Do we still "need" fast lenses ?

Started 6 months ago | Discussions thread
vyoufinder Senior Member • Posts: 1,240
Re: Just WOW.

primeshooter wrote:

vyoufinder wrote:

primeshooter wrote:

vyoufinder wrote:

primeshooter wrote:

vyoufinder wrote:

You pretty much nailed it. The only real reason for fast lenses nowadays is bokeh isolation. A secondary reason could be for opening up brighter on dSLR's to help see. For any other purpose, you generally get better image quality with a slower lens which has fewer/thinner glass elements inside.

And when you are shooting a moving subject in lower light and are unable to use flash, sports, wedding...please explain how a slow aperture and vr would help and why "they are just for bokeh".

Not the same picture. I would not adjust my aperture based on the amount of light, I'd adjust my ISO or film speed. Adjusting aperture is more like a desperate measure to get something at all, but isn't the same as having a subject entirely in focus. It's kind of the point of the OP is that there is no need to get desperate with opening up beyond what you want to with a modern camera.

The ability to open up and isolate something is a great tool, but it's not for every picture and is not the only reason for a full frame camera.

Raising iso lowers IQ much faster than my idea.

Your idea doesn't produce the same image. It's irrelevant. IF it were relevant, I would also argure that, no, it doesn't. The difference between f1.2 and f4 is as different as apples and oranges whereas iso 100 vs. iso 1200 is almost unnoticeable. I'll re-iterate though, it's not a matter of image quality, it's a matter of a different image entirely. One has depth of field and sharp focus while the other will not. aren't making much sense here...

I'm making perfect sense, whether or not you understand is another matter.

fast glass isn't just for bokeh. What you have wrote in this post is just ridiculous.

Wrong again.

You wrote and I quote: The only real reason for fast lenses nowadays is bokeh isolation.

Finally we can agree.

I just showed you that this is indeed not the case.

No, you didn't. Show me another reason if you can that I need my fast lenses. I don't.

I cannot even begin to correct all this so I am not going to even try. Enjoy living in that small little world of yours. Ever done any astrophotography?

No, but I do night photography more than day.

Let me make a very simple short point. You have a moving subject in a gym. It's low lit. I have a 200 f2, you have a 70-300 (with VR - yey!)

What ir VR? I don't think I have any lenses quite that slow.. I'd probably be shooting my 200 f3.5, whereas most people near me would have their white 70-200 2.8. I won't use zooms because I don't use zoom and I think the image quality always sucks after I've look at the images for years.  However, I could add that I could just about as easily shoot it with my 200 f4, or if I had, as in your example, your 5.6 would probably push limits. In fact I shot video one time with my Canon shooting friend who assured me I was ridiculous to even try to shoot video at night (1/50th second ss) so I used a 35mm f4.5 lens and did it. . and it looks great. Granted, it was very near to full moon, but still. Try that with your fast lenses and anything but a night dedicated camera.

which is about an f5 at 200mm. Therefore, I can gather over x4 the light you can and stop the subject motion and also use a much lower ISO (better IQ - better sensor saturation, better S-N ratio). I can be at a much lower ISO than you, your ISO will be astronomic compared to my 200 f2.

Ya, but you're forgetting that where you've changed your lens, I have changed my camera body (or film in the old days) I would never change my aperture to compensate if I have the option of changing to a higher speed film instead while keeping image quality (something that was not possible with film but is with recent digital) my A7s "night vision" camera as I like to call it. I don't think you'll get a better IQ than I will. In fact, the last time I found myself shooting video at night, all the Canon shooters and Nikon people couldn't even get a decent still while I was making magically beautiful video. And I did not have to open up to f1.2 to do it. I kept my depth of field where it should've been for the shot. That's the difference. I wish I could've compared with the people opening up all the way, but they didn't show me anything because they didn't have anything.

How is your IQ better at that ISO? (Yes let's understand the dof will be shallower but you will have a grainy potentially blurry shot.)

I use a camera designed specifically for it. It just is, but more importantly, I can see while composing night shots.

So why are they just for bokeh again? PS have you shot any astrophotography with a f/5.6 lens lately?

Because, and as this poster was asking, these days it's not necessary to use fast lenses. You can use a low light camera instead and keep your image quality even better.

Insane. I'm done with this.

-- hide signature --

Your focus is your reality

 vyoufinder's gear list:vyoufinder's gear list
Sony a7S Sony a7S II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12mm 1:2 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 25mm F1.8 +181 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow