So I'm watching the other Zeiss thread and noticing that Zeiss is more or less re-releasing many of their c/y rollei counterparts from the 70s-80s-90s. Many of these lenses are the same speed (f number). Given that cameras now have better ISOs (and the limits of physics) will we not be seeing 'faster' 135 based glass in the future? It seems that there has been improvements in coatings but f number seemed to have slowed down (canon 50 f/1.0, canon 200 f/1.8 discontinued etc.). [I am disregarding Leica RF stuff] What are yall's thoughts?
I do think we'll see the odd super fast lens as a niche artistic lens, not as a lens that's required to get a low light shot.
The era of breaking speed records for 35mm/135 lenses is for the most part over, barring technology advances.
If they can make it faster lighter and cheaper, they will.
crazeazn wrote:
So I'm watching the other Zeiss thread and noticing that Zeiss is more or less re-releasing many of their c/y rollei counterparts from the 70s-80s-90s. Many of these lenses are the same speed (f number). Given that cameras now have better ISOs (and the limits of physics) will we not be seeing 'faster' 135 based glass in the future? It seems that there has been improvements in coatings but f number seemed to have slowed down (canon 50 f/1.0, canon 200 f/1.8 discontinued etc.). [I am disregarding Leica RF stuff] What are yall's thoughts?
Only exception I can think of is the ZA 135 f/1.8 ...Show more →
If better ISO's are indeed the case, wouldn't we be seeing slower lenses? If a typical combination back in the film days was ASA (ISO) 400 and a f/2 lens, then today, with higher digital ISO's, then a comparable combination would be say ISO 1600 and f/4 (shutter speed the same).
That would argue for slower, simpler lens contructions.
Also the optical viewfinder in a film based SLR benefited greatly from faster f-stops by making it brighter and easier to focus. Not so compelling a reason these days.
Isn't that actually what we're seeing in the market?
-The Nikon / Canon 200-400F4.0 zooms. The 200-400 is already hugely popular in some circles.
-Many choose the Canon 70-200F4.0IS in stead of the 2.8IS2
-There seems to be a huge demand for a Nikon 70-200F4.0VR
-Many do now get away with using a very good 70-200F2.8 with stabilization in venues where you previously HAD to go with 85F1.4, 100F2.0, 135F2.0 and 200F2.0.
There will always be "aspirational" products, but few do in real life ever use or need them. "Few" compared to the total amount of system buyers that is.
And it does actually seem that (thank [insert deity of choice here]!) the community is ever so slightly swinging away from the fad notion that an image has to be judged by how short the DoF is. Short DoF has for a long time now been a synonym to "good picture" and "photographers that know good equipment". I think both of those notions are pure excrements-from-a-male-cow. Most of the very short DoF work you see around just means that the photographer either can afford - or bought on mortgage! - a very expensive lens. The shot is just a boring (or good!) as before, but the background (or foreground) is more blurred.
I'd take a bitingly sharp F2.0 lens over a five times more expensive, twice as heavy - and less sharp! - F1.4 any day.
I wouldn't actually mind if the major manufacturers increased the price on all their "normal" F1.8 offerings [to almost F1.4 prices] and just spent that money in product development on increasing absolute image quality in stead of a larger maximum aperture.
theSuede wrote:
I'd take a bitingly sharp F2.0 lens over a five times more expensive, twice as heavy - and less sharp! - F1.4 any day.
There is something more going on in a good f/1.4 lens though. Look at the Leica Summicron vs. Summilux lenses, especially the R series, and the Zeiss ZF.2 f/2 vs. f/1.4 lenses, and the Contax f/1.4 lens, which is super special.
Wait a minute theSuede, you say "biting sharp" I say "low light monster". I think both sharpness and large apertures have their place but generally speaking isn't it true that you're more likely to have a better made and sharper optic (stopped down) if it is a large aperture optic in the first place?
Most of my personal shots are indoors sans flash and I've never put on a large aperture lens and complained of too much light being available.
I see a lot of new camera owners who bought into the slow kit lenses and they discover that they can't get a non-blurry action shot indoors no matter what they do. I guess this was more true in 2008 when I first got into Photography and since then consumer high ISO performance has improved dramatically, but still....
HopeIsEternal wrote:
but generally speaking isn't it true that you're more likely to have a better made and sharper optic (stopped down) if it is a large aperture optic in the first place?
this is only because larger aperture lenses are typically made to a higher price point. if a fast and slow lens of the same focal were made by the same designers to the same price point you could pretty much count on the slower one performing better at all shared apertures.
theSuede wrote:
I'd take a bitingly sharp F2.0 lens over a five times more expensive, twice as heavy - and less sharp! - F1.4 any day.
I wouldn't actually mind if the major manufacturers increased the price on all their "normal" F1.8 offerings [to almost F1.4 prices] and just spent that money in product development on increasing absolute image quality in stead of a larger maximum aperture.
Exactly. I wish canon and Nikon would make their classic primes (24,35,50,85) with pro construction and optics with an f/2 aperture. Sort of like what Leica and Zeiss do. Their 35's and 50's aren't made any less well than their faster counterparts. I'd rather pay $1200 for a truly outstanding 35 f/2 than a pretty good 1.4...
HopeIsEternal wrote:
Wait a minute theSuede, you say "biting sharp" I say "low light monster". I think both sharpness and large apertures have their place but generally speaking isn't it true that you're more likely to have a better made and sharper optic (stopped down) if it is a large aperture optic in the first place?
Most of my personal shots are indoors sans flash and I've never put on a large aperture lens and complained of too much light being available.
I see a lot of new camera owners who bought into the slow kit lenses and they discover that they can't get a non-blurry action shot indoors no matter what they do. I guess this was more true in 2008 when I first got into Photography and since then consumer high ISO performance has improved dramatically, but still....
Not really. Almost every F1.4 or F1.2 lens is bettered by their 50-80% cheaper smaller brethren when used at F2.8-F5.6. In a few select cases, they're better than the F1.8 or F2.0 versions - but only in the first two third-stops from wide open in the slower lens. From F2.2 and on, they're usually not better at all, at anything. This, even though their constructions are often a LOT more elaborate and costly.
My argument is that if the same amount of care was put down in a slightly slower lens, you get quite spectacular results.
This is a well known and accepted lens construction reality. Almost all lenses except for the very few perfectly APO-corrected floating focus constructions are what you call "overcorrected".
What this means is that an aberration like spherical aberration (the main cause for unsharpness in the middle of the image) start off at F32 almost perfectly corrected, then the SA gradually grows as you approach full aperture. Then, about one or two third stops above maximum aperture opening the aberrations swings back towards zero and often even past the zero-point into negative values. Like the profile on an airplane wing. You do it like this to minimize the wide-open blurryness - which is an integral sum of all light passing through the lens.
The maximum sharpness you can get depends on the height of the highest point on this curve. If you make a one stop slower lens with the exact same amount of care and correction as a faster lens, it will inherently be about 50% sharper at all apertures (until diffraction of course).
The main reason you don't see that in modern F1.8's and F2.0's is that they're generally much simpler and less well corrected - since they will be "good enough" anyway, even when built to a strict budget.
This is also the reason why very fast lenses often do not really improve at all in sharpness when you stop down a third or two. What you usually get by doing that is a decrease in "bright-ring" bokeh in the background. Those bright rings are one of the most easily spotted symptoms of an overcorrected lens.
A lot of slow lenses are excellent performers from wide open, something often overlooked but which makes the lens more consistent over its aperture range - a great advantage.
The universal kit lens being say f3.5-f5.6 gave the market the idea that slow=bad and fast=good which morphed into slower=worse and vice versa.
It boils down to fast lenses being suitable for subject matter, portraits mostly, where either bokeh considerations, focus fade and image centres dominate and the outer frames matters little - the modern look, if you will; and slower lenses being more suitable for general photography where you want all-of-frame excellence, low distortion, flatness of field and lower (other) residual aberrations at middle apertures. Also such near perfection is considered old fashioned.
Looking at Leica's great R 80-100mm lenses, at f5.6 the 80/1.4 in no ways rivals the sheer performance of the 90/2AA or the 100/2.8 APO. In fact, the latter two are much better at f2.8 than the poor old Summilux, and the 90/2AA is better at f2 than the Summilux at f2.8.
The message is that even for very high end lenses, you generally cannot deliver the same performance at middle apertures compared with mundane f2/f2.8 lenses. Few images *require* such fast apertures. The kinds of photography are very different, of course, and many people need both kinds. But - just saying, f2-f2.8 seems a much better sweet spot overall, despite the fast lens slavering we see so much of.
LightShow wrote:
I do think we'll see the odd super fast lens as a niche artistic lens, not as a lens that's required to get a low light shot.
The era of breaking speed records for 35mm/135 lenses is for the most part over, barring technology advances.
If they can make it faster lighter and cheaper, they will.
It is amazing how fast glass seems so great until you get them and then the problems begin to appear; veiling flare and the inability to achieve focus wide open on any kind of a regular basis. Give me F2 lenses any day and, if I need it, F2 is there. Otherwise, I will be around F2.8-F4 for my pics. Been there with a Nikon 50mm F1.2Ais and a Nikon 35mm F1.4Ais and Nikon 50mm F1.4AFD. Not going back there again. Notice the size of the fast 135 1.8Ais tele lens. I was priviledged to have the 105 F2DC lens and a Nikon 180 F2.8AFD but they are both gone now, They were not very big nor unwieldly to use. Both lenses "cleaned up" a stop down from maximum aperture and were then easier to use.I had a Nikon 200mm F4Ais which was compact enough in comparison. I love quality lenses that don't flare and ruin my pics. Niche lenses are great and I love to see what others do with them but for me I need something practical and reliable for me to shoot my pics with.
Umm, well I dunno anyone else's mind on the topic (except for above) but I think fast glass will always be cynosure and capture the enthusiasm of the more serious audience. Tho I'm sure I selected the right word there - serious? I don't wanna say pro... whatever, I guess you'll get it. My beer is tasting too good to think right now.
Better ISO performance doesn't really seem to be a very complete answer. Right, I mean there are plenty messages talking about and images posted here where, ND filters and low ISO (120 or lower) are used because the lens's wideset aperture is what was needed/wanted. I guess if folks are willing to filter up just to use really wide apertures then it's something a lot of folks are going to want available to them.
I also think that making a super fast lens with awesome characteristics (like the Zeiss or Canon 85mm f/1.2) adds a bit of cred to a company's publicly perceived competence. So IMO, it's in a company's best interest to produce some of the fast standards (35/1.4, 50/1.2, 85/1.2, 300/2.8, etc.) regardless of what they charge for them.
It will be a sad day when company's start crapping out on fast models and using ISO as an excuse to do so.
