Do we still "need" fast lenses ?

Started 5 months ago | Discussions thread
Badwater Senior Member • Posts: 2,095
Re: Do we still "need" fast lenses ?

Sergio Subrizi wrote:

Considering we have:

sensors with incredible iso performances compared to films

in camera +- 5 stop VR

Auto gain viewfinder

I can only see a shallower depht of field when used wide open as great advantage

at the expense of weight and $$$ ( for the same level of quality)

Do I miss something ?

Some need it while others will not.  It all depends on the type of photography you shoot, and what your skill level is.

Some will do night landscape photography with milky way and f/1.7 or f/1.8 is adequate.  wide open depending on the quality of the lens at f/1.7 and f/1.8.  Some will stop down to f/2 or f/2.8 because their primes are not sharp wide open or have funky coma on the edges of the photo while shooting night sky landscapes.

For street photography that extra light at f/1.8 is needed for shooting in conditions for results you just can't get with a slow shutter and f/2.8 or f/3.5.

Thus, it depends on the skill of the photographer, the quality of lens and camera they use, and how far they push their exposures while shooting.

For super telephotos into the 300 to 600mm range, f/4 and f/5.6 is very thin even with MFT cameras.  Thus, any larger aperture of f/2.8 would be difficult to focus or AF for wildlife or small birds in flight.  But for still object that large aperture of f/2.8 will allow more compositional options.

Again, it all depends on the photorapher and if they like to push gear to the limits in conditions that most will never shoot in.

That's the way me and my camera sees it.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow