND filter at day time. DOF is much shallower than a 50/1, BTW.
The 35/1.2 I would use as a night, land or city scape lens, where the lens should be as character-less as possible, i.e. the Noctilux coma and vignetting would be a no-go.
Keep the application in mind.
Roland.
foto_fool
01-22-2008, 12:33
Boring pictures or not, I like the very idea of fast lenses. If I win the lottery I'm going to hunt down one of the 50mm/f0.7 lenses that Zeiss made for NASA and have the finest craftsman in the world modify it for M-mount. Same with the Rodenstock 50mm/f0.75 and the Canon 65mm/f0.75. And then double up on the upper body work at the gym.
But this is the real world, so I voted for the Hexanon 50/1.2. It is fast enough, and it is the smallest and most modern of the poll group designed for M-mount.
Hacker, do you know anyone who is doing an M-mount conversion on the Canon FL series? I have a converted/coupled Canon 55mm/F1.2 FD but have not heard of anyone doing the FL lenses.
EDIT: Last night I saw Victor Chan's latest offering on eBay is a conversion of the FL lens.
Still sounds like it's the photographer.
I see no particular reason why wide open photographs would be automatically more boring than other photos. I would say that a disproportionate # of boring photos are taken w/wide angle lenses & large DoF (the default on every point & shoot & cellphone camera) but that doesn't mean that wide angle lenses &/or large DoF are inherently boring.
Only partly.
The whole point of using a superfast lens is using it wide open, so people tend to take lots of wide open photographs with it. Many of those I tend to find rather boring, pictures taken to satisfy the inner geek. Since I would only get a fast 50 because of the exercise in numbers myself, I would fully expect to take a disproportionately large amount of boring pictures with them.
It's not all about the photographer.
Philipp
I have no experience with these aforementioned lenses but I like my Nokton, Jupiter 3 and Summarit lenses.
Gabriel M.A.
01-22-2008, 15:41
Which fast lens what?
Is heaviest? "Sharpest"? Bluntest? Rounder? Prettier?
Gabriel M.A.
01-22-2008, 15:44
Only partly.
The whole point of using a superfast lens is using it wide open, so people tend to take lots of wide open photographs with it. Many of those I tend to find rather boring, pictures taken to satisfy the inner geek. Since I would only get a fast 50 because of the exercise in numbers myself, I would fully expect to take a disproportionately large amount of boring pictures with them.
It's not all about the photographer.
Huh?
So, a superslow lens produces a small amount of boring pictures?
Which fast lens what?
Is heaviest? "Sharpest"? Bluntest? Rounder? Prettier?
No criteria, but if the selection is made, then the answer to "Why" should be stated. I steered away from any critieria such as weight as we can just go weigh all the lenses and rank them. I'm just curious what would people choose and their reasons.
Seems like for the all the bashings the Noctilux gets at times, it is still the leader. The Hexanon is second if added together (both 50mm and 60mm).
No criteria, but if the selection is made, then the answer to "Why" should be stated. I steered away from any critieria such as weight as we can just go weigh all the lenses and rank them. I'm just curious what would people choose and their reasons.
Seems like for the all the bashings the Noctilux gets at times, it is still the leader. The Hexanon is second if added together (both 50mm and 60mm).
If only the Noctilux could run for President...:eek:
I would go with the LTM 50/1.1 Nikkor, partly because I haven't had one and partly because its images looked so nice in the comparison Raid did a while back.
Actually, I would be even happier with an external-mount S version, if it came with an SP attached to it! (I know, Gandy had this very combo for sale a few months back, so I missed my chance... small matter of several thousand unavailable dollars...)
Still sounds like it's the photographer.
Well, of course any picture is taken by the photographer...
I see no particular reason why wide open photographs would be automatically more boring than other photos.
...and this particular photographer knows that if I purchased a superspeed lens because I had read on online forums about it, I would take a disproportionate amount of boring pictures with it. That's the effect this kind of purchase has on me. And I'm saying that my impression is that it has it on a lot of others as well, which is why I think it's not only the photographer, but also the phenomenon of GAS-induced exercise-in-numbers purchases in general.
As far as the photographs themselves are concerned, oh, technically they'd be fine, but then it's easier to acquire technical skills than creative ones. If I take pictures just to play around with the wide aperture of my shiny new lens most of those are going to be for the bin, and that's not because they are bad technically, but because they're boring. I would get the lens, run around, take lots of pictures at f/1 or whatever, and most of the first roll would be rubbish. Make that most of the first ten rolls. Maybe the occasional lucky shot or so, (which is then posted on RFF) but we're not after lucky shots, we're after creating good pictures reproducibly. Oh, of course, lots of shallow DOF on those rolls, no doubting that - that would be fine if shallow DOF was somehow interesting in itself, but it's not; it's just a special effect that wants to be learned (just like wideangle distortion, or tilt lenses, or fisheyes). In fact I would need it quite rarely, so I probably wouldn't get to learn it particularly quickly if at all, and the meantime would be filled with boring pictures. Shallow DOF doesn't make a picture less boring. In fact it may well make a picture more boring, especially when the picture is taken just for the sake of shallow DOF.
I don't know about you guys, maybe purchasing f/{x:x<1.4} lenses after reading about them extensively brings about instant expertise with the lens, along with some inner creativity, but with me, I can honestly say that GAS makes me take boring photographs.
Philipp
So, a superslow lens produces a small amount of boring pictures?
"Look, grandson, this is what in the old days we called a false dichotomy."
Philipp
Noctilux. It is not a to much specialized lens but has a signature, which I like.
photobizzz
01-23-2008, 00:43
I just purchased a Canon 50/1.2, that will be my fastest to date. It is the only one in my price range. I would love to have the Noctilux, but needing to feed my kids takes prescidence.
projectbluebird
01-23-2008, 02:49
These are all large impressive light-gobbling beasties, but perhaps more importantly what body would you be using? I have heard tell that the most consistent results come from an RF matched to the lens. I have to confess that the only lens I own in this range is for my (evil!) canon SLR. I did get it for the reasons mentioned and more: Wide-open performance, low light performance, widest range of DoF, etc.
Then again, I do a fair amount of hand-held low-light photography, and sometimes you do need that extra half-stop (or more). I have personally encountered situations where 3200 ASA and 1.4 are not fast enough. And that's what these lenses are for. I wouldn't consider any of them general-purpose lenses, as a group they tend to have a higher incidence of aberrations and the like. Then again, under the conditions you would use these lenses you're not going to be copying documents.
It's a compromise, like many others we make every time we choose our gear.
Some people are willing to make that compromise (or justify it), others-such as rxmd-obviously are not.
YMMV
I would agree that anyone who buys a lens purely for its specifications, i.e., without a creative product or objective in mind, is likely to take a lot of boring photographs, but my point was simply that that tendency has nothing to do w/lenses themselves & applies to all lenses, not just fast ones.
Well, of course any picture is taken by the photographer...
...and this particular photographer knows that if I purchased a superspeed lens because I had read on online forums about it, I would take a disproportionate amount of boring pictures with it. That's the effect this kind of purchase has on me. And I'm saying that my impression is that it has it on a lot of others as well, which is why I think it's not only the photographer, but also the phenomenon of GAS-induced exercise-in-numbers purchases in general.
that tendency has nothing to do w/lenses themselves & applies to all lenses, not just fast ones.
I think the tendency is somewhat more pronounced with fast lenses, for two reasons: partly because of the more pronounced character of the OOF effect of the lens, which tends to dominate the pictures above a given aperture, but mainly because fast lenses have a special "geek appeal" - because of the exercise in numbers involved, and because there is a disproportionately large amount of discussion about them, and because you could also use them as plain old normal lenses when stopped down (unlike wideangles), they tend to be more GAS-inducing than other lenses. You certainly read a lot more about Noctilust and GAS for 50/0.95 lenses than about the quest for the ultimate ultrawideangle.
Philipp
David Murphy
01-23-2008, 13:02
It's got to be the Zunow 5cm F1.1 in the rarest mount it came in. What would that be? Was there a pure Contax version? This lens is simply so rare and visionary that it's actual perfomance is sort of irrelevant to me (I'll use a late model Nikkor or Canon 50m F1.2 on a SLR for serious low light work).
It's got to be the Zunow 5cm F1.1 in the rarest mount it came in. What would that be? Was there a pure Contax version? This lens is simply so rare and visionary that it's actual perfomance is sort of irrelevant to me (I'll use a late model Nikkor or Canon 50m F1.2 on a SLR for serious low light work).
There is an LTM mount of the 5cm. Maybe you are referring to the Miranda mount?
rogue_designer
01-25-2008, 15:23
Assuming I had unlimited funds? Probably the Noctilux f1.
But I would miss using it on my Canon P's.
So maybe the Canon 50 1.2, just because it's LTM, and so much more versatile. ;)
Cale Arthur
01-25-2008, 16:00
I think this is the lens to which David was referring: S-mount Zunow 5cm/1.1 (http://page18.auctions.yahoo.co.jp/jp/auction/w19097568)
--c--
I think this is the lens to which David was referring: S-mount Zunow 5cm/1.1 (http://page18.auctions.yahoo.co.jp/jp/auction/w19097568)
--c--
"Seller will not ship internationally" :(
Assuming I had unlimited funds? Probably the Noctilux f1.
But I would miss using it on my Canon P's.
So maybe the Canon 50 1.2, just because it's LTM, and so much more versatile. ;)
Hexanon 60/1.2 is LTM as well. I'd go for Hex, is I had the money for it. Meanwhile Canon 50/1.2 is a way to go for me.
I have briefly used as loaners the Canon 0.95, Nikkor 1.1, and the Noctilux 1.0. I own a Canon 1.2, so this is what I voted for.
Basically, I wouldn't get any of them. They're too fast for me.. and that implies bulk that I don't feel like carrying around. Spoils the whole RF idea in my book. But if I had to choose from this list, I'd go for the Hexanon because of the focal length..
I just purchased a Canon 50/1.2, that will be my fastest to date. It is the only one in my price range. I would love to have the Noctilux, but needing to feed my kids takes prescidence.
HA...I'm with you there! I have and LOVE the CANON 1.2....and to those who complain about its "inferior optics" I say:...pffffft! :angel: :D
Maybe its just me (as usually is the case), but my photog stops when the morning light comes to between ISO 800 at f1.2 and f.1.4 hehe.
Sure a nokton 1.0 onto an M8 would be very desired indeed, but on my planet, driving around the city in a 1,000$ car in the middle of the night with a 3,500$ lens onto a 4,500$ RF is, well....not gonna happen;) . The 1.2 onto my RD1 is about as expensive as it will get for me.
...I do carry a big cron 90 2.0 with me, but thats purely for self defense :D :D
beezerc15
02-12-2008, 12:40
none of the lens which are on the poll,my choice would be my leitz elmar 50mm f2.8 circa1958 ltm mount.though i have a summarit f1.5 it is just brill.
regards john
The 50mm Summilux ASPH, with high speed film.
Just going from 50 to 100, or 100 to 400 negates the needs for a huge bauble of glass on the front of an M6 or an M7. A 1.4 lens with 400 film is an excellent cxompromise.
I've used an 1.4 with 3200 in theaters. Yeah, the grain is there - - -but it would still be there with a Noctilux and 800.
Andrew3511
06-13-2008, 01:46
I used to have the fairly well-regarded 55mm f1.2 Zuiko, but frankly in the situations where you most wanted speed, in poor light, often with light sources in the frame, it was just not adequate wide open with low contrast, flare and coma. I was better off with the f1.4 and underexposing by 1/2 a stop. Stopped down a bit it was a good lens, but the extra weight was just not worth it. The Summilux (not the asph) is pretty good at full aperture and the 35mm lux is useable. I can find a lot of other uses for the money I would pay for a Noctilux, which is the only one that I'd buy.
Nokton 35 1.2 --- much better for my applications shooting in very low light. Easier to hold at lower speeds that are needed for extremely low light shooting. Exceptional wide open performance.
Make mine a Voigtlander 35mm F1.2 in Nikon Rangefinder Mount. I tried a poll on this with out much feedback! There are only currently 3 in the world that I know about.:bang:
It has to be the 35mm Nokton ... but if I didn't have an M8 with the 1.33 crop factor that might not be the case.
If not ... ideally a Noctilux f1 but due to my reluctance to spend that much money on a lens ... probably the Hexanon 50mm f1.2 :)
It has to be the 35mm Nokton ... but if I didn't have an M8 with the 1.33 crop factor that might not be the case.
If not ... ideally a Noctilux f1 but due to my reluctance to spend that much money on a lens ... probably the Hexanon 50mm f1.2 :)
Ha! Only the Noctilux can make a Hex 1.2 seem affordable!
lorriman
07-05-2008, 00:19
"None of the above".
A 85/f1.8 or 85/f1.2 for the SLR is pretty much the only thing I would actually have use for. A fast 50 would be just to satisfy a craze for numbers and then there'd be only boring pictures from it.
Philipp
I like my contextual portraits, and I need a lot of oof background to make it a portrait, and not a candid or a glorified snap. Often the background I would prefer is just too close, and so is the wall to my back. And then f1 would be handy.
Money aside, I would love to try a Zunow LTM, preferably a black one.
Except on a black LEICA III... :
http://www.pacificrimcamera.com/pp/zunow/blk3a6.jpg
Roger Hicks
08-10-2008, 03:53
An awful lot of people seem to be coming at this backwards.
Do you feel yourself limited by the speed of the lenses you already have? In other words, do you find yourself forced to use higher ISOs/EIs than you like, or longer shutter speeds than you can reliably hand-hold?
Or do you like REALLY shallow depth of field? This is where the boring shots come in, in my opinion. Yes, it can be an essential part of your photographic style. Or it can be 'me-too' garbage, as is all too often the case.
If you really feel yourself limited by the fastest lens you own, then something still faster is an excellent idea. But if you just generally think it's cool to have a super-fast lens, you're probably a twit.
I've used a 50/1.2 Nikkor on my SLRs, and 35/1.2 Voigtländer, 50/1.2 Canon and 50/1 Noctilux on my Leicas. I used the Nikkor so little that I sold it; despite the adulation heaped upon the Canon, I don't think it's a very good lens at wider than f/2; the Voigtländer is very nice indeed but I'll live with 1/2 stop slower on my Summilux; and for raw speed, the Noctilux has it all.
So have I bought the Noctilux? No, because I've just bought a Thambar -- an even more specialized lens! Merely because a lens is specialized is no reason to denigrate those who buy it, IF they have a use for it (obviously I'd not buy the Thambar otherwise).
But it was touch and go between the two. And if I can sell my 12x15 inch Gandolfi FAST, I might buy the Noctilux as well.
Cheers,
R.
summilux 50/1,4 asph....plenty fast and a great all-round lens to boot; i can't think of a faster lens i'd rather own than it.
Seconded.
Cheers,
Uwe
35mmdelux
11-23-2008, 00:02
The Noct is a big door stop and slow to focus. Im good with 50 Summilux ASPH -- fast focus & good all round lens. Bump up the speed and the Lux glows!
Peter Klein
11-23-2008, 00:13
I really love the Voigtlander 35/1.2. As I mentioned in another thread, it is sharp wide open, and it doesn't have wiry or swirly bokeh--it has a kind of smooth bokeh like a 1960s Summicron. That's a winning combination. And on the M8, it's a normal lens. I'm a 50mm guy with film and a 35mm guy with the M8.
Of the lenses in the actual poll, I think the 50/1.2 Hexanon gives the nicest looking rendition wide open, so I voted for that.
No, I wouldn't turn down a Noctilux if someone gave me one. But it is just too expensive for me, and there are too many problems with focusing on the M8.
Roger's points about the Canon 50/1.2 are well taken, but hey, it's f/1.2 and it's mine.
Why own a superfast lens? Me, I like to go where the lights are low, and that extra half stop makes a difference sometimes.
--Peter
I just found this photo in the flickr account of this person:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mgay/
where he also uploaded a photo of my Noctilux / Hexar RF, which he has taken (stolen) from my pbase account... :bang:
http://www.pacificrimcamera.com/pp/zunow/blk3a6.jpg
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.