Why do you buy fast lenses/cameras?

Started 4 months ago | Polls
The Davinator
The Davinator Forum Pro • Posts: 22,667
Re: Why do you buy fast lenses/cameras?
7

Nothing to do with having the eyelashes in focus and the nose blurry.

 The Davinator's gear list:The Davinator's gear list
Canon EOS D30 Canon EOS 10D Nikon D2X Fujifilm X-Pro1 Fujifilm X-T1 +17 more
Gato Amarillo Veteran Member • Posts: 6,283
Image quality and build quality -- aperture is secondary

I'm looking first for image quality, then build quality. In most cases the premium quality lenses also feature faster aperture. Since I use mostly zooms that pushes me to the f4 and 2.8 lenses.

FWIW, I'm really not interested in super fast lenses. Anything beyond 2 or 2.8 the depth of field becomes too shallow for anything I do, and with the kind of ISO performance we get today low light is no problem.

Gato

Gerry Winterbourne Forum Pro • Posts: 16,168
what is "fast"?

I own eight lenses; four are f/2.8, two faster and two slower.

The faster ones are 50/1.4 and 43/1.9. I bought the 50 because I wanted that focal length and at the time f/1.4 was the only OEM option available. I bought the 43 because that lens is reputed to have distinctive qualities and I wanted to find out.

Of my shots at 50mm a few percent are in very dim light or very shallow DOF but I didn't buy the lens for those reasons. it's just about possible that I'll use the 43 away from f/5.6 to f/11 but I doubt it.

-- hide signature --

Gerry
___________________________________________
First camera 1953, first Pentax 1985, first DSLR 2006
http://www.pbase.com/gerrywinterbourne
gerry.winterbourne@ntlworld.com

tbcass
tbcass Forum Pro • Posts: 43,861
Other reason.
1

I buy fast lenses for low light use and fast cameras for shooting sports. That's the problem with polls like this, not enough relevant choices.

-- hide signature --

Tom

 tbcass's gear list:tbcass's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony RX10 IV Sony a99 II Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Sony DT 35mm F1.8 SAM +10 more
AOC
AOC Regular Member • Posts: 277
Re: Why do you buy fast lenses/cameras?
1

The days of fast lenses are numbered. We're already seeing ways to get convincingly good shallow DOF effects without needing large, heavy, and altogether encumbering fast glass. This trend will only accelerate as computational photography comes into its own.

sportyaccordy Forum Pro • Posts: 15,321
Re: Why do you buy fast lenses/cameras?
5

AOC wrote:

We're already seeing ways to get convincingly good shallow DOF effects without needing large, heavy, and altogether encumbering fast glass.

No we're not. Not if you look at photos at sizes any bigger than a 3x5 print or web resolutions

And the organizations driving computational photography seem to have no interest in applying it to standalone cameras

-- hide signature --

Sometimes I take pictures with my gear- https://www.flickr.com/photos/41601371@N00/

 sportyaccordy's gear list:sportyaccordy's gear list
NEX-5T Sony a7R II Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG Macro HSM II +6 more
mamallama
mamallama Forum Pro • Posts: 56,271
Re: Why do you buy fast lenses/cameras?
1

sportyaccordy wrote:

AOC wrote:

We're already seeing ways to get convincingly good shallow DOF effects without needing large, heavy, and altogether encumbering fast glass.

No we're not. Not if you look at photos at sizes any bigger than a 3x5 print or web resolutions

And the organizations driving computational photography seem to have no interest in applying it to standalone cameras

Why should they? They are on a path to make big heavy standalone cameras obsolete.

 mamallama's gear list:mamallama's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 +1 more
OP Lee Jay Forum Pro • Posts: 54,891
Re: Other reason.

tbcass wrote:

I buy fast lenses for low light use and fast cameras for shooting sports. That's the problem with polls like this, not enough relevant choices.

The term "fast" in the OP was about speed in the type of "lens speed" - light gathering.  In this context, a "fast camera' is one with a large sensor.

-- hide signature --

Lee Jay

 Lee Jay's gear list:Lee Jay's gear list
Canon IXUS 310 HS Canon PowerShot SX50 HS Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM +23 more
OP Lee Jay Forum Pro • Posts: 54,891
Re: Why do you buy fast lenses/cameras?
5

AOC wrote:

The days of fast lenses are numbered.

Since I buy fast lenses primarily for shooting high-speed subjects in low-light, none of the computational photography tricks will make any difference.

We're already seeing ways to get convincingly good shallow DOF effects without needing large, heavy, and altogether encumbering fast glass. This trend will only accelerate as computational photography comes into its own.

-- hide signature --

Lee Jay

 Lee Jay's gear list:Lee Jay's gear list
Canon IXUS 310 HS Canon PowerShot SX50 HS Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM +23 more
OP Lee Jay Forum Pro • Posts: 54,891
Re: Why do you buy fast lenses/cameras?
6

mamallama wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

AOC wrote:

We're already seeing ways to get convincingly good shallow DOF effects without needing large, heavy, and altogether encumbering fast glass.

No we're not. Not if you look at photos at sizes any bigger than a 3x5 print or web resolutions

And the organizations driving computational photography seem to have no interest in applying it to standalone cameras

Why should they? They are on a path to make big heavy standalone cameras obsolete.

Oh really?  I just got back from an outing today where I was shooting with a 150-600 on a 1.6-crop camera at 10fps while tracking high-speed subjects.  That will NEVER be doable on a phone-sized device because the device is physically too small to make it happen.

-- hide signature --

Lee Jay

 Lee Jay's gear list:Lee Jay's gear list
Canon IXUS 310 HS Canon PowerShot SX50 HS Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM +23 more
mamallama
mamallama Forum Pro • Posts: 56,271
Re: Why do you buy fast lenses/cameras?

Lee Jay wrote:

mamallama wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

AOC wrote:

We're already seeing ways to get convincingly good shallow DOF effects without needing large, heavy, and altogether encumbering fast glass.

No we're not. Not if you look at photos at sizes any bigger than a 3x5 print or web resolutions

And the organizations driving computational photography seem to have no interest in applying it to standalone cameras

Why should they? They are on a path to make big heavy standalone cameras obsolete.

Oh really? I just got back from an outing today where I was shooting with a 150-600 on a 1.6-crop camera at 10fps while tracking high-speed subjects. That will NEVER be doable on a phone-sized device because the device is physically too small to make it happen.

What you just did does not explain why the organizations driving computational photography seem to have no interest in applying it to standalone cameras. You still keep referring everything back to you.

 mamallama's gear list:mamallama's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 +1 more
sportyaccordy Forum Pro • Posts: 15,321
Re: Why do you buy fast lenses/cameras?
3

mamallama wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

AOC wrote:

We're already seeing ways to get convincingly good shallow DOF effects without needing large, heavy, and altogether encumbering fast glass.

No we're not. Not if you look at photos at sizes any bigger than a 3x5 print or web resolutions

And the organizations driving computational photography seem to have no interest in applying it to standalone cameras

Why should they? They are on a path to make big heavy standalone cameras obsolete.

Grand statements like this feel good to say, but fall apart under any kind of scrutiny. Seriously, take the best camera phone available today- your choice- and see how its low light/action/shallow DOF photos look, even at a measly laptop viewing size. Look at the video IQ. Things fall apart quickly once you move outside of a phone's narrow operating window.

-- hide signature --

Sometimes I take pictures with my gear- https://www.flickr.com/photos/41601371@N00/

 sportyaccordy's gear list:sportyaccordy's gear list
NEX-5T Sony a7R II Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG Macro HSM II +6 more
OP Lee Jay Forum Pro • Posts: 54,891
Re: Why do you buy fast lenses/cameras?
5

mamallama wrote:

Lee Jay wrote:

mamallama wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

AOC wrote:

We're already seeing ways to get convincingly good shallow DOF effects without needing large, heavy, and altogether encumbering fast glass.

No we're not. Not if you look at photos at sizes any bigger than a 3x5 print or web resolutions

And the organizations driving computational photography seem to have no interest in applying it to standalone cameras

Why should they? They are on a path to make big heavy standalone cameras obsolete.

Oh really? I just got back from an outing today where I was shooting with a 150-600 on a 1.6-crop camera at 10fps while tracking high-speed subjects. That will NEVER be doable on a phone-sized device because the device is physically too small to make it happen.

What you just did does not explain why the organizations driving computational photography seem to have no interest in applying it to standalone cameras. You still keep referring everything back to you.

You did - you said "...make big heavy standalone cameras obsolete."  That statement is general, meaning for everybody.  That's what "obsolete" means.

-- hide signature --

Lee Jay

 Lee Jay's gear list:Lee Jay's gear list
Canon IXUS 310 HS Canon PowerShot SX50 HS Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM +23 more
mamallama
mamallama Forum Pro • Posts: 56,271
Re: Why do you buy fast lenses/cameras?

Lee Jay wrote:

mamallama wrote:

Lee Jay wrote:

mamallama wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

AOC wrote:

We're already seeing ways to get convincingly good shallow DOF effects without needing large, heavy, and altogether encumbering fast glass.

No we're not. Not if you look at photos at sizes any bigger than a 3x5 print or web resolutions

And the organizations driving computational photography seem to have no interest in applying it to standalone cameras

Why should they? They are on a path to make big heavy standalone cameras obsolete.

Oh really? I just got back from an outing today where I was shooting with a 150-600 on a 1.6-crop camera at 10fps while tracking high-speed subjects. That will NEVER be doable on a phone-sized device because the device is physically too small to make it happen.

What you just did does not explain why the organizations driving computational photography seem to have no interest in applying it to standalone cameras. You still keep referring everything back to you.

You did - you said "...make big heavy standalone cameras obsolete." That statement is general, meaning for everybody. That's what "obsolete" means.

Do you dispute that they are not on that path and that is a good reason why they have no interest in applying computational photography to standalone cameras? And it doesn’t matter what Lee is doing.

-- hide signature --

Lee Jay

 mamallama's gear list:mamallama's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 +1 more
OP Lee Jay Forum Pro • Posts: 54,891
Re: Why do you buy fast lenses/cameras?

mamallama wrote:

Lee Jay wrote:

mamallama wrote:

Lee Jay wrote:

mamallama wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

AOC wrote:

We're already seeing ways to get convincingly good shallow DOF effects without needing large, heavy, and altogether encumbering fast glass.

No we're not. Not if you look at photos at sizes any bigger than a 3x5 print or web resolutions

And the organizations driving computational photography seem to have no interest in applying it to standalone cameras

Why should they? They are on a path to make big heavy standalone cameras obsolete.

Oh really? I just got back from an outing today where I was shooting with a 150-600 on a 1.6-crop camera at 10fps while tracking high-speed subjects. That will NEVER be doable on a phone-sized device because the device is physically too small to make it happen.

What you just did does not explain why the organizations driving computational photography seem to have no interest in applying it to standalone cameras. You still keep referring everything back to you.

You did - you said "...make big heavy standalone cameras obsolete." That statement is general, meaning for everybody. That's what "obsolete" means.

Do you dispute that they are not on that path

I dispute that they are on that path.  I agree they are not on that path..

and that is a good reason why they have no interest in applying computational photography to standalone cameras?

One has nothing to do with the other.  Google doesn't make cameras, even the cameras in their phones.

And it doesn’t matter what Lee is doing.

It matters because lots of people do challenging things with cameras, not just me.

-- hide signature --

Lee Jay

 Lee Jay's gear list:Lee Jay's gear list
Canon IXUS 310 HS Canon PowerShot SX50 HS Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM +23 more
mamallama
mamallama Forum Pro • Posts: 56,271
Re: Why do you buy fast lenses/cameras?

Lee Jay wrote:

mamallama wrote:

Lee Jay wrote:

mamallama wrote:

Lee Jay wrote:

mamallama wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

AOC wrote:

We're already seeing ways to get convincingly good shallow DOF effects without needing large, heavy, and altogether encumbering fast glass.

No we're not. Not if you look at photos at sizes any bigger than a 3x5 print or web resolutions

And the organizations driving computational photography seem to have no interest in applying it to standalone cameras

Why should they? They are on a path to make big heavy standalone cameras obsolete.

Oh really? I just got back from an outing today where I was shooting with a 150-600 on a 1.6-crop camera at 10fps while tracking high-speed subjects. That will NEVER be doable on a phone-sized device because the device is physically too small to make it happen.

What you just did does not explain why the organizations driving computational photography seem to have no interest in applying it to standalone cameras. You still keep referring everything back to you.

You did - you said "...make big heavy standalone cameras obsolete." That statement is general, meaning for everybody. That's what "obsolete" means.

Do you dispute that they are not on that path

I dispute that they are on that path. I agree they are not on that path..

Your predictions have not been very good. I remember you saying that they cannot get rid of the mirror because contrast detection autofocus is too slow and mirrors are needed for the faster phase detection autofocus needs the mirror to work. Now look.

and that is a good reason why they have no interest in applying computational photography to standalone cameras?

One has nothing to do with the other. Google doesn't make cameras, even the cameras in their phones.

What does Google not making cameras have to do with a good reason why they have no interest in applying computational photography to standalone cameras. For sure Google has a very large R&D effort into computational photography right here in Silicon Valley.

And it doesn’t matter what Lee is doing.

It matters because lots of people do challenging things with cameras, not just me.

Don't elevate yourself to that importance. Why does anything Lee does matter to anybody except Lee. I think what camera companies do matters more.

 mamallama's gear list:mamallama's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 +1 more
tbcass
tbcass Forum Pro • Posts: 43,861
Re: Other reason.

Lee Jay wrote:

tbcass wrote:

I buy fast lenses for low light use and fast cameras for shooting sports. That's the problem with polls like this, not enough relevant choices.

The term "fast" in the OP was about speed in the type of "lens speed" - light gathering. In this context, a "fast camera' is one with a large sensor.

Really? That's a new one on me! In that case I use fast lenses and a "fast" FF camera for keeping my ISO lower in low light and keeping my shutter speed up when shooting sports or a combination of the two. That makes my choice #1 since I'm not all that interested in shallow DOF but I can't change my vote.

-- hide signature --

Tom

 tbcass's gear list:tbcass's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony RX10 IV Sony a99 II Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Sony DT 35mm F1.8 SAM +10 more
Jonsi
Jonsi Veteran Member • Posts: 4,482
Re: Why do you buy fast lenses/cameras?
1

Lee Jay wrote:

Google doesn't make cameras, even the cameras in their phones.

Side note:  they don't make phones either.

OP Lee Jay Forum Pro • Posts: 54,891
Re: Why do you buy fast lenses/cameras?

mamallama wrote:

Lee Jay wrote:

mamallama wrote:

Lee Jay wrote:

mamallama wrote:

Lee Jay wrote:

mamallama wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

AOC wrote:

We're already seeing ways to get convincingly good shallow DOF effects without needing large, heavy, and altogether encumbering fast glass.

No we're not. Not if you look at photos at sizes any bigger than a 3x5 print or web resolutions

And the organizations driving computational photography seem to have no interest in applying it to standalone cameras

Why should they? They are on a path to make big heavy standalone cameras obsolete.

Oh really? I just got back from an outing today where I was shooting with a 150-600 on a 1.6-crop camera at 10fps while tracking high-speed subjects. That will NEVER be doable on a phone-sized device because the device is physically too small to make it happen.

What you just did does not explain why the organizations driving computational photography seem to have no interest in applying it to standalone cameras. You still keep referring everything back to you.

You did - you said "...make big heavy standalone cameras obsolete." That statement is general, meaning for everybody. That's what "obsolete" means.

Do you dispute that they are not on that path

I dispute that they are on that path. I agree they are not on that path..

Your predictions have not been very good. I remember you saying that they cannot get rid of the mirror because contrast detection autofocus is too slow and mirrors are needed for the faster phase detection autofocus needs the mirror to work.

And I was right.  What I said was the only hope was on-sensor phase detection.

Now look.

We have on-sensor phase detection.

and that is a good reason why they have no interest in applying computational photography to standalone cameras?

One has nothing to do with the other. Google doesn't make cameras, even the cameras in their phones.

What does Google not making cameras have to do with a good reason why they have no interest in applying computational photography to standalone cameras.

You answered your own question.

For sure Google has a very large R&D effort into computational photography right here in Silicon Valley.

And it doesn’t matter what Lee is doing.

It matters because lots of people do challenging things with cameras, not just me.

Don't elevate yourself to that importance. Why does anything Lee does matter to anybody except Lee.

As always, you didn't read for comprehension.  Look at the words highlighted.

-- hide signature --

Lee Jay

 Lee Jay's gear list:Lee Jay's gear list
Canon IXUS 310 HS Canon PowerShot SX50 HS Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM +23 more
OP Lee Jay Forum Pro • Posts: 54,891
Re: Other reason.

tbcass wrote:

Lee Jay wrote:

tbcass wrote:

I buy fast lenses for low light use and fast cameras for shooting sports. That's the problem with polls like this, not enough relevant choices.

The term "fast" in the OP was about speed in the type of "lens speed" - light gathering. In this context, a "fast camera' is one with a large sensor.

Really? That's a new one on me! In that case I use fast lenses and a "fast" FF camera for keeping my ISO lower in low light and keeping my shutter speed up when shooting sports or a combination of the two. That makes my choice #1 since I'm not all that interested in shallow DOF but I can't change my vote.

And I'm the same as you - I buy cameras with larger sensors and faster lenses so I can shoot moving subjects in lower light.  IS is good for stationary subjects in lower light.

-- hide signature --

Lee Jay

 Lee Jay's gear list:Lee Jay's gear list
Canon IXUS 310 HS Canon PowerShot SX50 HS Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM +23 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads