Reading mode: Light Dark

Fast lenses and SS dilemma

Go to last post
W

WhoKnow

Well-known member
Messages
193
Reaction score
70
Greetings.

I am a beginner photographer and after studying the exposure triangle, a contradiction was born in my head.

A lot of sources advise fast aperture lenses for the sake of enhancing low light capabilities, shallow dof, beautiful bokeh and other things.

Let's say, our lens has an aperture of 1.4 and we are shooting handheld in sunny weather. With such aperture for normal exposure it is necessary to greatly decrease the shutter speed and here the problem begins - with fast shutter speed it is difficult to shoot handheld and avoid blurring.

What to do about it? If you decrease aperture for the sake of a slower shutter speed, you'll lose the advantages of fast lenses and then why pay for a 1.4 lens to use it at 2.8 or higher?

Always shooting with a tripod is kind of a no-go in normal life.

Probably a silly question and has been discussed many times, sorry.

Thanks in advance for the answers.
 
Just because you have an f/1.4 lens doesn't mean you have to shoot at f/1.4.

And if you wish to shoot at f/1.4 in bright sunny conditions, use an ND filter.
 
Digital cameras focus with the aperture wide open, even if you are shooting with a very small aperture. The aperture is set to what you choose just before the photo is snapped. That's why dSLRs have a "preview" button-- to stop the aperture down to the one you have chosen to use so you can evaluate the depth of field beforehand (although I have never been able to evaluate depth of field through either a viewfinder or the camera's LCD.) FWIW
 
I understand that and that's why I mentioned that I could use 2.8 or higher, but then I lose the point of the 1.4 lens itself, and could replace it with a cheaper 2.8 lens.

Yeah, I thought about ND as well, but I don't really see how it would affect the optical benefits that a 1.4 lens has
 
What did you mean by that? That a lens with a larger aperture has better autofocus because it transmits more light (information) to the sensor?

The mechanism of how the AF is using aperture is certainly interesting, but not directly relevant to my question.

But thanks!
 
WhoKnow said:
Greetings.

I am a beginner photographer and after studying the exposure triangle, a contradiction was born in my head.

A lot of sources advise fast aperture lenses for the sake of enhancing low light capabilities, shallow dof, beautiful bokeh and other things.

Let's say, our lens has an aperture of 1.4 and we are shooting handheld in sunny weather. With such aperture for normal exposure it is necessary to greatly decrease the shutter speed and here the problem begins - with fast shutter speed it is difficult to shoot handheld and avoid blurring.

What to do about it? If you decrease aperture for the sake of a slower shutter speed, you'll lose the advantages of fast lenses and then why pay for a 1.4 lens to use it at 2.8 or higher?

Always shooting with a tripod is kind of a no-go in normal life.

Probably a silly question and has been discussed many times, sorry.

Thanks in advance for the answers.
Click to expand...
1. At a large aperture in bright light one increases the shutter speed to maintain the desired exposure, which reduces blurring due to camera or subject movement.

2. If you need to use the maximum aperture of a lens in bright light and reduce the shutter speed use a ND filter, which will only affect the exposure not the depth of field or bokeh.
 
WhoKnow said:
What did you mean by that? That a lens with a larger aperture has better autofocus because it transmits more light (information) to the sensor?
Click to expand...
Yes. A larger maximum aperture lens will be less prone to hunting for focus in dim light, and be able to focus when lenses with smaller maximum apertures cannot focus at all. The actual speed that the lens moves to become focused is not necessarily determined by the speed of acquiring focus in the first place, although it clearly is one aspect of that.
 
Another benefit on the list for quick lenses.
 
WhoKnow said:
I understand that and that's why I mentioned that I could use 2.8 or higher, but then I lose the point of the 1.4 lens itself, and could replace it with a cheaper 2.8 lens.
Click to expand...
Shooting in low light conditions without a tripod, the difference between f/2.8 and f/1.4 is significant. The difference in depth of field between f/2.8 and f/1.4, given the same focal length and subject, is also significant.

But yeah, most people shoot with the 'free' f/3.5-f/5.6-ish kit lens that came with the camera and do just fine most of the time.

kit lens, f/11

kit lens, f/11
WhoKnow said:
Yeah, I thought about ND as well, but I don't really see how it would affect the optical benefits that a 1.4 lens has
Click to expand...
If you want the "optical" and artistic benefits that come from shooting at f/1.4 when in bright sunny conditions then you need to reduce the amount of light entering the camera. The most obvious way to achieve that is by using an ND filter.

Something you said about tripods earlier also raised an eyebrow: Most serious photographers do travel with a tripod. Others make due with a picnic table, rock, beanbag, etc. I've done all of these; I normally pack a tripod, but don't always carry it around with me.

--
Personal non-commercial websites with no ads or tracking:
Local photography: http://ratonphotos.com/
Travel and photography: http://placesandpics.com/
Special-interest photos: http://ghosttowns.placesandpics.com/
 
WhoKnow said:
Greetings.

I am a beginner photographer and after studying the exposure triangle, a contradiction was born in my head.

A lot of sources advise fast aperture lenses for the sake of enhancing low light capabilities, shallow dof, beautiful bokeh and other things.

Let's say, our lens has an aperture of 1.4 and we are shooting handheld in sunny weather. With such aperture for normal exposure it is necessary to greatly decrease the shutter speed and here the problem begins - with fast shutter speed it is difficult to shoot handheld and avoid blurring.

What to do about it? If you decrease aperture for the sake of a slower shutter speed, you'll lose the advantages of fast lenses and then why pay for a 1.4 lens to use it at 2.8 or higher?

Always shooting with a tripod is kind of a no-go in normal life.

Probably a silly question and has been discussed many times, sorry.

Thanks in advance for the answers.
Click to expand...
I think you have it backwards. The faster the shutter speed, the less likely to get camera shake or motion blur.

You wouldn't have to stop down until you exceeded the maximum shutter speed of the camera. That's probably 1/4000th and never reach that unless it's extremely bright.

You're more likely to stop down for dof.
 
I am not talking about professional photographer. Probably, I am talking about ordinary man who shoot for a joy and to save some moments.

Amateur is more correct.

The conclusion I made for myself: fast lenses in bright light and at maximum aperture can be used only with a ND filter to obtain acceptable shutter speeds.

Thanks a lot!
 
WhoKnow said:
I am not talking about professional photographer.
Click to expand...
I am certainly no professional.
WhoKnow said:
Probably, I am talking about ordinary man who shoot for a joy and to save some moments.
Click to expand...
Such a person isn't likely to have an f/1.4 lens.
WhoKnow said:
Amateur is more correct.

The conclusion I made for myself: fast lenses in bright light and at maximum aperture can be used only with a ND filter to obtain acceptable shutter speeds.
Click to expand...
That's kinda the whole point of ND filters.
 
Apparently, I used the wrong words when I wrote about shutter speed.

I understand that when the shutter speed is slow (long exposure), camera movement has a strong influence.

But purely logically it seems to me that with too fast (short exposure) shutter speeds, camera movement has an effect too. That is, for handheld shooting the shutter speed should not be too fast and too slow. Perhaps I am mistaken about this.

--
English is not my native language, so please be kind to my mistakes.
 
Last edited:
Bobthearch said:
Such a person isn't likely to have an f/1.4 lens.
Click to expand...
Can not agree with that. For example, for my camera f/2.8 and f/1.8 primes from Sony is cheap on a used market. And f/1.4 primes trio from Sigma are also affordable. And there are other options available for the aps-c e-mount.

And so when choosing lenses, even an amateur can buy them, learning their benefits from reviews and comparisons.
 
WhoKnow said:
Apparently, I used the wrong words when I wrote about shutter speed.

I understand that when the shutter speed is slow (long), camera movement has a strong influence.

But purely logically it seems to me that with too fast (short) shutter speeds, camera movement has an effect too. That is, for handheld shooting the shutter speed should not be too fast (short) and too slow (long). Perhaps I am mistaken about this.
Click to expand...
Even doing landscape using a tripod, I can need 1/125th or faster to avoid motion blur in foliage. In the past 10 years doing wide aperture close-ups outdoors, I've only needed an ND8 a few times. The light was so bright and harsh, it wasn't worth it anyway.

Too slow a shutter speed is a problem, but I don't know what could be too fast. If shutter speeds were always fast, you wouldn't need tripods or image stabilization. I never heard anyone mention the shutter speed was too fast for stills.

You might need an ND with flash to control your synch speed, but that's different.
 
How you could combine fast SS and narrow aperture (I think, for landscapes you use f/8 and near that) and get a good exposure? Only by increase ISO, i think.

But this is interesting too - combination of largest DOF and faster SS to freeze objects motion. Probably, somethimes in such combination is hard to get a good exposure and IQ without having a FF camera with a better dynamic range sensor.
 
I don't know anything about Sony cameras other than people love them and they put out great colours in their rendition of scenes. But I am assuming they have auto ISO.

When I first started digital photography in 2004 with my Original Digital Rebel (all 6.2 megapixels of greatness.... lol), I tried to do all that was recommended for a sharp image. Faster shutter speeds, shooting two stops in from wide open, metering to the right with histogram assistance, and low ISO; but with improvements, especially in ISO performance, my work flow is a little different.

I won't go into all the changes I have made but for metering I do things a little differently. Now I do scenes with action in them so I wouldn't do this in landscape photography, so shutter speed becomes important. Today I would set my camera up in manual, choose my shutter speed, choose my aperture, and let the ISO float. So in lower lit scenes, I can use faster shutter speeds with a given aperture setting and get decent results.
 
WhoKnow said:
How you could combine fast SS and narrow aperture (I think, for landscapes you use f/8 and near that) and get a good exposure? Only by increase ISO, i think.

But this is interesting too - combination of largest DOF and faster SS to freeze objects motion. Probably, somethimes in such combination is hard to get a good exposure and IQ without having a FF camera with a better dynamic range sensor.
Click to expand...
You have a 50mm f/1.8 in your gear list. What do you do with it?
 
I have order it yesterday, but don't receive yet. I take it for a portraits mainly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top