View Full Version : Fast and furious...but how fast?
Okay, someone give me a way of thinking about this.
I do lots of available light photography. Never used a flash except the few times I forgot to turn my digicam's flash off. I often shoot indoors, often in limited light.
So, I like the idea of fast lenses. But, how fast? There's a discussion going on here about the Canon 50 1.2. The CL I'll have soon has the Rokkor 40/2 on it. Also classified as "fast".
But, how fast is fast? How much more limited am I with a 2 than, say a 1.2 (and I know I'll be faster because I don't have that oil-can on the front of my camera!)
Would it be worth it to add a 50mm 1.2, 1.4 or 1.5 to the equation, or would the additional speed be marginal? (Let's assume the I'm thinking that 50mm and 40mm are close enough in focal length not to worry about...I know they're not, but this is argument here.)
Lenses I was thinking about include: Summarit, Canon 50/1.5 or 1.4,.
back alley
08-05-2005, 12:29
i can tell you my thinking...
my plan was to have only one 50mm lens so i decided that having a 1.4 made sense for me.
but keep in mind that with my other lenses an f2 was the fastest so this 1.4 was gonna be the only lens that would be considered really fast. in essence this is my low light lens.
that being said, i really could have lived with the 50/1.8 and been happy too.
i have no problem using higher speed film instead of faster lenses.
the 40 rokkor on the cle is a great lens and if you're steady can be used easily in low light.
my drama series was all low light hand held and cle all the way.
joe
There's no doubt that a 1.4 will let in twice as much light as a 2.0, and that it can be handheld a stop slower as a consequence. The real question however is whether it can be focussed accurately wide open on the rangefinder that you're using. The CL you refer to has a small rangefinder base, so its focus accuracy is limited especially close up.
canonetc
08-05-2005, 12:53
Film speed you normally use indoors is another factor to consider, as well as how slow can you shoot without any shake, and your desired depth of field (DOF). If you can get down to 1/15th of a second, and have 400 ASA film in a low-light situation, you will get something on the neg you can print (depending on available light of course). Even 125 ASA I've had success with. I think your upcoming f/2 lens will be fine considering 400 ASA and 1/15th shutter speed. Or push the 400 to 800 and process accordingly.
Chris
pendevour
08-05-2005, 13:04
I think that the fast lenses 1.2, 1.4, 1.7 etc were very useful about 20 years ago when film speeds were slower and fast film image quality was not so good. Those fast lenses were really needed. Today we have ultra fast films that can deliver good quality and consequently we don't really need such fast lenses. If you have an f1.8 or f2.0 and use fast film (iso 800 or faster) at around 1/30sec (just about my limit without shake) you should be able to record an image in pretty poor light. The fast lenses are great to give shallow DoF when used wide open.
With the GSN I can handhold indoors at night using tri-X in diafine (ISO 1000 due to the GSN's meter) I wouldn't say fast film speed renders fast lenses obsolete, I'd say it makes it possible. EV 5, ISO 1000, f/1.7. By my little handy dandy slide rule There's not even a full stop margin's left over before it keeps it open longer than 1/30th.
Yeah, a good f2 lens can do the trick. I have faster, but don't carry them if I also am carrying my most recent 50 Summicron. I can hand hold to 1/15 with this lens, and at f2 it is better than my fast lenses at f5.6. I would put the 40/2 Rokker in the same class as my Summicron (I had one). I also don't mind the motion blur in a lot of my shots, that is a personal choice. It is not an easy question to answer. I would seriously question a 50/1.2 on the very short base length finders of the CL, CLE and Bessas.
Can the CL focus a 1.4 or 1.2 accurately and reliably with such a short RF base? The Cameraquest page seems to indicate that it can't.
My post in the other thread.
"OK, the 50/1.2 will mount on the Canon IV SB2, and it is usable, barely. The lens slightly protrudes into the RF window and you can see just the curve of the barrel in the RF patch in the viewfinder. It is there, but you can still focus the camera. You will just have to get used to seeing it there."
I think the closeness of the RF window to the lens mount on the CL may be an issue in the same way.
Roger Hicks
08-05-2005, 14:17
Pendevour's argument is superficially attractive but you ALWAYS need more speed, even with ultra-fast (f/1.2, f/1) lenses and seriously fast film (Delta 3200 at 3200, 6400, 12,500). I chose to stop at f/1.4/f/1.5 in 35mm and 50mm for size, weight and price (I sold my 50/1.2 Nikkor) , but also for d-o-f and ease of focusing. If I could afford a 50/1 Noctilux I'd buy it -- I love that lens, which I borrowed for a year from a generous friend -- but I think I'd prefer the 75/2 (which I have) to the 75/1.4 (which I don't). And my pre-aspheric 35/1.4 is SO much smaller and lighter than the 35/1.2 Nokton (which I have also tried) that I can't justify the faster lens.
I've just been shooting a South Korean folklore troupe, after dark, outdoors, with the MP and 90/2 Summicron with Delta 3200 at 3200-6400. The d-o-f with anything faster would have been even more of a problem -- and I've used an 85/1.4 on a Contax SLR.
There is no such thing as a lens that is too fast; only lenses that cost too much, asre too big, or havbe too little d-o-f.
Cheers,
Roger (www.rogerqandfrances.com)
I've only owned one lens in the past 40 years faster than f1.8 (a 1.4) and didn't own it very long. The increase in weight and bulk seems to me to cancel out the light gathering advantages. It doesn't seem to me that you gain that much after getting below f2, particularly with the high speed films available today. And as someone else pointed out, with a fast lens, wide open, your dept of field is very small. The huge premium one pays for f1.2 seems to be more for the "look, mine is bigger" crowd -- like the guys who always have to have the fastest computer.
back alley
08-05-2005, 14:33
my computer starts with a crank!
but it IS big.
wlewisiii
08-05-2005, 14:38
Honestly, I've only owned a couple of 1.8 lenses and find that I still prefer my 2.0 or even 2.8 (or that "fast" 75/3.5 on the Iskra... :) ) lenses for other reasons. DOF is one, the look from the lens is another... The only faster lens I'd like to get is the 50/1.5 Sonnar for my Kiev/Contax kit and that's more out of curiosity than anything.
Now I don't usually push the envelope much and when I do, I use faster emulsions to make up the difference, so my experiance may be an anomality here. Just wanted to get the POV into the thread though.
William
Rover wrote:
"I think the closeness of the RF window to the lens mount on the CL may be an issue in the same way."
I have used my Canon 50mm f:1.2 on my CL. It works OK, no issue with blocking the RF windows (offcourse the lens is visible in the viewfinder, but it doesn't make it unusable). That being said; I prefer the Leica 40mm f:2 as it is a lot lighter, easier to focus and I get 'better' results from it.
Wim
I think that the fast lenses 1.2, 1.4, 1.7 etc were very useful about 20 years ago when film speeds were slower and fast film image quality was not so good.
http://homepage.mac.com/jlw/images/97-05-07_32.jpg
As the young lady in this picture might be saying, I'll give you four good reasons why wide-aperture lenses are still useful:
Fast-film image quality may have improved, but it's still limited. Anything over about 1250 EI in black-and-white (and about EI 800 in color neg) still comes at the expense of reduced shadow detail; even an extra third of a stop of maximum aperture can make the difference between the details being there and not being there.
When lights are low, wider lens apertures translate directly into more hand-holdable shutter speeds. Choosing an f/1.4 vs. an f/2 can mean the difference between an easily shootable 1/60 and a somewhat risky 1/30, or (worse yet) a risky 1/30 and a VERY risky 1/15. Sure, you can get off a sharp hand-held shot at 1/15 occasionally, but why not improve your odds?
Even if you use a tripod to eliminate the problem of camera movement, there's still the problem of subject movement. No problem if you're shooting inanimate, motionless subject matter. But with people, animals, etc., the higher you can crank up the shutter speeds, the better.
No matter how high your film speed, there will be times when you want to take pictures under conditions where it's a limiting case. The picture above of the young lady (actually reminding her fellow performers that they've only got four more rehearsals before opening night) was lit only by the little safety lights in the theater aisle and some spill off the stage behind them. I can't tell you what exposure I should have used because it was too dark to read the meter, and even with EI 1600 film and an f/0.95 lens it was a crapshoot: I just set my Canon 7s to the slowest shutter speed I thought I could hand-hold -- 1/15, I think -- and hoped for the best. This isn't a technically stellar picture, but I liked the moment and it tells the story. If I had been using an f/2 lens, I'd have been at 1/4 sec., and it would have been a miracle if I'd gotten anything legible.
I'm not saying everyone needs an ultra-speed lens... but if you often find yourself shooting your f/2 lens at f/2, that probably means you actually could use an f/1.4 occasionally, and if you're often shooting at f/1.4, I'll bet there are times you could use an f/1.2.
The points raised above about finder blockage and focusing accuracy are highly legitimate, though, so you have to strike a balance between what gives you the exposure you need and what works on your camera (not to mention what level of image quality you prefer, how much size and weight you can tolerate, and what you're willing or able to pay!)
Nice shot jlw... is the focus just slightly behind the young lady, or is it a bit of motion blur?
Bertram2
08-05-2005, 16:03
. The increase in weight and bulk seems to me to cancel out the light gathering advantages. It doesn't seem to me that you gain that much after getting below f2, particularly with the high speed films available today. And as someone else pointed out, with a fast lens, wide open, your dept of field is very small. The huge premium one pays for f1.2 seems to be more for the "look, mine is bigger" crowd -- like the guys who always have to have the fastest computer.
You said it all, I have nothing to add than my personal experience: I own a 1.5/50 CV Nokton and a perfectly working 2/50 J8 and after half a year of using them both I 'd be happy if I had started with the J8 and left the Nokton on the dealer's shelf.
The only reason why I did not sell the Nokton is that I would lose about $350 ( I once bought it in Germany for about $600) and that I like it's footprint very much. To justify that I still keep it I take it instead of the J8 sometimes to very dark places tho I know I very seldom can really use the extra stop because of the shallow DOF.
A pro MUST do everything he can to improve his chances , no matter how much the improvement really is. He simply does everthing to avoid a missed shot.
But we are amateurs and can afford the smaller, lighter and cheaper and mostly sharper solution.
Nonetheless, tho we can afford the cheaper lenses, some amateurs prefer the big and heavy lenses because of various reasons . But as always the photos solely prove the photogs competence and I have seen much more nonsense shots done with fast or super fast lenses than nice shots who prove a knowledgeable use of such a very special tool.
I hope my choice of "nonsense shots" was diplomatic enuff and nobody feels offended ? :angel:
Regards,
Bertram
Nice shot jlw... is the focus just slightly behind the young lady, or is it a bit of motion blur?
Possibly a bit of both, plus the fact that it was a terrible scan... gotta rescan that neg one of these days now that I've got a better scanner.
Available darkness with affordable cameras is what got me interested in film after finally having a digital p&s I was reasonably happy with. It's also what got me down the path of rangefinders, mechanical cameras, learning about composition, developing (you can thank the lure of Ilford 3200 for that, even though it's not where I ended up). When I stop saying "gee I wish I could get that on film but its too dark to shoot it", I'll admit it might be fast enough. Until then, Roger said it well.
Possibly a bit of both, plus the fact that it was a terrible scan... gotta rescan that neg one of these days now that I've got a better scanner.
It's a hard shot either way... f.95 isn't very much dof to work with and you did very well. I have the Canon 55/1.2 in the FL mount, which is a "for the fun of it" lense rather than any real need, and the lack of dof on that is quite something already.
If you're not sure you will like a fast lens, and you're affraid to buy one, don't forget about the f:1.5 Jupiter 3. Get yourself a J3 and a Fed 2 or Zorki 6 for +/-100 USD (or slightly more for a Kiev and J3 in Kiev/Contax mount) and you're ready to play. Keep 200 asa film and your f:2 lens on one camera and 3200 asa and your f:1.5 lens on the other and you are prepared for most light conditions. The J3 is not much larger than a J8 and very light.
Wim
The Summarit 5cm F1.5 is the bargain of Leica lenses, but you will need to budget ~$80 for a CLA and look for one without coating damage.
Even after cleaning, don't aim a Summarit into the light... unless you enjoy "atmospheric" lighting effects, which sometimes are quite nice. I probably wouldn't have liked this picture (one from my gallery) nearly as much if I had shot it with a modern, multi-coated, low-flare lens:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffgallery/gallery/588/U588I1119758663.SEQ.0.jpg
I do not really like fast films after a darkroom printing session with disappointing results (Neopan 1600, and it was a lot better than Kodak Tmz). Then I switched to printing a Tmax 100 negative and was blown away. I have not used fast films since, though I have a couple in the fridge just in case I want to have another go.
I have a 50/1.2 lens that I have not used much. I do most indoors low light photography with a 50/3.5 and sometimes a 35/2 with 400 film. Steadying the elbows works well when I start to go over the edge. When it gets even darker I have found that the photos I have taken tend to get rather boring anyway, so I do not bother anymore.
Using the 50/1.2 I can switch to ISO 100 film instead, but the 50/3.5 has better depth of field which is valuable when you are close and I like the results I get with it..
I will probably experiment with the 50/1.2 in low light outdoors in the coming winter.
/Håkan
Roger Hicks
08-06-2005, 02:02
I have alweays found Delta 3200 to be the best of the fast films: the fastest, and therefore the grainiest, but tonally the best by a long way.
Cheers,
Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)
Bertram2
08-06-2005, 03:30
. unless you enjoy "atmospheric" lighting effects, which sometimes are quite nice.
[IMG]G]
I like this photo, it does have strong atmospheric effects indeed ! it is well exposed, i think you got the maximum out of the film.
But on the other hand it's a well suited example for a discussion about low light photography too ( I really don't like this "available darkness " nonsense) and I ask myself if not Tri-X and a very discrete and unobtrousive (fill in) flash (small soft box) would have made a better result ?
Saying "better" I do not mean the technical quality only, I do mean the artistic quality too. As I said, a thought only which came to my mind while watching this nice photo.
Best regards,
bertram
I like this photo, it does have strong atmospheric effects indeed ! it is well exposed, i think you got the maximum out of the film.
But on the other hand it's a well suited example for a discussion about low light photography too ( I really don't like this "available darkness " nonsense) and I ask myself if not Tri-X and a very discrete and unobtrousive (fill in) flash (small soft box) would have made a better result ?
Well, let's look at that in a strictly practical sense. In this particular example, firing off ANY flash (no matter how diffused or unobtrusive) would have gotten me kicked out of the theater! It's usually an assumed but unspoken rule, and in this case (because there was a lot of press interest in this performance) I was warned explicitly.
And as it happens, this was the last picture on the roll -- so if I had decided to ignore the rule and chance the use of flash for the first picture on the roll, I wouldn't have been around to have a chance to get this one.
There are a lot of other situations in which the use of flash, even if tolerated, changes the dynamics of the picture-taking situation in a way that may make it impossible to get the kind of result you want.
Now, I do agree with what you're getting at: If you know in advance the kind of picture you want to make, and have the opportunity to control the situation, the best way to get a result of high technical quality is to create the kind of lighting and environment that will let you use the equipment that will yield that quality. If you can fully control the environment and lighting, you can use whatever camera, film/sensor, lens, etc. will give you the best image.
That's exactly why I own a car-trunk-load of studio flash equipment, and am willing to haul it around and set it up whenever the opportunity presents itself to use it.
BUT... my problem with this scenario is that the pictures I can previsualize inside my head usually aren't as good as the ones that walk up and hit me in the face by accident! And given that the range of my creativity is limited, I can't afford NOT to take advantage of those accidents.
That means I have to work with equipment that's portable, flexible, responsive, and usable in a wide range of conditions. That's why I shoot with a rangefinder camera, and it's also why I find it invaluable to have a high-speed lens or two at the ready.
The image quality may not be as good, but the picture quality is better.
To put it another way: For me, photography is like golf, not like pool. In pool (at least where I play) we use a house rule called "gentleman's call." You're not allowed to win on a slop shot; if you luck into a shot that was NOT what you had intended, you're supposed to fess up and award the match to the other guy.
In golf, on the other hand, the rule is always "rub o' the green." That means that luck (good or bad) counts just as much as intention. If you're just trying to blunder out of the greenside bunker, and the ball happens to get caught by a gust of wind, bounce off a passing vulture, and fall into the cup -- hey, it still counts, no matter what it does to your opponent's blood pressure. It's just rub o' the green.
Photographers differ widely in skill level, which may be one reason there are such strongly-held diverse opinions on this subject. Personally, my skill level isn't high enough to play "gentleman's call" in my photography -- I have to take the rub o' the green every chance I get. Packing a high-speed lens is one way to help me get away with it.
Wow, this generated some conversation in my absence!
So, comparing the Summarit, Canon 1.5, and Canon 1.4, what's the size/weight differences. (Approximate). Which ones have the best bokeh?
I know that last one is an objective question entirely, so I accept only scientific answers!
:)
Bertram2
08-06-2005, 09:36
Well, let's look at that in a strictly practical sense. In this particular example, firing off ANY flash (no matter how diffused or unobtrusive) would have gotten me kicked out of the theater!.
I see, you had no choice at all. Not surprising in this kind of environment and many other environments too which strictly exclude flash from various reasons.
There a fast lens is a MUST no matter if amateur or pro.
My question has been absolutely hypothethical, and correctly asked it should have been if you would have prefered ( if allowed) to take a slower ISO, a slower lens stopped down and my tiny little Metz 34CS2 flash to get an easier lightning situation and another result, which would not have been better necessarily, I know.
All the many years I have avoided flash almost at any price and since a while i doubt if this was right. I now always carry this tiny little flash with me as a ultima ratio, and I try to find out if and how one can get acceptable results with it in low light environments.
And watching your photo exactly this came to my mind, my question was hypothetical , as I said and not meant as an arrogant suggestion how you can do your work better, which I generally like and estimate.
Sorry if it sounded like this ! :)
Best,
Bertram
Roger Hicks
08-06-2005, 10:37
Dear Bertram2,
Maybe I will come to your equanimity and adopt flash one day, but I doubt it. To me it's the one thing that looks worse than digital.
Cheers,
Roger
I think Brian summed it up. Most lenses are better when stopped down from the maximum by up to three stops.
So in theory an F1.4 lens will work better at F2 (with less vignetting) than say an F2 lens wide open.
Bottom line, you gotta weigh up cost v weight v size.
Bertram2
08-06-2005, 16:50
Dear Bertram2,
Maybe I will come to your equanimity and adopt flash one day, but I doubt it. To me it's the one thing that looks worse than digital.
Cheers,
Roger
WOW, Roger , mon dieu , you must really HATE it !!!! :D :D :D
But you are right, MOSTLY flash looks even worse than digital, also for me.
Hope this kind of commitment will not cause trouble again. :rolleyes:
I have not adopted it yet, I just try to find out if this is unavoidable or if there are techniques who allow acceptable results under certain circumstances.
Most of all I am interested in the fill-in flash issue, but also in the low light shooting.
I simply find it interesting to experiment a bit, I have seen flash shots which I would prefer to a 3200 or 6400 ISO shot at f1.5 with grain like golf balls and a lot motion blur. As said I have not adopted it yet, maybe I'll come back to my starting point at the end, who knows. Then I can say too i have been there.
Mais je suis revenu parce que tout cela n'est que merde. ;)
Best regards to the lovely South West of France,
Bertram
Don't worry, I didn't take any offense.
And I agree that a small flash is a useful thing to have, when circumstances permit it. One thing for which it's especially good is adding a bit of direction to light that's bright enough for photography, but too "flat" to be interesting. A lot of fluorescent-lit interiors fall into this category -- there's plenty of light, but it doesn't come from anywhere in particular, so you don't get any shadowing or sense of volume.
A small flash, positioned off the camera to fall at an angle on the subject, and set to fill in at a bit less than 1 stop over the ambient-light exposure, will give your subject some shape without spoiling the natural look of the photo.
Bertram2
08-06-2005, 18:15
Don't worry, I didn't take any offense.
A small flash, positioned off the camera to fall at an angle on the subject, and set to fill in at a bit less than 1 stop over the ambient-light exposure, will give your subject some shape without spoiling the natural look of the photo.
Exactly ! Perfectly described example !! The little Metz CS34 is always off camera, either in my breastspocket or in my left hand held up at my lhs when I shoot, connected to the camera with a spiral cable. The flash is so small that I can hide it completely in my hand, like a package of cigarettes .
Tanks for keeping cool btw , I mean this silly digital joke I made ! :D
Regards,
bertram
Stephanie Brim
08-06-2005, 18:23
How fast your lens should be really depends on your budget, your usage, and your ability to hand-hold the camera. In that order.
For a long time I used a Nikon SLR. I had one of the best lenses ever made for the thing as well: the 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor AI. The lens, when wide open, is pretty sharp and gives a pretty shallow DOF. When opened to f/2 or f/2.8, the lens is tack-sharp and gives a very nice shallow DOF close-up. I used it mainly for close-up shots where I needed the DOF as shallow as possible to blur out as much of the background noise as possible. That lens served me well.
Now that I'm moving to the RF camp I've realized something and I'm liking it: I can now hand-hold the camera at much slower shutter speeds than I could ever hold the SLR. I can hand-hold the P at around 1/15th of a second whereas I could only use the Nikon SLR at 1/60th or so. Mirror slap effects this. This makes me happy with the lens I have, a 50/1.8, because I realise that I no longer need the extra stop.
I will, of course, buy another 50 somewhere down the road probably, but I can shoot in a dark bar with ISO 400 film and be fine with what I have. If I need more speed, I'll go the cheaper route and up the ISO speed of my film instead of buying a new lens.
It really depends on your own personal preferences as to shooting and, also, how you develop film.
I believe what seems to be a general aversion to adding additional artificial light to a photo has been carried to an extreme.
Certainly if you mount a flash on the hotshoe, eight inches above the lens, you are going to get what every photographer who considers himself creative hates -- a uniformly lit photo with no scene enhancing shadows. But when you take the flash off the camera you can actually use the light to your advantage.
On the walls of the printing firm where I work are a series of absolutely beautiful 16 x 20 prints of employees at work in the pressroom, bindery and office. They were shot in 1940 by a LIFE Magazine photographer who was illustrating a story on the publishing business. The feature never ran (WWII intervened).
In the photos the muscles of the pressmen's arms stand out like steel bands with beautiful detail in their hands and faces. But much of the clutter in the background is hidden in the shadows. The viewer only sees what the photographer wanted them to see. The depth of field is precisely controlled in every shot. The lighting is Classic LIFE from that period.
Now I can tell you from looking at these original blowups that they weren't shot with any 35 mm camera of the period. Probably 4x5 or possibly larger. You didn't have lenses fast enough on those babies to freeze people at work in the dimly-lit buildings of the period. There was artificial lighting used. My guess would be flashbulbs. A lot of planning and light placement went into every shot. But there is no way you could duplicate those photos with modern, superfast lenses and film using only available light.
The old LIFE photographers used artificial light to paint their subjects.
Pardon me for rambling, but one more example: In the early 1970s National Geographic did a feature on our region with an emphasis on the Basque population (we have the largest Basque community outside Spain). I can't remember the name of the photographer but when he came to town to photograph the festivities at the annual Basque Dance he used Nikon F cameras -- but he also mounted 11 high powered strobes in the rafters of the fieldhouse where the dance was held. National Geographic ran one photo from the dance with the dancers whirling around in their colorful costumes. The hall was dark and there is no way the photographer could have shot it available light using Kodachrome--or by using a single flash. What looked like "available light" was actually produced by about 11 gigawatts:) of additional illumination.
So, there is a place and a time for flashes--even a single flash.
I seldom use a flash, but I almost always carry one with me. I never mount it on the accessory shoe ( unless I'm shooting family snaps) and the cord is long enough so I can get the flash a least an arm's length from the camera. With one light I won't be duplicating the LIFE photos but sometimes I believe it adds something that is needed to the photo.
Brian Sweeney
08-06-2005, 20:12
I edited my previous entry to include the Canon 50mm F1.4 examples. Also see the thread over on the Nikon forum for examples of the Nikkor 5cm F1.4 in both S-Mount and LTM, and some more axamples from the Summarit. I guess those Summilux users just do not want to post any shots.
I have not used Flash with my interchangeable lens RF's. For documentation work, I like the Nikon SB29 "Ring" Flash. It's not bad for portraits, either. The shot of the SP on the next link is with the SB29 and Micro-Nikkor 60mm F2.8.
Thread on the Nikkor, with some Summarit shots:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9602
Bertram2
08-07-2005, 07:22
I believe what seems to be a general aversion to adding additional artificial light to a photo has been carried to an extreme................
Certainly if you mount a flash on the hotshoe, eight inches above the lens, you are going to get what every photographer who considers himself creative hates .......
With one light I won't be duplicating the LIFE photos but sometimes I believe it adds something that is needed to the photo.
Wayne , this is exactly what I meant, I did like your stories which are perfect examples of a somehow forgotten skill. Where does this aversion come from ?
If ever possible amateurs refer to the pros, justifying that they buy too expensive cameras, too fast lenses, too expensive films, too heavy zooms ,going digital etc . ;)
But if it comes to adding some available light from a flash this is a sin for some tho ALL pros used it and still use it today.Even Robert Doisneau used it from time to time, there is a wonderful photo of a young couple dancing all alone on on a Parisian "place" downtown at night, the flash cuts it outta the dark and thus illustrates strongly their faraway ecstasy and happiness our of time and space, a masterpiece possible to shoot only with a flash.
This is one of a series he shot there , really NOT the best one but it demonstrates the idea.
Best regards,
Bertram
Bertram2
08-07-2005, 07:55
How fast your lens should be really depends on your budget, your usage, and your ability to hand-hold the camera. In that order.
.
Sorry no, surely not in this order, Stephanie.
Budget cannot decide if the lens is useful or not for you tho I know there are enuff folks who buy everything just because the can afford it and want to own it.
What does "usage" mean in this context ? I did not understand it.
And when it comes to handheld shooting in low light: Aperture and shuttertime are only mathematical equivalents , but they have a very different impact on your pics.
You don't get one stop using 1,5 instedad of f2 as you get it from the double ISO , you have to pay with severe restrictions concerning DOF.
Have you ever realized how marginal your DOF really is for a 1,4/50 at 6ft for example ? It is 0,35 feet ! With this DOF you get hardly a portrait head sharp from nose to ears.
So a fast lens is of VERY limited use , you will find that confirmed after some time of practising with it at all apertures.
BTW I haven't found your gallery recently, AFAIR there had been one ,did you delete all pics or do I remember wrongly ?
Regards,
Bertram
Thanks everyone for the cool conversation, even the veer into flash. I'm not a flash user--great work can be done with them, but for me, photography is about sucking light in and not throwing it out--but that's just me.
I've lots to think about in terms of fast lenses. Of the shots I've seen, the Canon 50/1.4 appeal to me the most. Of course, that's low-res online images, but they all are equally-hampered.
I've got a 40/2 Rokkor on the CL that's in UPS's clutches at the moment...I'll give that a spin and see how it shakes down.
cheers
doug
Sorry no, surely not in this order, Stephanie.
Budget cannot decide if the lens is useful or not for you tho I know there are enuff folks who buy everything just because the can afford it and want to own it.
Coming from Stephanie's viewpoint, and one that I can also understand, budget = lack of funds :), and is the _main_ deciding factor on how fast of a lense one can get. Once you get past the "budget = lack of $$$" problem, then you can change the order around.
Roger Hicks
08-08-2005, 00:39
Dear Bertram,
"So a fast lens is of VERY limited use , you will find that confirmed after some time of practising with it at all apertures."
Sorry: disagree completely. It may be of very limited use to you, but not to me, I shoot a lot of film every year at full bore, and as I said, if I could afford a 50/1 I'd buy it. The ONLY things that stop me buyiong ultra-fast lenses are money and the fact that some are horribly bulky e.g. the 75/1.4 instead of the 75/2, or the new 35/14 Summiluxes as compared with my last-generation pre-aspheric.
I really don't think you can say that everyone will find your view confirmed, any more than I can say that everyone will find my view confirmed.
Cheers,
Roger
Brian Sweeney
08-08-2005, 01:56
Glad to hear that you are going with the Canon 50mm F1.4. It is a great all-around lens. You also asked about the size difference between the lenses, instead of making you go through the Camera and Coffee thread, here are links to the attachments.
Canon IIf with 50mm F1.5 Canon:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=5136
Canon L1 with 50mm F1.5 Summarit:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2540
Canon 7 with the Nikkor 5cm F1.4:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2541
Canon VI-T with the Nikkor next to the Canon 7 with the Canon 50mm F1.4:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=9355
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=9353
As for the budget question, the two F1.4 lenses did not run much more than an F1.8. More a question of patience and waiting for the right lens to come along at the right price. The Nikkor 5cm F1.4 ran $95 at Midwest Photo Exchange 2 years ago, the Canon 7 with the Canon 50mm F1.4 ran $395 on an Ebay BIN last year, and the Canon IIF with the Canon 50mm F1.5 ran $350 at a camera show this winter. The F1.5 is on the rare side compared with the other two. The Summarit was under $140 on Ebay, add in an $80 CLA.
Bertram2
08-08-2005, 02:49
Coming from Stephanie's viewpoint, and one that I can also understand, budget = lack of funds :), and is the _main_ deciding factor on how fast of a lense one can get. Once you get past the "budget = lack of $$$" problem, then you can change the order around.
Well, my understanding of Stepanie's statement was the same , if you really need a fast lens and can't buy it then budget is of course a limiting factor. No doubt about it and so far Stepanies point of view was correct.
But what I meant was that the budget issue is a misleading point in or discussion. We were talking about fast and super fast lenses and if it makes sense to buy them.
If you have no money you must not decide anything.
Regards,
Bertram
Bertram2
08-08-2005, 03:13
Dear Bertram,
"So a fast lens is of VERY limited use , you will find that confirmed after some time of practising with it at all apertures."
I shoot a lot of film every year at full bore, and as I said, if I could afford a 50/1 I'd buy it.
The ONLY things that stop me buyiong ultra-fast lenses are money ............
I really don't think you can say that everyone will find your view confirmed...........
Cheers,
Roger
Roger,
maybe I should have said better the extra stop is of very limited use ?
I was talking about facts and not about personal preferences.
If you use such lenses a lot wide open that's not a contradiction to the facts I'd say.
You like a certain style of shooting, you know how to use these lenses wide open and what you can use it for or not.
And don't get me wrong, slow lenses are not a religion for me. I know very well why I haven't sold my Nokton tho my J8 has "almost " the same speed.
I just wanted to say that a stop more isn't just a stop more, what you can use that stop for depends on how you gain it: ISO,shuttertime, lens, support etc.
That's a very old truth, isn't it ?
Nonetheless beginners often step into this trap and are bitterly disapointed later because the lens is not good for what they had bought it but all the money is off.
Best regards,
Bertram
Brian Sweeney
08-08-2005, 07:18
And a really big lens, just to make all the other ones seem reasonable in size. Canon 50mm F0.95.
Usually, these will run much more than $200. I love EBay BIN's.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2542
I also have an F0.75 lens, but it is limited in use.
Nobody much mentioned the Zeiss Sonnar 50/1.5. How would that compare to the others?
Brian Sweeney
08-08-2005, 07:39
The problem is getting the Zeiss Sonnar 5cm F1.5 in Leica Thread Mount. It is a FANTASTIC lens. I use it on the Contax IIIa but prefer it on the Nikon S2 for the 1x viewfinder. I modified the film-flange distance to use it on the S2. Otherwise the focus would have been off.
If you want the "Sonnar" look on the Leica, the Canon 50mm F1.5 and Nikkor 5cm F1.4 or "copies" of it. I personally think that the Canon is the more faithful copy to the Sonnar personality. I also picked up an inexpensive Jupiter-3 50mm F1.5 in LTM and am testing it out. The workmanship is not as good as the other lenses, but at $50- no complaints.
5CM F1.5 Zeiss-Opton Sonnar, wide-open.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=2335&cat=3204&page=7
Stopped Down, ~F4:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=2336&cat=3204&page=7
And a really big lens, just to make all the other ones seem reasonable in size. Canon 50mm F0.95.
Usually, these will run much more than $200. I love EBay BIN's.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2542
I also have an F0.75 lens, but it is limited in use.
My, what big EYES you have.
go
Brian Sweeney
08-08-2005, 07:47
And just to show that I have a slower lens, here's the Type I Rigid Summicron on the M3, wide-open. I also have the 50mm F3.5 Elmar on the IIIf, great for outdoors.
M3, type I Rigid 50mm F2 Summicron, wide-open.
Brian Sweeney
08-08-2005, 07:53
The Canon 50mm F0.95 really gets noticed when I take it to the National Zoo.
Wide-Open, Canon 50mm F0.95.
What about all that stuff on Dante Stella's website about the Jupiter lenses having inherent focusing errors on Leica bodies (by design, not q.c.). Any analysis of that? If I had a good shot at a good one, I'd try the j-3 in a second.
Roger Hicks
08-08-2005, 07:57
Dear Betram,
I see your point, though I am still not entirely sure that I agree. What I would say, though, is that a fast lens is not one of those things where you have to ask yourself if you need it or not. If you are constantly running out of light, as I am, you KNOW.
On the other hand I fully take your point about d-o-f. A couple of days ago I was shooting Delta 3200 at EI 3200 with a 90/2 (I'd mislaid the 75/2). The 75/2 would have been better but a 75/1.4 woukdn't, for precisely the reasons you give. But I might have considered the 50/1 instead, if I sill had it...
Cheers,
Roger
Brian Sweeney
08-08-2005, 07:58
I agree with Dante on the focus error. The same error happens when you mount a Zeiss lens on the Nikon Body. I took the focussing helical off of the Nikon S2 and moved it out 0.5mm to correct most of the error. The residual is covered by the DOF, even at F1.5. I set the camera up on an Optical Bench at work to verify the focus, and it works well in use. On the Jupiter lenses, it should be possible to add a 0.5mm ring on the back of the lens to compensate. Step 1: I am testing the lens for error, step two: build up the coupling.
How is that ring added? The idea, to review, is to move the lens mount .5 mm farther from the film plane, correct? Does the screw part of the lens mount itself screw out, allowing something to be added (an o-ring) that would keep it farther out?
A standard spacer (or even a standard method a la the various Yashica POD methods outlined here and elsewhere) might make a nice addition that I'm sure lots of FSU folks would appreciate.
Brian Sweeney
08-08-2005, 08:06
The lens that I would love to find in LTM, as McBroom's lists it as being available in that mount, is the Schneider Xenon 50mm F1.9.
(I think I yelled, "Look! That poor squirrel fell out of the tree!")
This one works with the Retina IIIS, and is wide-open. I should add that this lens cost $10.
Brian Sweeney
08-08-2005, 08:11
I took the Jupiter-3 apart from the front to clean it. I will have to "surf" for some disassembly instruction, it was not obvious like the Canons. Moving the lens out 0.5mm will work. As the entire lens module moves the RF cam on the camera, putting a 0.5mm ring on the back of the lens-the part that contacts the RF pickup wheel- should be a quick-and-dirty solution. I will lose some of the close-focus, but not much.
I'll be interested to see what Nikki thinks of that solution!
Well, my understanding of Stepanie's statement was the same , if you really need a fast lens and can't buy it then budget is of course a limiting factor. No doubt about it and so far Stepanies point of view was correct.
But what I meant was that the budget issue is a misleading point in or discussion. We were talking about fast and super fast lenses and if it makes sense to buy them.
If you have no money you must not decide anything.
Regards,
Bertram
Lack of funds does not equal no funds. That's why we call it a budget instead of being broke... little difference sometimes :). Budgets can also be relative, as I'm sure Roger's budget and Steph's budget are going to be _slightly_ different, but yet a very large factor in the decision making process. The difference btwn a f2, f1.5 & f1.2/f1.1/f1.0 is _huge_ in the RF world if you're jumping from a J8 to a Nokton, but the difference btwn new lenses is not near as much... I just checked Cameraquest, and a new 50/2.5 is only $289 and 50/1.5 only $329, a $40- difference. Unfortunately, you bought your's at the wrong time, but if you're following the discussion, that's the range we were originally discussing before veering off into super-fast territory.
I choose not to view every statement in absolute terms, and try to see a little humour and enjoy the opinions of others.
What about all that stuff on Dante Stella's website about the Jupiter lenses having inherent focusing errors on Leica bodies (by design, not q.c.). Any analysis of that? If I had a good shot at a good one, I'd try the j-3 in a second.
If you look at the specs on modern LTM cameras virtually every one of them has its own lens-to-film distance--close but not exactly 28.8mm (which is the Russian standard and I believe Leica, too). In most cases, even when using normal lenses from another brand, it won't make any difference because if the lens is stopped down the dof will take care of the ltf difference. Where you will run into problems when using say a J8 on a Bessa or (doesn't Konica make an LTM?) is when you are shooting wide open. There's very little margin for error.
As for the budget question...
the Canon 7 with the Canon 50mm F1.4 ran $395 on an Ebay BIN last year....
Ritz collectiblesRitz Collectibles (http://www.ritzcam.com/catalog/frameset.php?category_id=80) has a Canon 7 w/ 10/1.4 listed for $425 now. Seems like a good price for that combo if anyone's interested.
Scott
What's the body worth? Is someone interested in splitting this package with me...I get the lens, partner gets the body? I wonder if the meter works. Listed as good user.
hmm.
Ritz also has a CZJ sonnar LTM for $225, with some coating wear and tight aperture. A good deal?
Stephanie Brim
08-08-2005, 10:50
What you need to do before buying a lens is the same regardless of budget: what do you really need? If you could get away with an f/2, get an f/2. If you know you'll want something faster, wait until you have the budget to get the faster lens.
I've decided on the Canon 35mm f/1.8 as my next lens because I know that I'm going to want something faster than the Voigtlander's f/2.5 or the other Canon f/2.8. I'd ideally like the f/1.2 because I know that it would get use, but CV doesn't make a version of it in screwmount. That kinda sucks, really, as it would have been ideal for low-light street photography at night.
What I would say, though, is that a fast lens is not one of those things where you have to ask yourself if you need it or not. If you are constantly running out of light, as I am, you KNOW.Hi Roger -- Just taking the contrary view, maybe what you know at that point is that you need something MORE.... More lens speed is only one option, more film speed is another option, more steadiness via tripod is an option, as is more light added through reflectors or flashes.
Each of these options is limited in scope and practicality, and each offers a somewhat different photographic effect, and of course can be combined. If a tripod is inappropriate, and adding light isn't practical, and you're maxxed-out effectively on film speed, then through desperation perhaps you turn to f/1.0
I used to be a fan of lens speed; "Give me MORE!" But those were the SLR days where that wide aperture means a bright viewfinder and snappier focus. I avoided shooting my fast lenses wide open. One of the nice things about an RF camera, I think, is relief from that... Slower lenses focus as accurately and brightly as faster ones. And I've come more to think that wide apertures carry unwanted baggage, especially where you're forced into them by low light and not by esthetic choice of narrow DoF.
Of course often more lens speed is not an option. Such as when you already have the fast lens for that focal length and it's not enough. Or when there just are no fast lenses, as with the XPan and many others.
Brian Sweeney
08-08-2005, 11:55
It's been a long time since I've been forced into using any lens. And if the F0.95 is not fast enough, it's time to break out the Agema 570 Long-Wave infrared camera.
Honu-Hugger
08-08-2005, 12:29
Nobody much mentioned the Zeiss Sonnar 50/1.5. How would that compare to the others?
I've been very pleased with the Sonnar, even in low light wide-open. What seems to be missing from this discussion is how particular lenses perform at their optimum aperture range; f/1.2 or 1.4 mean very little if the lenses do not perform well at the open aperures. Once again it is wrong to make generalizations regarding the optimum range for all lenses; my father was dismissing the 58/1.2 NOCT and a 200/2 Nikkor by assuming that they had to be stopped in the middle range for optimal performance. With these two lenses in particular this is just not the case; Nikon designed them both to perform best close to wide open. I'm sure this exists with lenses of other manufacturers, as well (a 100/2 Kinoptik is exceptional from 2.8 on). On the other hand, a 50/1.2 Nikkor is a huge hunk of glass and generally considered to be a lousy performer -- you might as well have a 50/1.4 or a 1.8 lens. (The two shots are from a 1.5 Sonnar taken the same evening).
P. S. I don't recall the exposures for either shot, but I remember the deckhand was stopped down and the paddle-wheel was wide open -- it seems as though I was using Supra 800 (?).
Yeah, needing to stop down for any kind of quality seems to me to make the extra speed pointless, unless wide open is just acceptable, and you keep it in your pocket for that rare occasion. Those are very nice shots, Honu, especially the second. Both wide open?
Bertram2
08-08-2005, 14:02
. I'd ideally like the f/1.2 because I know that it would get use, but CV doesn't make a version of it in screwmount. That kinda sucks, really, as it would have been ideal for low-light street photography at night.
No real prob. If you got the bucks for that lens you surely can afford a bit more for a used T model, which you need anyway for this lens because it is to fat to work without an external finder and which really needs the longer base of the T for accurate focussing wide open.
Bertram
If you look at the specs on modern LTM cameras virtually every one of them has its own lens-to-film distance--close but not exactly 28.8mm (which is the Russian standard and I believe Leica, too).
Actually, the old Soviet camera repair manual that I've got states that all accessory lenses have to be collimated to the camera body after purchase. There was variation in the film-to-flange distance but it was acknowledged; the owner was supposed to visit a service center where a technician could tune the lens to his camera. In pactice however, I think this was more often neglected than not.
Can a modern camera repairperson do this easily (and cheaply?)
Can a modern camera repairperson do this easily (and cheaply?)
Shouldn't be too hard.
I was going to try that myself this evening with two-camera method, per Mike Elek's guide: http://host.fptoday.com/melek/zeiss/repair/collimate/collimate.html
Somebody brought up the novel idea to using a tripod!! Obviously, if your subject is moving around, the tripod will be of limited value. But many times when the scene is static, a tripod is just the ticket. You can lower the shutter speed and stop down to get more depth of field. It would be interesting to know the percentage of photographers Z(not just rangefinder users) have ever used a tripod. I'll betcha it's pretty low..
Wayne, I've used it once, honest! :)
Seriously though, I tend to reserve tripod to my 6x9 Moskva: that's what I shoot landscapes with.
Brian Sweeney
08-10-2005, 09:47
I bought my first tripod when I was 12, and I still have and use it. I tend to use it with Telephoto's.
Here is a shot with the Nikon and Meade 1000mm F11 and the 35-year old tripod:
(The Woodpecker is moving pretty fast, those are woodchips flying through the air)
It would be interesting to know the percentage of photographers Z(not just rangefinder users) have ever used a tripod. I'll betcha it's pretty low..
Maybe it's time for a tripod poll!
Incidentally, tripods (and other camera supports) are as subject to GAS as anything else. I own three tripods (a Slik U212 customized with Slik ballhead, for studio use; one of those little Herbert Keppler Velbons, for portable use; and a video tripod with a Bogen fluid head) along with a Tiltall monopod, which I seldom need with an RF camera but which makes me feel a lot safer when I come out of the stage door into a dark alley late at night.
I have to admit that I don't use any of them as often as I should (except for the video tripod; I almost never use a video camera OFF the tripod) although of all of them, the Velbon gets the most use because it's the handiest...
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.