Do we still "need" fast lenses ?

Started 6 months ago | Discussions thread
davidfricks New Member • Posts: 1
Re: Do we still "need" fast lenses ?
2

Sergio Subrizi wrote:

Do I miss something ?

In some aspects I agree with you, but respectfully submit that shooting motion is the advantage you are missing.

With the new Z7 I find myself taking shots at shutter speeds I would never have tried without stabilization. The shot below was taken handheld with the Nikkor 35mm S at ISO400 f/1.8 @ 1/10 shutter speed. Forget that I cranked the contrast to 11, and look at the sharpness of the clock on the church. I took that hand held without bracing against anything or even trying very hard to be steady. That's the beauty of stabilization.

The argument falls apart when I try to take pictures of my kids. Stabilization does nothing to help with action shots, because kids and wildlife rarely stand still. For capturing motion, I still want the fastest lens I can get my hands on, because I want to keep the ISO as low as possible at high shutter speeds.  When your at the high end of the iso range, ISO4000 is noticeably quieter than ISO8000, so one stop is worth the weight.

All that said, even with still subjects and the latest tech, ISO400 looks slightly cleaner to me than ISO800, so, unless I'm shooting in bright light, I will grab the heaviest fastest lens I can, and as nice as the NIKKOR Z 24-70mm f/4S lens is, I will likely trade up to the F/2.8S when it is released next year.

It's a personal choice, going from F4 to F2.8 might not be worth the extra weight and money to you, but for me it is.

,

 davidfricks's gear list:davidfricks's gear list
Nikon Z 24-70mm F4 Nikon Z 35mm F1.8
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow