is f2 fast enough?

[projectbluebird]

Like everyone else has said, It depends.

Consider this: A camera with 1/1000 max shutter speed, loaded with 50asa film during the day (sunny 16) actually tops out at f/4. Granted, most people don't use fast(er) lenses during the day, so a better example might be inside, at night, with 400asa film. An approximate shutter speed will be around 1/30. A bit low for 50mm and up.

I have 6 lenses that are f/2 or faster, but only two of those are, well, faster. One of which I bought (f/1.2) because 3200asa and f/1.4 weren't quite fast enough. Of course, that was in a dark bar at night, but YMMV.

If you constantly find yourself wishing for a faster lens, you might just need it. Otherwise, f/2 is good enough for most things. you could always get a mini-tripod instead!

[Al Kaplan]

I miss my old f/1.4 Nikkor, but more for its rendition than the speed. The last few years I've been enchanted with using a 15mm and I've learned to live with f/4.5. I end up shooting a lot at 1/15, even 1/8 and 1/4 handheld. When I really need a fast lens my 35/2 and 50/2 Summicrons and my 85/2 Nikkor do just fine. You can always push Tri-X or choose a faster film. Other considerations are more weight to carry and requiring a larger set of filters.

[antistatic]

I love 50mm 1.4s (two nikkors for the slrs and a lux asph)

There are many times when the extra stop or the DOF has helped to make the shot.

David

[feenej]

I like f2.8 lenses too. When it's really dark, I shoot at f4 and 1/30 second or slower, then push the film. I did buy an f1.5 lens for my Voigtlander Bessa R, but it's too difficult for me to get good enough focus with it to use it wider than f2.8 anyway. I'm thinking about an M2 or M3, with the longer base-length, I might be able to use the lens wider.

[mfogiel]

This depends on the lens and type of photography you do. Generally speaking, I find 85mm f1.4 a limit for portraiture, and I don't like to push myself that far frequently:


Mind, you, this is an SLR shot, so it was easier to focus on the eyes without having to recompose and risk the blur.
With a 50mm, I believe you may want to get a shallow dof at times, but focusing has to be done without recomposing at closer distances. I find that the C Sonnar wide open at f 1.5 can deliver stunning effects, even from a few meters away:


However, if you come close, the background becomes a total abstract:


so, all in all, I like to shoot it around f 2.8 for a most balanced effect:


Another story, is a 35mm lens, where the widest apertures deliver an impression, as if the air has been pumped out :






In fact, I find the f 1.2 on the Nokton 35 much more useable and interesting, than f 1.5 on a 50mm - to each his own.

[peter_n]

I think it depends on the quality of the lens and the DOF effects you want. A wide-open ASPH f2 lens is going to give you a great enlargement but a lesser lens may not have the optics or the focusing accuracy. f1.4 makes demands on your eye too but it may be worth it if you want really shallow DOF. There is always faster film.

[wlewisiii]

I have a 50/1.5 J3 (Sonnar), a 50/2 CZJ Sonnar & a CZJ 50/2.8 Tessar. Since I've gotten the Tessar, it's the one I turn to even in available darkness as TriX @1600 more than makes up for the stop or two on the lens. Fujicolor 1600 or Delta 3200 do so as well

Now, when I want the faster lenses, I want them. But 99% of the time a 2.8 lens will do the trick for me when paired with modern film.

William

[victoriapio]

Yes, this old pjer is going to add his .02 cents here.

I certainly cannot argue with anything said above. Your own preference and style will play a big role in your "f2 or faster?" decision.

But, I made a living off photography and writing for almost 20 years (before I got out of that business and started making some REAL money ). The fastest lenses I had were the 105mm Nikkor f2.5 and a 35mm f2. Even my normal lens was a Nikkor 55 f3.5 because it was a macro and I was doing a lot of outdoor photography at aperatures much smaller than wide open. The 15mm was a 2.8 I believe, the 20mm a 3.5, the 35mm was f2, the 180mm a 2.8 and the 600 an f4.

In all those years I can remember one time when I needed a faster lens. (And keep in mind I was very good at fill flash - something art directors and photo editors love). It was in one of the big shipyards in Malmo, Sweden, just at dark on a very cold December evening. I was photographing what was, at the time, the largest freighter in the world being built. The 35mm f2 was barely on the edge of the light spectrum for K64. I could have used a 35mm 1.4 lens, but heck, the Houston agency that hired me loved the images and the Saudi shipping company - who had commissioned the ship - published a commemorative book full of my photos. So maybe I didn't need it after all

My "lack of a need for speed" is reflected in my current Leica kit: 21mm Elmarit and 21mm Zeiss Biogon (trying to decide which one to keep); 35mm Cron, 75mm f2.5 Summarit (one sweet short, light telephoto). I will probably get the 12mm Voitlander in the near future - not exactly a speed burner. I have no plans whatsoever to purchase any lens just because it is faster than what I have, although I would consider it if the image was somehow improved.

[papasnap]

"is f2 fast enough" is to my mind a similar to asking "is a 2 bedroom appartment big enough" or "is a single bed large enough". It completely depends on what what your requirements are, and what you are trying to achieve.

for what it's worth, if you shoot available light in tricky circumstances at night then I'd say the faster the better, f2 is the slowest lens I'd buy these days. If you're a night shooter go f1.4. If you just want to shoot daylight, moderately well lit indoor or outdoor night situations, f2 is great. My f2 hexar AF got me a long way, but the 35mm f1.2 nokton on my M6 TTL / Zeiss ZI opened up a whole new range of possibilities. Of course wider than f2 makes DOF an issue, so some fast-moving shots at f1.4 or f1.2 are still hit and miss.

Example of wider than f2 usage: I just came home from dinner & drinks with a friend. I shot a 35mm nokton wide open at f1.2 on Provia 400X +2 stops to iso 1600, and still I had to shoot at 1/8 second (about the limit of my reliable handholdability) in the dimly lit bar. With an f2 lens on the same iso 1600 film, that would have required a shutter speed of about 1/3 of a second - almost definately unusable shots.

[RIVI1969]

Everything has already said. In my case I love portraits with extremely narrow DOF (someday I will get the Noctilux) I have the CV 35mm 1.2 and the Leica 50mm F2 with my R-D1 and the Nikon 50mm 1.4 with the D80. My Digilux2 performs very well wide open but at F2 gives me too much DOF for my taste, aprox the equivalent of f8-f11 on my Epson...

[jmkelly]

No. I have found that f2 is not fast enough for me, and my lens set reflects that.

[ferider]

One more note:

For 50mm, it is more important for me that a lens focuses closer than that it being faster. I would always pick a 50/2/0.7m over a 50/1.4/1m.

The DOF games that can be played with the shorter focus distance are more significant than by opening up one stop.

Roland.

[raid]

Originally Posted by ferider

One more note:

For 50mm, it is more important for me that a lens focuses closer than that it being faster. I would always pick a 50/2/0.7m over a 50/1.4/1m.

The DOF games that can be played with the shorter focus distance are more significant than by opening up one stop.

Roland.

Roland,
Wouldn't a close focus portrait look distorted somehow?

[ferider]

Only photograph pretty noses, Raid

[amateriat]

mfogiel: Really lovely examples you have there.

Back when I shot with nothing but SLRs, I had my own "SFFL rule" (slow film, fast lenses). For a good while, none of my lenses, primes or zooms, were slower than f/2.8, and I generally avoided any and all films over ISO 100, with good reason at the time. This went on well after film grain in ISO 400 color film (neg film at least) had largely been brought under control by Fuji and, a little later on, Kodak. The images, to a point, benefited: my back, alas, did not.

Then, six years ago, I experienced something of a sea-change, dumped the SLRs and went full fathom five into RFs. By that time, high-speed films such as Fuji Pro 800 showed amazing advances in grain reduction and overall image quality (it's not just about grain), and ISO 400 color film, both neg and slide, were good enough to be an everyday staple for a lot of my work. Combine that with the welcome absence of SLR-borne mirror-slap vibration, and, suddenly, even without f/1.2-1.4 "night vision" glass, I felt as if I'd picked up an extra stop in overall terms. My slowest lenses are still f/2.8, but my fastest lens, a 50 f/2 M-Hexanon, seems super-fast compared to, say, the 85 f/1.4 Nikkor (manual focus) on my long-ago F3. (Not knocking that combo: I took a lot of killer 'chromes with it, but that was then...)

F/2.8 usually does the job; f/2 simply shines for me, even in the dark.


- Barrett

[Ken Ford]

f/2 is fast enough for me 99% of the time, but that last percent really hurts!

[KenD]

Fast enough? Fast enough for what...? As has been said, all depends.

[principe azul]

I shot for a couple of years with a 35/1.7 before treating myself to the 35/1.2 I thought I deserved. And I'd shot for a couple of years before that with a 35/1.4. For the kind of reckless, bravura handheld shooting I do, sometimes even 1.2 at ISO 1600 isn't going to be enough. Perhaps I should stick to shooting things I can actually see...

The jump from 35/1.7 to 35/1.2 (or 35/2 to 35/1.4) is a fair bit of money if all it's going to do is let you shoot at 1/15 instead of 1/8 at the same ISO. I justified it by the amount of very low light stuff I do, and by my liking for shallow depth of field. Getting a lens twice as fast doesn't actually mean I can take twice the shots in low light. And there's a weight/size penalty that comes with it.

So every stop helps, but it's not always enough.

F/2 is perfectly respectable and you can achieve a lot. Still faster than virtually every zoom or digicam. And depending on your subject and ISO, you can do work at night with f/4 if you pick your battles carefully.

And remember that handholding 28/2.8 at 1/8 is as good as 50/2 at 1/15 (as far as camera shake goes), so speed is more of an issue at longer focal lengths. Not that that stops the speed freaks on here joining me in looking longingly at the new Leica 21/1.4...

[Hephaestus]

I don't care for film faster than 400 and I shoot predominantly indoors, and so fast lenses are very valuable to me. I shoot almost exclusively with a 35mm Summilux and very often at maximum aperture. Simply, the difference between f2.0 and f.1.4 often means the difference between 1/15 of a second and 1/30 of a second and that often equates to having usable results or not.

Ryan

[yanidel]

F/2 is IMO the best compromise between size, speed and weight of the lenses. There might though not be important criterias to all, but I have just sold my Nokton 50mm and 28mm Ultron; fast but too big to carry around. I just bought a 35mm Summicron, a perfect mix of all requirements for me.

[Rob-F]

I recently did some night shooting with my 40mm f/1.4. With the ISO 1600 film I was using, I shot at 2.8, 4, and 5.6.

I do own a few f/1.4 lenses and occasionally use them wide open. One instance where f/1.4 can sometime be essential is with the 75mm lens. With it, I can shoot at 1/125th second and get a sharp picture. With a 35mm lens, I can shoot at 1/30 or 1/50th though, and that is fast enough to eliminate camera shake at that focal length. So f/2 is often good enough at that focal length. I got a nice color picture of my wife in a restaurant, with my 28mm f/2. I probably shot at 1/30th and f/2.

So I think focal length enters into the decision. Shorter lenses can be hand-held at longer exposure times.

[maddoc]

Originally Posted by Hephaestus

I don't care for film faster than 400 and I shoot predominantly indoors, and so fast lenses are very valuable to me. I shoot almost exclusively with a 35mm Summilux and very often at maximum aperture. Simply, the difference between f2.0 and f.1.4 often means the difference between 1/15 of a second and 1/30 of a second and that often equates to having usable results or not.

Ryan

Exactly my experience too. Tri-X rated at 400ISO used indoors in a bar or outside at night requires 1/30s and f/1.4 in most cases and sometimes 1/15s. A f/2.0 wouldn't work for me. This one was taken with the 35mm Summilux (pre-ASPH) at f/1.4 and 1/15s (handheld) on Tri-X @ 400ISO:

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Shaun,

If you constantly find yourself running out of light, you need a faster lens.

If you don't, you don't.

What other criterion is there? How can anyone else's opinion help you? Like many people I shoot mostly at f/5.6 to f/11 -- but sometimes I need all the speed I can get, which is why I own and regularly use f/1.5 and f/1.4 lenses, and would buy a Noctilux if I could afford it.

Cheers,

Roger

[knodd]

thanks so much for the responses guys.

just last night i was shooting in a bar and with neopan 1600 loaded in my camera and f1.4 i was constantly between 1/8 and 1/15 which is really the limit of my hand-held capabilities. so i guess i will keep my f1.4

thanks so much again for all the responses!

[Hacker]

With a faster lens, you can always stop down. But not the other way around.