Defining a 'fast' lens

Great Bustard said:

Rriley said:

Great Bustard said:

Rriley said:

ok someone just messaged me this one from your link which rings of the something familiar to me, something i have also felt

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=23701156

Click to expand...

Please tell me you're not serious. That's the post I responded to in the link I gave in my post right above.

Click to expand...

thats what im told

after all, you provided the link, and as usual the context about it says more than you say it does (which is really my point). I think the guy makes some points for the learned, after all children are not only within our control, but powerless to prevent this sort of soft exploitation.

i particularly felt the impact of

Great Bustard said:

Great Bustard said:

So many posts about yourself. So many 'cat pics' with daughter substituting for absent cat.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Great Bustard said:

Great Bustard said:

This thread should be in samples and galleries. It has nothing to do with photography. It's just you posting about yourself and your daughter (again).

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Great Bustard said:

Great Bustard said:

It's like you need to hear someone tell you that you have a cute daughter every five minutes. Make an MP3 for yourself to listen to. "Joe you have such a cute daughter..."

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Great Bustard said:

Great Bustard said:

You post so many pics of that kid that it's a little scary imho. Why not give it a rest, give her a little privacy for a week or two, or, if you absolutely can't help yourself, why not at least post the shots on the Samples and Galleries forum where they belong.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Great Bustard said:

Great Bustard said:

Better still: Get a blog and talk about yourself all day every day without filling the forum with the same ole same ole.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Great Bustard said:

Great Bustard said:

Sorry. But however much the noobs like your samey snaps and however cute your daughter may or may not be, you have a v unusual addiction and I can't see how it helps a photographic forum.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Except that my reply showed it to be total BS:

Click to expand...

i dont accept that
mostly b/se i refuse to open 50 links for a joefeelggod,

in my book, if you had a principle overarching point, perhaps you should have made it. What is abundantly clear is that the laissez-faire pose you have to posting shots of your children is more representative of the same self righteous self indulgent attitude you share on this forum.

Great Bustard said:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=23703515

Click to expand...

Great Bustard said:

Great Bustard said:

its a bit OT, but then you opened it up and your threads always are since you dont have any 4/3rds gear to compare.

Click to expand...

Yeah -- in fact, every single one of your posts in this thread is OT . Same with your bud, John King. Isn't that something?

Click to expand...

after having alerted you to the minimalist f/ 1.2 propositions at nikon i dont see it that way. maybe you write and thank me

Great Bustard said:

Hey! Maybe we can agree on something after all -- this thread is perfect to link back to when you want to show what a "dork" I am, and when I want to show what a, well, er, you know what I want to say, you and your bud are.

Click to expand...

are what, incidentally ?

Great Bustard said:

Well, that's pretty much every thread, actually, is it not?

Great Bustard said:

But i wondered how you felt about that, or if you ever even considered any of these salient points ?

Click to expand...

I answered them all in my reply -- here's the link again:

Click to expand...

i really dont think you did, you gave a clip of #x links, surely there is something more concise?

Great Bustard said:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=23703515

Click to expand...

--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended

Joe

Get a life.

Get your facts straight.

Stop misquoting people (not just me ... everyone who disagrees with you).

Stop using the argumentum ad hominem as your first line of defence when anyone takes issue with your BS and FUD. You would save a lot of typing on everyone's part if you looked at the errors in your own "theories" and patent misunderstandings of basic photographic principles, BEFORE bashing other people ... Who may just happen to be right ...

Stop being gratuitously insulting in order to start a fight, and then pretending that someone else started it. This is just childish.

Just because some people cannot see the logical and factual flaws in your "theories" does not make them any more correct; nor does your heated defence of the errors, make them any less errors ...

Perhaps you should listen more carefully to your "enemies" (as you see them ... ); and pay less attention to your "friends" (as you see them ... ). Your "friends" are telling you what you want to hear; your "enemies" are telling you what you need to hear ... if you are ever going to fix the errors in your "theories".

--

-

mcabato said:

bobn, have a good night.
but be sure i am not playing.

i'd like to avoid confusion and in that respect one neds to use precise expressions.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I totally agree. When you need 'precise' there are scientifically defined terms like 'relative aperture' or, for that matter 'aperture'. 'Fast' is more colloquial and has more leeway - but all the links you quote suggest that it isn't a synonym for 'f-number', that when deliberating on whether a lens is 'fast' we should take focal length into account, so it seems reasonable to me to say a 600/5.6 is as 'fast' as a 300/2.8 in general terms. Further, when you have them mounted on cameras such that they are producing the same angle of view and the same depth of field, the point that they are projecting exactly the same amount of light on the sensor and the image projected on the sensor therefore contains the same amount of shot noise, which in turn allows you to set the same shutter speed for a certain quality threshold, seems simply to reinforce the idea that generally 'fast' is dependent on FL. Taking all that, a statement that a 600/5.6 mount on a FF camera is 'as fast as' a 300/2.8 mounted on a FT camera seems entirely valid, reasonable and a fair use of the term 'fast'.

If 'fast' doesn't do it, we'll just need to invent a new term. How about 'equivalent'?

mcabato said:

by the way thank you that you accept my not perfect english.

Click to expand...

So long as I can make sense of it, and its much better than my German.
--
Bob

Joe

This is just more of your self-serving, sanctimonious BS.

You and your camp followers are the only people here who believe this garbage.

Yet another example of your 'standard' argumentum ad hominem attack.

Give it a rest. It gets old really quickly. It was already old 2.5 years ago ...

--

-

Sergey_Green said:

John King said:

..

In case you haven't yet noticed (you do appear to be a bit slow on the uptake with many things ... ), I shoot Olympus 4/3rds cameras. You don't.

Click to expand...

But you seem to know so much about whatever else as well, not?

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=32672729

Yeah, "FF" bodies with 'glue gun' lenses; play dough for elements; sharp like a blunt crow bar ... "Upgrade"? Only for the "bigger is better" brigade ... "FF" will be dead within a decade, like 10x8 cameras, IMAO.

Click to expand...

You're right. "FF" will be dead long before the end of the decade. I was wrong .

Sergey_Green said:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=26759020

I thought we had shown that the 5D cannot even keep up with an E-510. The 40D compared to an E-3 is just laughable. ... ROTFL.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=29168393

This lens [Canon 50 / 1.4], according to DPR's own tests, is far inferior to the 14~42 Olympus kit lens ...

This is when it was pointed to you by one of the lens reviewers at DPR,

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=29168781

Click to expand...

Shame his conclusions have little, if anything to do with the evidence on which he bases those conclusions ...

Sergey_Green said:

So what else have we missed?

Click to expand...

You behaving like a spoiled child?

Sergey_Green said:

Sergey_Green said:

So I really should be asking: " What are you doing here ? ".

Click to expand...

I would ask you the same question, I thought the forum had something to do with photography, and not just plain bashing what you are completely clueless about.

Click to expand...

Yes. I agree. One should not behave the way you and your cronies do.

You are being well trained (like a performing circus dog ... ) in both insulting people and in the use of the argumentum ad hominem .

Unlike you, I have actually used a wide variety of formats. Many of them for commercial (professional ... ) purposes - before you were born.

From what I understand you have no such experience. If you have, then sorry for misjudging you. It appears to me that your photographic experience runs to a Canon P&S or two, an Olympus E-500 with some nice lenses, a Nikon D200 with some cheap third party lenses, and ditto a D300. Have I got this right?

Get your facts straight; stop bashing this system for no other reason than that the moderators here don't seem to care much about people doing that ... ; start behaving like a civilised human being (for a change); and then people may take things that you say seriously, if those things are sensible, instead of just brand-bashing ...

--

-

bobn2 said:

mcabato said:

bobn, have a good night.
but be sure i am not playing.

i'd like to avoid confusion and in that respect one neds to use precise expressions.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I totally agree. When you need 'precise' there are scientifically defined terms like 'relative aperture' or, for that matter 'aperture'. 'Fast' is more colloquial and has more leeway - but all the links you quote suggest that it isn't a synonym for 'f-number', that when deliberating on whether a lens is 'fast' we should take focal length into account, so it seems reasonable to me to say a 600/5.6 is as 'fast' as a 300/2.8 in general terms. Further, when you have them mounted on cameras such that they are producing the same angle of view and the same depth of field, the point that they are projecting exactly the same amount of light on the sensor and the image projected on the sensor therefore contains the same amount of shot noise, which in turn allows you to set the same shutter speed for a certain quality threshold, seems simply to reinforce the idea that generally 'fast' is dependent on FL. Taking all that, a statement that a 600/5.6 mount on a FF camera is 'as fast as' a 300/2.8 mounted on a FT camera seems entirely valid, reasonable and a fair use of the term 'fast'.

If 'fast' doesn't do it, we'll just need to invent a new term. How about 'equivalent'?

Click to expand...

How about "fast" as defined. A lens with an f-ratio of f/2.8 or larger. This is the generally accepted definition of a "fast" lens. You are merely trying to muddy the waters by making out that this term is not well understood when it is.

"Equivalent" is a BS term, based on flawed logic, and re-defining the speed of a lens in terms of DoF on a given format.

This also ignores the basis on which exposure is based. Oh, I forgot, you and you cronies reckon there is no such thing as a correct exposure, but flatly refuse to do the simple experiment I have posited that proves beyond any doubt at all that this whole idea is nonsense, as any real photographer knows only too well.

bobn2 said:

bobn2 said:

by the way thank you that you accept my not perfect english.

Click to expand...

So long as I can make sense of it, and its much better than my German.

Click to expand...

We agree about this at least; but I am certain you will find something to take issue about.

You were absolutely correct when you described yourself as "combattive" ( sic ) here:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=37224022

However, to suggest that you are not the prime bully on this forum is a joke.

--

-

sadwitch said:

I am... but you'll never get rid of them so long olympus or 4/3 exist. Wonder is it as bad in micro4/3 forums?

--
My Galleries
http://picasaweb.google.com.au/sadwitch

Click to expand...

Me too and yes this is true, unless people just ignore them. The m4/3's forum is generally more civilised except for the odd Sony troll. I am regularly informed that the Pens are toy camera's anyway so we generally get left alone to play with them .
--
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/

Great Bustard said:

Rriley said:

IMO you dont get half of what you deserve

Click to expand...

I so agree on that. My 5D is what, four years old? I definitely deserve a D3s and Nikon lenses by now.

Great Bustard said:

you do not own Olympus gear.....just why are you here?
just why are you here continually

Click to expand...

I thought you asked me to come here once with your question:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=27563516

who do you know that uses UWA bokeh
thats just dumb
WA is about more DoF not less

I had forgotten about it when I answered it here:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=36057373

But then there are so many other "questions" that need to be answered:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=36379784

You know, when you think about it, you could just ignore my posts. Nah -- that would be too simple, wouln't it?

Click to expand...

I generally do I just wish you'd ignore mine, you and a few others, that would be nice. Generally you and the other misfits jump in and hijack threads to cause mischief. Here's a thought, just create your own threads and ignore mine. I'll ignore yours and vice versa, how about that? I'm sure I'm not the only person who'd be happy with that. That goes for Sergey and "Bob" as well, how about it?
--
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/

...with all your 101s - despite what some integrists will say.

But that may be a bit out of place, yep.

To answer the original question : fast means (in what i've learnt) f/2.8 or bigger. In my books, anything bigger than f/2.

Cheers,

Marc
--
http://mdezemery.zenfolio.com/

Cynops said:

...with all your 101s - despite what some integrists will say.

But that may be a bit out of place, yep.

To answer the original question : fast means (in what i've learnt) f/2.8 or bigger. In my books, anything bigger than f/2.

Cheers,

Marc
--
http://mdezemery.zenfolio.com/

Click to expand...

For FF, the 600/4 or the 800/5.6 are fast lenses. The 1200/5.6 is a very fast lens. A 85/2.8, 50/2.8 or 35/2.8 are not fast lenses.

Ramón

Ramón said:

It is more "fast" my 50mm f1.4 on FF 35mm than my 300mm f9 on my Arca-Swiss 8x10"?

Ramón

Click to expand...

You think the 300/9 on 8x10" is "fast" because the shallow DOF?

Ramón

Is a 24-70/2.8 a fast lens then?

Ramón said:

For FF, the 600/4 or the 800/5.6 are fast lenses. The 1200/5.6 is a very fast lens. A 85/2.8, 50/2.8 or 35/2.8 are not fast lenses.

Ramón

Click to expand...

--

You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.
R. Buckminster Fuller

no text

Meaning it is intensity based.

Just adding to the slow painful march to 150.

--
Good shooting.

• Adam

Equipment in plan

So Adam,

You're saying the 150 is slow?

Regards,
Michael

Ramón said:

For FF, the 600/4 or the 800/5.6 are fast lenses. The 1200/5.6 is a very fast lens. A 85/2.8, 50/2.8 or 35/2.8 are not fast lenses.

Click to expand...

Obviously.

I shoot FF now (d700), and, to me, even a 24/2.8 is fast glass.

Per se, obviously, a 24/1.4 IS fast glass. And on the other end of the range, 300/2.8 and 500/4 are fast too.

But, to me, anything at reasonable focal length (between 14 and 200) that has an aperture of 2.8 or bigger is fast glass.

True, a 24/2.8 is not particularly exciting... but it does the job, especially considering the iso capabilities of the FF stuff.

Of course, it all depends on each & everyones personal requirements...

Cheers,

Marc
--
http://mdezemery.zenfolio.com/

Great Bustard said:

And now Dr. Martin's reply:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=36482291

Click to expand...

"Dr. Martin" also had this reply in the same thread :

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=36493982

(..but he probably just had a bad day ;-))

CY 21/2.8
CY 28/2
CY 35/1.4
CY 50/1.4
Rollei 50/1.4

Voigtlander 125/2.5
Tamron SP 180/2.5

Canon FD 50/1.4
Canon FD 85/1.2
Canon FD 300/2.8
Canon FD 500/4.5

Canon EF 24-70/2.8
Canon EF 135/2
Canon EF 200/2.8
Canon EF 70-200/2.8
Canon EF 500/4

Olympus 35-100/2

Pentax 645 150/2.8
Pentax 645 600/5.6

Ramón

need to tell you that many times my zuiko 14-54 is much faster than my zuiko 1.4/50 or my 2.8/90-250 becaus the latter i did never take with me on air planes for shooting.

the 2.8-3.5/14-54 including ec-14 and ec-20 is one of the fastest lenses - very seldom other lenses take more pictures at 800 km/h than my 14-54.

best regards. gusti.

Kurt Petersen said:

Is a 24-70/2.8 a fast lens then?

Click to expand...

is that an OM 70-200/2.8 ?
sorry, this guy is looking for one

http://www.dpreview.com/members/8211010628

Kurt Petersen said:

Ramón said:

For FF, the 600/4 or the 800/5.6 are fast lenses. The 1200/5.6 is a very fast lens. A 85/2.8, 50/2.8 or 35/2.8 are not fast lenses.

Ramón

Click to expand...

--

You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.
R. Buckminster Fuller

Click to expand...

--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended