Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Rangefinder Forum > Optics Theory -

Optics Theory - This forum is aimed towards the TECHNICAL side of photographic OPTICS THEORY. There will be some overlap by camera/manufacturer, but this forum is for the heavy duty tech discussions. This is NOT the place to discuss a specific lens or lens line, do that in the appropriate forum. This is the forum to discuss optics or lenses in general, to learn about the tech behind the lenses and images. IF you have a question about a specific lens, post it in the forum about that type of camera, NOT HERE.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 10-14-2016   #81
leicapixie
Registered User
 
leicapixie is offline
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Toronto.Canada
Posts: 1,225
A f2.0 lens is more than sufficient for 400 ISO film.
Digital can see more in dark.
I have very seldom "pushed" film.
If one has a Leica lens, even classic ones, they are perfectly useable,
at maximum aperture.
Maybe lesser lenses need to be stopped down for better results.
I totally hated my 35mm Pre asph-Summilux, the early 50mm Summilux.
I know some of you "need" O.95 for blurred images.
I don't. Save monies and use what one has.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-14-2016   #82
ulrich.von.lich
Registered User
 
ulrich.von.lich is offline
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 265
Is f1.4 fast enough when f2 is not?

Since my answer is negative, I always carry a f2 lens and a flash unit.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-14-2016   #83
ChrisPlatt
Thread Killer
 
ChrisPlatt's Avatar
 
ChrisPlatt is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Queens NYC
Age: 55
Posts: 2,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by newfilm View Post
I tried the Canon f1.4 when I'm indoors, then I realize all my pics indoor were just soft to blur
(I like ISO 100 bw film), I suppose I just don't have the enough DoF that I want.
Exactly. But I don't like flash, especially on my old focal-plane shutter cameras.
I suppose a modern AF camera would work better, but I don't like those either.
Besides I no longer have any interest in photographing what I cannot see...

Chris
__________________
Bring back the latent image!
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-14-2016   #84
Godfrey
somewhat colored
 
Godfrey's Avatar
 
Godfrey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 7,477
Ultra-fast lenses, that is, lenses faster than f/2.8, are useful for two things: first for working in very low light where every scrap of light gathering power is essential, and second for controlling depth of field on small format cameras (which includes 24x36 mm format). If your needs include these two situations on a regular basis, an f/2 or faster lens helps. If they do not, a slower lens is fine.

On average, regardless of the maximum aperture of my lenses, I find myself shooting at f/4 to f/8 more than 90% of the time.

G
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-14-2016   #85
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 22,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by leicapixie View Post
A f2.0 lens is more than sufficient for 400 ISO film.
Digital can see more in dark.
I have very seldom "pushed" film.
If one has a Leica lens, even classic ones, they are perfectly useable,
at maximum aperture.
Maybe lesser lenses need to be stopped down for better results.
I totally hated my 35mm Pre asph-Summilux, the early 50mm Summilux.
I know some of you "need" O.95 for blurred images.
I don't. Save monies and use what one has.
Clearly not for everyone. There are times when even f/1 isn't fast enough, even with very fast film or ISO 2500 digital. See http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subsc...ps%20king.html

Putting "need" in inverted commas argues for a certain narrowness of imagination or ambition. Why do you think manufacturers make faster lenses than f/2 and faster films than ISO 400?

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-14-2016   #86
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 22,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
. . . On average, regardless of the maximum aperture of my lenses, I find myself shooting at f/4 to f/8 more than 90% of the time.
Dear Godfrey,

And then there's the rest of the time...

You can easily stop a fast lens down (do you really regard f/2 as "ultra-fast"?) but it's a bugger trying to open an f/2.8 up to f/2 or f/1.4 or faster.

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-14-2016   #87
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
 
Ken Ford's Avatar
 
Ken Ford is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Suburban Chicago, IL USA
Age: 54
Posts: 2,838
I actually enjoy unavailable light shooting! I like the challenge...
__________________
"If you can control yourself and just loathe us quietly from a distance then by all means stay." - Joe

Leica: M-P Typ 240 - M6 - Leicavit M - RapidWinder - Motor M - 21 Super-Elmar - 28 Ultron - 35 Summicron ASPH - 40 Summicron - 75 APO-Summicron ASPH - 75 Summarit-M - 75 Color-Heliar - 90 Elmar-C
Nikon: S2 - S3 2000 - 35/2.5 - 50/2 - 50/1.4 Millennium - 105/2.5 - 135/3.4
X-Pro1, X-M1, X100s, NEX-7, dp0 Quattro, N1V1, N1V2, oodles of other stuff
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-14-2016   #88
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 22,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ford View Post
I actually enjoy unavailable light shooting! I like the challenge...
Dear Ken,

I just like taking pictures. Sometimes there's plenty of light. Sometimes there isn't. I'm not going to stop shooting just because there isn't. The challenge lies in getting a good picture, not in how much (or little) light there is.

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-14-2016   #89
leicapixie
Registered User
 
leicapixie is offline
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Toronto.Canada
Posts: 1,225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
Clearly not for everyone. There are times when even f/1 isn't fast enough, even with very fast film or ISO 2500 digital. See http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subsc...ps%20king.html

Putting "need" in inverted commas argues for a certain narrowness of imagination or ambition. Why do you think manufacturers make faster lenses than f/2 and faster films than ISO 400?

Cheers,

R.
Wow! TY a letter addressed to moi!
I will have it framed.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-14-2016   #90
tightsqueez
Registered User
 
tightsqueez's Avatar
 
tightsqueez is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Cleveland, Ohio USA
Posts: 252
My first deployment to Iraq my fastest lens was an f/2 and the only film I shot was Kodachrome 64.

Limited? Possibly, but those were some of my deepest, sincere images of a first impression of war.
__________________
Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/70355737@N00/

Iraq & Afghanistan https://www.flickr.com/photos/703557...7645044968305/

GRAVIORA MANENT ERGO BIBAMUS
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-14-2016   #91
Godfrey
somewhat colored
 
Godfrey's Avatar
 
Godfrey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 7,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
And then there's the rest of the time...
Indeed. Let's see: a maximum of 9% of the time when I'm either shooting at f/11 to f/32 or f/1.4 to f/2. Let's split that down the middle and call it 4.5% of the time I'm shooting at greater than f/2.8. Consider someone who makes 10,000 exposures a year.

Do you see how absurd it is to spend double to triple the amount of money to make 450 of those exposures at greater than f/2.8?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
You can easily stop a fast lens down (do you really regard f/2 as "ultra-fast"?) but it's a bugger trying to open an f/2.8 up to f/2 or f/1.4 or faster.
Not easy with film, but with either of my digital cameras I can 'open up the lens' three stops by popping the ISO setting up to ISO 6400 with very nice results. Ultra-fast lenses are more important when dealing with the limitations of film capture.

Yes, f/2 classifies in my book as "ultra-fast" ... I'm a conservative on this, I know. Some people these days don't consider f/1.4 an ultra-fast lens, just like they don't consider 20mm an ultra-wide lens. To me, both those notions are absurd.

G
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-14-2016   #92
Emile de Leon
Registered User
 
Emile de Leon is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 472
Sometimes you just need either the speed..or a lightweight lens..
F1.0 noct comes in real handy at times..
I was always running out of speed at f2...
Just get both and be happy...you may not need F1 all the time..but it will save the day when you do need it..
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2016   #93
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 22,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
. . . Do you see how absurd it is to spend double to triple the amount of money to make 450 of those exposures at greater than f/2.8?. . .
Dear Godfrey,

Do you see how absurd it is to miss pictures you might otherwise have taken?

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2016   #94
Soeren
Registered User
 
Soeren is offline
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Naestved, Denmark
Posts: 397
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
Dear Godfrey,

Do you see how absurd it is to miss pictures you might otherwise have taken?

Cheers,

R.
If feeding your children and getting the next job as a professional photographer is depending on those shots then yes but hardly as an amateur.
__________________
Søren

  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2016   #95
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 22,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
Indeed. Let's see: a maximum of 9% of the time when I'm either shooting at f/11 to f/32 or f/1.4 to f/2. Let's split that down the middle and call it 4.5% of the time I'm shooting at greater than f/2.8. Consider someone who makes 10,000 exposures a year.

Do you see how absurd it is to spend double to triple the amount of money to make 450 of those exposures at greater than f/2.8? . . .
A further thought on this one:

A lens should last at least 10 years. Suddenly that's 4,500 pictures, even if (unlike me) you take hardly any pictures at wide apertures. My 35 Summilux is well over 30 years old: call it 15,000 pictures even for you. For me, it's a lot more.

Now, what were you saying about "absurd"? You're throwing away the chance to take well over 10,000 pictures....

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2016   #96
Soeren
Registered User
 
Soeren is offline
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Naestved, Denmark
Posts: 397
Or If using the money saved to gain knowledge, inspiration og maybe other photoequipment giving you the ability take another 20.000 pictures you otherwise would miss.
__________________
Søren

  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2016   #97
Godfrey
somewhat colored
 
Godfrey's Avatar
 
Godfrey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 7,477
I've missed taking literally millions of photos in my life so far. They don't count—we can never take all possible photos we could have taken. That's like being able to enumerate all the things we don't know ... it's impossible because we can't know everything we don't know, by definition.

It's the pictures I've (we've) taken that count. :-)

G


Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
A further thought on this one:

A lens should last at least 10 years. Suddenly that's 4,500 pictures, even if (unlike me) you take hardly any pictures at wide apertures. My 35 Summilux is well over 30 years old: call it 15,000 pictures even for you. For me, it's a lot more.

Now, what were you saying about "absurd"? You're throwing away the chance to take well over 10,000 pictures....

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2016   #98
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
 
Juan Valdenebro's Avatar
 
Juan Valdenebro is offline
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Barcelona and Colombia
Age: 44
Posts: 4,295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soeren View Post
Or If using the money saved to gain knowledge, inspiration og maybe other photoequipment giving you the ability take another 20.000 pictures you otherwise would miss.
Saved money?
Come on... A wonderful 40 1.4 Nokton can be bought used for close to $300, and that's no money at all. And sharp wide open... You get the speed or you don't, and you get the shots or you don't. The rest is speculation.
No matter if I shoot all day at f/11, yes, 99% of my photography, as someone said before the few times light is not that abundant, things become truly different, but the world remains just as interesting, so why leave and say no? Thank God not everybody left.
Cheers,
Juan
__________________
F i l m means fun!
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2016   #99
skopar steve
Registered User
 
skopar steve's Avatar
 
skopar steve is offline
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 310
There are lots of reasons why I miss shots. Too slow to react, camera is in bag and not around my neck, some joker gets in the way...etc. Not having a fast enough lens is pretty far down the list. And since possibilities to get great images are infinite, I don't beat myself up over missing some. I make do with the equipment I can afford.

Having said that, lenses are far more important to me than bodies. I want the fastest, sharpest and best corrected lenses I can afford. When I go out photographing I never know what image will present itself. I want to be as prepared as possible. I will forgo lots of things I want (smart phones, televisions, new motorcycle, hair cuts) in order to have the glass I need. The primary causes of my missed shots can be remedied by getting out and shooting more.

Short answer no, f2. is not fast enough for focal lengths between 35mm-85mm IMHO.

Steve
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2016   #100
Soeren
Registered User
 
Soeren is offline
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Naestved, Denmark
Posts: 397
Well maybe, Im not up to date on lens prices but If that according to the speculations on prices earlier in this thread means a similar f2 lens can be had for 100-150$ its still 150-200$ saved.
__________________
Søren

  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2016   #101
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 22,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by Juan Valdenebro View Post
Saved money?
Come on... A wonderful 40 1.4 Nokton can be bought used for close to $300, and that's no money at all. And sharp wide open... You get the speed or you don't, and you get the shots or you don't. The rest is speculation.
No matter if I shoot all day at f/11, yes, 99% of my photography, as someone said before the few times light is not that abundant, things become truly different, but the world remains just as interesting, so why leave and say no? Thank God not everybody left.
Cheers,
Juan
Dear Juan,

Quite.

Besides which, the "saving money" argument is a bit of an illusion. I've forgotten what my Summilux cost but I think it was under £700. Spread across 35 years that's £20 a year. Not a fortune for getting the pictures I have wanted over that time!

Of course if I were to sell it I'd double or triple what I paid for it anyway.

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2016   #102
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 22,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soeren View Post
If feeding your children and getting the next job as a professional photographer is depending on those shots then yes but hardly as an amateur.
Dear Soeren,

By the same argument, why does an amateur use anything other than a box camera?

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2016   #103
leicapixie
Registered User
 
leicapixie is offline
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Toronto.Canada
Posts: 1,225
It seems if one disagrees, one is wanting in ambition and creativity,
loss of possible photos, ought to use box camera..
Bad day ?
I think the poster of all these mean answers ought to cool off.
Oh! Only 700 drachmas decades ago!
Yes but that forgets inflation..
Have a nice day.

Last edited by leicapixie : 10-15-2016 at 06:41. Reason: spel error.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2016   #104
Soeren
Registered User
 
Soeren is offline
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Naestved, Denmark
Posts: 397
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
Dear Soeren,

By the same argument, why does an amateur use anything other than a box camera?

Cheers,

R.
Dear Roger
How in your eyes does a f2 lens compare to a box camera in relation to the quality tresshold?
Best regards
Søren
__________________
Søren

  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2016   #105
Lss
Registered User
 
Lss is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,724
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soeren View Post
If feeding your children and getting the next job as a professional photographer is depending on those shots then yes but hardly as an amateur.
Surely an amateur mostly cares about the photograph.
__________________
Lasse
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2016   #106
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 22,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by leicapixie View Post
It seems if one disagrees, one is wanting in ambition and creativity,
loss of possible photos, ought to use box camera..
Bad day ?
I think the poster of all these mean answers ought to cool off.
Oh! Only 700 drachmas decades ago!
Yes but that forgets inflation..
Have a nice day.
No. If one disagrees, one might benefit from remembering that there are other viewpoints and other arguments -- though "Bad day?" hardly qualifies as an argument.

Inflation adjust the price: £2000, maybe? Over 35 years, call it about a pound a week: well under a couple of bucks. Hardly a disaster.

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2016   #107
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 22,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soeren View Post
Dear Roger
How in your eyes does a f2 lens compare to a box camera in relation to the quality tresshold?
Best regards
Søren
Dear Soeren,

Fair point. But equally, how does an f/2 compare with an f/2.8? It's a bit of a slippery slope argument.

My real argument is that the price of a lens and the price of learning/ experience/ taking pictures are not very comparable. You have to have some sort of lens, unless you're a pinhole addict, so you might as well get a good one, that does what you want.

And, of course, I've learned a lot using that lens, so the price of a lens is a part of the price of learning.

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2016   #108
kuuan
plays with lenses
 
kuuan's Avatar
 
kuuan is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Location: right now: Ho Chi Minh City
Age: 56
Posts: 1,492
if the question is: is f2 fast enough?
I must ask in return: enough for what?
and could add: enough for most
__________________
my photos on flickr: : https://www.flickr.com/photos/kuuan/collections
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2016   #109
ph.
Registered User
 
ph. is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 35
For SLRs wide apertures were useful for nailing focus before stopping down to get whatever depth of field that as needed- assuming no focus shift. The extra viewfinder light is not needed with RFs and MFTs.

If you also prefer stationary subject matter, longer exposure times and a steady support will match or better any expanse of glass. 30th and 1,4? How about 1/7th f 2- or if needed simulating an f 0,7.

Moving targets, no camera support and sufficient luggage capacity is quite another matter. In my case max aperture then is a tradeoff between sharpness and speed of focussing.

p.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2016   #110
ChrisPlatt
Thread Killer
 
ChrisPlatt's Avatar
 
ChrisPlatt is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Queens NYC
Age: 55
Posts: 2,292
Medium and large format photographers haven't weighed in on this important issue
because they're all out taking photos - with their slower than f/2 lenses!

Chris
__________________
Bring back the latent image!
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2016   #111
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 22,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisPlatt View Post
Medium and large format photographers haven't weighed in on this important issue
because they're all out taking photos - with their slower than f/2 lenses!

Chris
Dear Chris,

I think my slowest lens is an f/16 Ross ultra-wide, which really needs to go to f/22 or better still f/32 for optimum sharpness -- at which point I'm half way to a pinhole anyway. But it covers 8x10 inch... I seldom shoot 12x15 inch at bigger than f/11, though a 21 inch f/7.7 on 8x10 inch, wide open, is an amazing portrait lens.

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2016   #112
helenhill
a Click in Time...
 
helenhill's Avatar
 
helenhill is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Location: New Yawk
Posts: 5,050
is f2 fast enough...
For Me Yes, it can be done, can be FUN

It All depends on what your after... How much sharpness, or detail, or just moodiness-noir

50 summicron , M6 ... at Club Cielo NYC


Close in the Night...
by Helen Hill, on Flickr
__________________
Flickr.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2016   #113
helenhill
a Click in Time...
 
helenhill's Avatar
 
helenhill is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Location: New Yawk
Posts: 5,050
f2.8 with a Summaron... you can get Good Results






Red coat,Green hat,Red Filter
by Helen Hill, on Flickr
__________________
Flickr.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2016   #114
helenhill
a Click in Time...
 
helenhill's Avatar
 
helenhill is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Location: New Yawk
Posts: 5,050
low light / night with a 21 3.4 super angulon



The 21 SA snaps a View
by Helen Hill, on Flickr
__________________
Flickr.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2016   #115
helenhill
a Click in Time...
 
helenhill's Avatar
 
helenhill is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Location: New Yawk
Posts: 5,050
A 1938 50 f2 summar on a IIIA...



Fleeeeeeeeting...
by Helen Hill, on Flickr
__________________
Flickr.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2016   #116
helenhill
a Click in Time...
 
helenhill's Avatar
 
helenhill is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Location: New Yawk
Posts: 5,050
M5 with the Zeiss Biogon 25 f2.8



Twinkling
by Helen Hill, on Flickr
__________________
Flickr.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2016   #117
unixrevolution
Registered User
 
unixrevolution's Avatar
 
unixrevolution is offline
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Waldorf, MD
Age: 34
Posts: 820
I refuse to participate in a thread that makes an argument over the completely arbitrary lines people draw between Slow and Fast, good enough and not good enough, expensive or inexpensive.

What? I did?

Crap.

You can save money on photo equipment, up to and including never buying a camera.

And an F/2 lens is fast enough, until it isn't.

My two cents is that you buy the equipment that's worth it to you, but don't expect your personal yardstick of what's "just too expensive" to apply to anybody else.
__________________
Please, call me Erik.
Find me on: Flickr | PentaxForums | Large Format Photography Forum

"I decided to stop collecting cameras and become a photographer."
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2016   #118
FrozenInTime
Registered User
 
FrozenInTime's Avatar
 
FrozenInTime is offline
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Here and there
Posts: 1,623
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickthetasmaniac View Post
What a peculiar way to revive a 8 year old thread...
yep, and the o/p thought f/2 was not fast enough and bought a 40/1.4

Quote:
Originally Posted by knodd View Post
i ended up getting the R3A with the nokton 40mm, and i'm really happy with it after one roll!

thanks so much for the advice guys
__________________
It's the weird colour scheme that freaks me. Every time you try to operate one of these weird black controls, which are labeled in black on a black background, a small black light lights up black to let you know you've done it.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2016   #119
johnf04
Registered User
 
johnf04 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Dunedin, New Zealand
Age: 66
Posts: 150
The used market abounds with Pentax Spotmatics with 50mm f1.4 lenses......excellent low light photography at little cost.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-16-2016   #120
telenous
Registered User
 
telenous is offline
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,480
My main two lenses are f/1.4. I 've used them in tandem with their f/2 counterparts and the utility of having one stop on reserve trumps cost, convenience, weight, rectiliniarity or what have you. Someone might say the same for f/1 lenses over f/1.4 but for me f/1 lenses stretch cost/weight/size too much (others may differ - more power to them). This is all with film, where EI maxes out (pretty much) at 1600. I have a friend who uses comfortably ISO 12500 in his EOS 1DX. As far as he is concerned, an f/4 zoom makes for a nimble setup. I keep telling him his Behemoth of a camera is too big. He keeps telling me mine is too small.


.
__________________
- Alkis

flickr

"We stopped a bit further down from Amchit and looked at the sun sinking in the quiet Sea of Phoenix. Yet, why is it that sometimes one sees things clearly -- I mean to say, as when the camera is appropriately set." George Seferis
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:33.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.