p.2 #2 · Have we become obsessed by ever faster lenses
My passion for photography has been night scenes for the past 30 years. I need a fast lens primarily for shooting the Milky Way, auroras, dark churches, or cathedrals where tripods are not allowed. But even beyond that, it’s nice to have a bright and clear viewfinder at night. An f/2.8 or f/4 would result in a dark, sometimes noisy view. My sweet spot is at f/1.8. Going faster, like f/1.4 or wider, introduces too many compromises, such as shallow depth of field, vignetting, and other optical effects. That’s why I prefer to work in the f/1.8 to f/2.0 range.
p.2 #4 · Have we become obsessed by ever faster lenses
I wonder if the more fundamental issue is the full frame sensor size. Each sensor size will have an effective aperture range that makes sense from an optics and business sense. If you think about what effective aperture you want, you could look at the various sensor formats and lenses available to see what matches.
For example: if you are OK with f/8 effective, then you could look at the f/4 lenses on MFT.
Olympus / OM System M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm f/4-5.6, 155g
OM System / Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-45mm f/4 PRO, 254g
OM System / Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm f/4 PRO, 382g
Coverage of FF equivalent 18mm to 300mm for under 800g total.
pair it with an OM-1 II for pixel shift high resolution.
The strength of FF is to deliver images that are not possible with the smaller formats. The strength of the smaller formats are to offer lenses that are smaller than what makes economic sense on FF.
p.2 #5 · Have we become obsessed by ever faster lenses
As some earlier posters mentioned, if you want a light-weight/minimalist travel kit, a moderately fast prime or two can be the way to go, and for a wide-angle, you can even get a bit faster without getting into "jar of peanut-butter" lenses (my Nikkor 24/2 is almost the same size as the f/2.8 version). Sure, modern zooms are even better than classic primes, but as a non-zoom guy I'm saying "where are my _even_ better primes that are smaller than the zoom?" I finally found a Voigtländer 180/4 APO-Lanthar, and boy is that an amazing and COMPACT lens! Barely bigger than my 105/2.5 AiS, and even has a moderate macro capability. There a few new high quality pancake lenses, but aside from that it's down to either zooms or ultra-fast primes, and the in-between market is not very well served IMO.
p.2 #6 · Have we become obsessed by ever faster lenses
I think today's sensors have eclipsed 35mm film as they do amazing things with ISO, dynamic range, stabilization and probably over sharpness. The only thing I wish they would add to modern cameras is an in camera ND filter.
I have been into photography since I was a young teenager in the early 1970's. At that time zooms were often frowned upon (they weren't what they are today), you were really pushing it by shooting at 1000 ASA (ISO) most cameras were sold with a 50mm lens.
Now any DSLR or mirrorless within the last 10 or so years can shoot pretty clean at ISOs well over 2000, zooms are more the norm with more range and much greater sharpness.
One thing I don't quite understand is why older designs of fast lenses (such as 35mm 1.4 and 50 mm 1.4 and 1.2 from Nikon and Canon) were so much smaller than the long, large and heavy ones out now, I understand AF mechanism adds a bit but is the lens formula that much better?
Since I'm old now I mostly want light, compact lenses and since my eyes are old too. I prefer AF but I sometimes don't mind manual focusing.
p.2 #7 · Have we become obsessed by ever faster lenses
Sony has some good f4 zooms such as the 12-24mm f4, 24-105mm f4, and 70-200mm f4 II. Nikon has some great F4 zooms, such as the 24-120mm f4 and 14-30mm f4. So there out there, but I agree it would be nice to have more.
I think faster lenses like f1.2 lenses are causing more buzz because it's the first time we really have good F1.2 AF lenses, which open up new options for low light photography. F2 zooms are similarly causing buzz because it's basically the first time we can get faster than F2.8 and have zoom on FF. For some people, a lens like a 28-70 f2 can replace a 24-70 f2.8 and a few primes in their bag. An argument can be made that f1.2 primes and f2 zooms are one of the bigist shake ups to happen to lenses in a long time. Which probably excites more people than f4 lenses, which we have had for a long time, even if the modern ones are much better.
p.2 #9 · Have we become obsessed by ever faster lenses
aCuria wrote:
In the 1950s, a 135/3.5 would be considerably sharper than a zoom lens. However today the zoom lens is as sharp as the slow prime. For this reason other than niche use cases the slow primes have lost their reason to exist.
Regarding the 24-135 f4, Sigma's 20-200, Tamron's 25-200 fills this niche. Sony has a 24-240 but it does not perform as well as the third party options.
You've hit the nail on the head I think, the niche has changed from being the fast prime and zoom to being the slow prime.
There are still plenty of f4 zooms but modern slow primes are like hens teeth
p.2 #10 · Have we become obsessed by ever faster lenses
Modern fast lenses are usable at the widest opening. In the old film days f1.4 had rather bad quality.
So in the beginning fast lenses on my first mirrorless Sony camera (2013) gave bokeh..., but after a while so much bokeh did not satisfy me, it isolated the subject, yes, so you could ignore the background.
But after a little while that trick did not satisfy me. I want the subject to be connected to it's world around.
Nowadays top lenses must be fast... , but I rather would like a G-Master with f1.8 - f2.0 , being smaller and lighter on top!
It's top performance at about f5.6 would be perfect.
p.2 #11 · Have we become obsessed by ever faster lenses
johnahill wrote:
You've hit the nail on the head I think, the niche has changed from being the fast prime and zoom to being the slow prime.
There are still plenty of f4 zooms but modern slow primes are like hens teeth
"The zoom is the slow prime" is a good way to describe it.
I realized this long ago because when a 16-35/2.8L was on the camera my 17/3.5 and 24/2.8 will never came out of the bag. The slow primes were pure backups in case the 16-35/2.8L broke
Nikon made a 135/3.5 in the film era (1980s). It probably sold extremely poorly because Nikon discontinued it after 2 years.
p.2 #12 · Have we become obsessed by ever faster lenses
aCuria wrote:
"The zoom is the slow prime" is a good way to describe it.
I realized this long ago because when a 16-35/2.8L was on the camera my 17/3.5 and 24/2.8 will never came out of the bag. The slow primes were pure backups in case the 16-35/2.8L broke
Nikon made a 135/3.5 in the film era (1980s). It probably sold extremely poorly because Nikon discontinued it after 2 years.
Except the zoom is bulkier and heavier. I prefer shooting compact primes than heavier zooms.
p.2 #16 · Have we become obsessed by ever faster lenses
chez wrote:
Weight in a pack is totally different than weight on a wrist.
That is a true statement.
But if you are considering, for example, traveling with camera gear and thinking about how you’ll carry it or about its flexibility, then both options have pluses and minuses.
FWIW, for street I use primes. For travel I mostly use primes, but in a few cases a single zoom has advantages over the primes.
No one option is best in all situations, so it is useful to think about the pluses and minuses of each rather than adopting an absolutist position.
p.2 #17 · Have we become obsessed by ever faster lenses
The Voigtlander 3.5 50 is an exception to this rule and a rather exceptionally nice lens. quite nice at 3.5 and stop it down one a great 50.
johnahill wrote:
You've hit the nail on the head I think, the niche has changed from being the fast prime and zoom to being the slow prime.
There are still plenty of f4 zooms but modern slow primes are like hens teeth
p.2 #18 · Have we become obsessed by ever faster lenses
I don’t know if it’s that we actually want bigger lenses, or if we just want whatever we don’t already have. Every new announcement feels the same: complaints, nitpicks, and a list of what it “should” have had if only they’d done XYZ. Then half the place runs out and buys it…
Lenses come in all shapes and sizes, but we keep acting like the next one will finally be perfect. We also like to pretend we’re above the hype, yet most of us are dropping thousands a year on this stuff. In my case, I’m not sharing my work or trying to make money from it at all. I shoot purely for myself. Talk about a waste of money? Haha
Lately I’ve been going the other direction and cutting my load down, even moving to Leica for the kind of photography where speed just isn’t important. It’s also a turn away from technology.
Maybe you really do need a big, fast lens… or maybe you don’t. But it’s worth figuring out what you actually need, instead of buying whatever the internet has decided is cool this month.
johnahill wrote:
So......reading various announcements and wishlists for lens releases
Have we become obsessed by faster and faster lenses?
I mean they have a place, great for portraitures, maybe journalism, events and such.
I shoot mainly at f4 and below for landscape and cityscapes, would love to see offerings other than the race for the fastest aperture.
24-135 f4, 135 3.5, 400 5.6 and so on
Am I alone or is everyone in love with 50-150 f2 behemoths?
p.2 #19 · Have we become obsessed by ever faster lenses
gdanmitchell wrote:
That is a true statement. But if you are considering, for example, traveling with camera gear and thinking about how you’ll carry it or about its flexibility, then both options have pluses and minuses.
FWIW, for street I use primes. For travel I mostly use primes, but in a few cases a single zoom has advantages over the primes.
No one option is best in all situations, so it is useful to think about the pluses and minuses of each rather than adopting an absolutist position.
I only have my experiences to draw from and I only travel with primes not only for the size advantage, but also because they force you to view the scene through a single focal length. That combination, lighter lens and single focal length provides me with excellent images. I don’t use a zoom for travels so I don’t understand why I would discuss pluses or minuses between zooms and primes…my experience is with primes and that is what I discuss.
p.2 #20 · Have we become obsessed by ever faster lenses
You have to examine each niche differently. The chat is mired by the inclusion of zooms, telephotos, landscape lenses and the general conclusions people want to draw.
For the general photographer, fast lenses are a godsend provided they are small and light and affordable. They expand your range of options, simple as that. And you know the maker has put plenty of design work into them, because they know that is what users expect. Fall-off, fade and bokeh are all custom made for maximum aperture.
If using an f1.4 (or so) lens, your best images should include a high percentage taken at max aperture, for the design to have worked. And these are images that cannot be emulated by slow lenses.
