Defining a 'fast' lens

[Rriley]

Who cares indeed? Perhaps only the person who started this thread?

go to intent
what he's about is RE-defining a fast lens
when the most accurate the definition is already out there

Dorus

we are talking about what is called a fast lens. we are not talking about the consequence of a lens being fast.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/speed
http://www.brooksphotopedia.com/definitions/fast-lens.shtml
http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2009.08.15/fast-lenses-a-primer

Then who cares? I mean, seriously, what's the point of saying one lens is "faster" than another when it doesn't deliver either more light on the sensor or a more shallow DOF? It would be like saying the finish of one lens is "blacker" than another and somehow trying to make a point about which is "better" on that basis.

--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended

 

[Great Bustard]

Very nice portrait.

Thanks!

With a prime, right? I like them too.

Yes -- the EXIF was above the pic: Canon 5D + 100 / 2 @ f/2 (same AOV and DOF as 50mm f/1 on 4/3), 1/320, ISO 400. I only have primes -- they fit my style of photography better.

On your last paragraph (and I mean this in all honesty) : don't you get tired of it?

Sure, on occasion. But it's more fun than minesweeper.

If I take your perspective for a second, I would think it would be very discouraging to have to keep repeating what you think you should say.

That's why I link and quote so much.

 

[Great Bustard]

Or is photography really for you something that is technical first and foremost, with photos serving mostly as illustration of technical points? If so, then we are opposites: for me it is about the image, and technicalities are interesting to me only insofar as they help me get there.

This link was contained in one of the links:

http://www.aputure.com/blog/2010/08/30/shallow-depth-of-field-with-joseph-james/

I hope it answers your questions. If not, don't hesitate to say, and I'll answer any questions you may have.

I did not click that link first time around. There is only so many links within links that are clickable for me. It's a bit like "Inception" (the movie) : dreams within dreams within dreams and in the end you don't know anymore if you are awake or asleep. ;-)

But I clicked now and read, and I have a better understanding of where you are coming from. The biggest difference between us, is probably that I am not mathematically-scientifically trained (nor much interested). I am a human science and liberal arts person.

I like it all. I am "over educated" as the saying goes.

On the other hand, we are more alike than I thought, at least in the area of the kind of photography we admire most (and would have gone into if we had not stumbled into photography at the time when career choices are long past). So I guess you like Magnum, Stoddart, Nachtwey, Dirven, etc too?

Per the interview linked above:

What’s your favorite photo? Why?

The photo of Kim Phuc. It’s the Vietnam pic of the naked girl running from her naped village. What makes the photo so astounding is the nonchalance expressions of the soldiers in stark contrast to the kids. I’m looking at the pic right now, and, damn if it’s not having an effect.

Who is your favorite photographer? Why?

Now I guess I have to come clean. I don’t have a clue. I don’t even know who the greats are, and probably wouldn’t recognize their photos if I saw them. In fact, I would have made many of the same comments as the people on this page did: http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/06/great-photographers-on-internet.html . Anyway, there are just so many unbelievably talented amateurs out there that there’s no way I could single any one, or any hundred, of them out from the others.

 

[Great Bustard]

Dorks might give you 50 links to where they said it somewhere else, but you wont hear it here unless someone speaks up. Thats the way dorks are.

And here I was thinking it was just you and your bud. Huh.

 

[RoelHendrickx]

Very nice portrait.

Thanks!

With a prime, right? I like them too.

Yes -- the EXIF was above the pic: Canon 5D + 100 / 2 @ f/2 (same AOV and DOF as 50mm f/1 on 4/3), 1/320, ISO 400. I only have primes -- they fit my style of photography better.

I like primes because they make me think more. Better composition results.

On your last paragraph (and I mean this in all honesty) : don't you get tired of it?

Sure, on occasion. But it's more fun than minesweeper.

I agree.

If I take your perspective for a second, I would think it would be very discouraging to have to keep repeating what you think you should say.

That's why I link and quote so much.

Little story for you

(Now don't get your hopes up that I will be comparing you to the guy who was proven correct in the end... I don't know and I don't care. The story is not about the guy, but about the others.)

There was this guy who kept telling people that the earth was not flat.

They almost burned him at the stake for it.

The discusssion of flat earth vs globe is scientifically interesting. However, for most practical purposes of most people, it didn't really matter : flat or round, who cares, as long as we don't fall off.

In photography : who cares about how to verbally define "fast", as long as we get the image we want to make.

Given your self-attested preference for ultra shallow DOF as your defining style, your crusade seems to make sense : educating a clearly less interested crowd in how to get ultra shallow DOF.

But wouldn't it be more fun to share your experiences with other people who are really into that style and have chosen a system for that purpose?

Most people here (like me) are interested in speed in the first place for (shutter) speed (I bought F2 for concerts and low light), probably less for DOF (although it can be fun on occasion).

--
Roel Hendrickx

lots of images : http://www.roelh.zenfolio.com

my E-3 user field report from Tunisian Sahara: http://www.biofos.com/ukpsg/roel.html

 

[Great Bustard]

Who cares indeed? Perhaps only the person who started this thread?

go to intent

Yes, let's do that.

what he's about is RE-defining a fast lens

Nope -- I'm putting the term "fast" in context. In other words, how the f-ratio connects to the visual properties of the final photo .

when the most accurate the definition is already out there

A Dodge Viper is "fast" compared to a Ford Mustang, but it is not "fast" compared to a Ferrari 599 GTO. The definitions of "fast" lenses are in the context of relative to their format, not for comparisons across formats.

 

[RoelHendrickx]

Or is photography really for you something that is technical first and foremost, with photos serving mostly as illustration of technical points? If so, then we are opposites: for me it is about the image, and technicalities are interesting to me only insofar as they help me get there.

This link was contained in one of the links:

http://www.aputure.com/blog/2010/08/30/shallow-depth-of-field-with-joseph-james/

I hope it answers your questions. If not, don't hesitate to say, and I'll answer any questions you may have.

I did not click that link first time around. There is only so many links within links that are clickable for me. It's a bit like "Inception" (the movie) : dreams within dreams within dreams and in the end you don't know anymore if you are awake or asleep. ;-)

But I clicked now and read, and I have a better understanding of where you are coming from. The biggest difference between us, is probably that I am not mathematically-scientifically trained (nor much interested). I am a human science and liberal arts person.

I like it all. I am "over educated" as the saying goes.

On the other hand, we are more alike than I thought, at least in the area of the kind of photography we admire most (and would have gone into if we had not stumbled into photography at the time when career choices are long past). So I guess you like Magnum, Stoddart, Nachtwey, Dirven, etc too?

Per the interview linked above:

What’s your favorite photo? Why?

The photo of Kim Phuc. It’s the Vietnam pic of the naked girl running from her naped village. What makes the photo so astounding is the nonchalance expressions of the soldiers in stark contrast to the kids. I’m looking at the pic right now, and, damn if it’s not having an effect.

Who is your favorite photographer? Why?

Now I guess I have to come clean. I don’t have a clue. I don’t even know who the greats are, and probably wouldn’t recognize their photos if I saw them. In fact, I would have made many of the same comments as the people on this page did: http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/06/great-photographers-on-internet.html . Anyway, there are just so many unbelievably talented amateurs out there that there’s no way I could single any one, or any hundred, of them out from the others.

Maybe I am "over-educated" in the area of knowing the work of the greats.

Check this out (it's a much lesser known guy than Nachtwey and Stoddart - some of the current big names in combat and heartache photography, but you will like his work (especially the B&W with fast lenses) :
http://www.timdirven.com/

(enter the site, click on Europe on the map and then Romania, but it is all worthwhile)
His book "Yesterday's People" is beatiful and heartbreakingly sad.
Definitely better than minesweeper AND better than many alternatives.

--
Roel Hendrickx

lots of images : http://www.roelh.zenfolio.com

my E-3 user field report from Tunisian Sahara: http://www.biofos.com/ukpsg/roel.html

 

[Great Bustard]

I like primes because they make me think more. Better composition results.

I like them because they're faster and/or smaller and lighter than the zooms in their range.

Little story for you

(Now don't get your hopes up that I will be comparing you to the guy who was proven correct in the end... I don't know and I don't care. The story is not about the guy, but about the others.)

There was this guy who kept telling people that the earth was not flat.

They almost burned him at the stake for it.

Been there, done that -- a lot:

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/dprban/index.htm

The discusssion of flat earth vs globe is scientifically interesting. However, for most practical purposes of most people, it didn't really matter : flat or round, who cares, as long as we don't fall off.

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#purpose

A common criticism of Equivalence is that some people say that it does nothing to help them to take better pictures...

One could just as well say that knowing the Earth is round doesn't help them get to and from work everyday -- true enough, but besides the point. Equivalence is all about comparing images from different systems based on their visual properties as opposed to the camera settings.

In photography : who cares about how to verbally define "fast", as long as we get the image we want to make.

Given your self-attested preference for ultra shallow DOF as your defining style, your crusade seems to make sense : educating a clearly less interested crowd in how to get ultra shallow DOF.

Not at all. It's not just about DOF as so many incorrectly believe. DOF, diffraction softening, sharpness, and noise are all connected to the aperture (not f-ratio) of the lens.

Whether or not someone likes shallow DOF is another matter entirely:

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#introduction

• Equivalence says nothing about shallow DOF being superior to deep DOF, as this is entirely subjective

But wouldn't it be more fun to share your experiences with other people who are really into that style and have chosen a system for that purpose?

But I do:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=34661377

I only post my pics here to rebuff silly claims disparaging shallow DOF:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=34217058
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=36430145

when it's the subject:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=34732820

or when challenged:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=36596477
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=35957763

Most people here (like me) are interested in speed in the first place for (shutter) speed (I bought F2 for concerts and low light), probably less for DOF (although it can be fun on occasion).

In my follow-up to the first link above:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=34665595

Anyway, like I say, shallow DOF is a matter taste. Most, methinks, use wide apertures not for shallow DOF, but to get a fast shutter or be able to use a lower ISO. But there are a few, like me, who see shallow DOF as an end in and of itself, although I most certainly do stop down on occasion, even when it means raising the ISO by a couple of stops, such as in the pic above, or the pics below

 

[Great Bustard]

Maybe I am "over-educated" in the area of knowing the work of the greats.

Check this out (it's a much lesser known guy than Nachtwey and Stoddart - some of the current big names in combat and heartache photography, but you will like his work (especially the B&W with fast lenses) :
http://www.timdirven.com/

(enter the site, click on Europe on the map and then Romania, but it is all worthwhile)
His book "Yesterday's People" is beatiful and heartbreakingly sad.

Fantastic stuff, isn't it? I have it in my bookmarks (recall my answer to the question "If you could shoot anywhere/anyone/anything, what would it be?" in the interview).

Definitely better than minesweeper AND better than many alternatives.

Absolutely. Still, I have time for both.

It does, however, go along nicely with:

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#iqvsqi

The first step in defining "IQ" is to make the distinction between "image quality" and a "quality image". This distinction, in turn, requires us to differentiate between "eye candy" and "meaningful" photos. The easiest way to distinguish between these two classes of images is that "eye candy" requires high IQ to be successful, whereas "meaningful" photos are successful regardless of the IQ. Typical examples of "eye candy" would be sunsets, posed portraits, and macro. Examples of "meaningful" photos are harder to nail down, since most photos would be "better" with "higher" IQ. Nonetheless, it is important to acknowledge that there is a class of photography where image quality, as opposed to a quality image, is all but irrelevant.

I hope it hasn't escaped your attention how much I link and quote, and why I do it.

 

[sadwitch]

So is the 55mm 2.8 DA on a 645D faster than say a 85mm F2 on FF?
--
My Galleries
http://picasaweb.google.com.au/sadwitch

 

[RoelHendrickx]

I've had time for this chat between 6.00 and 8.50 this morning.
Now I will leave my computer and go out to walk and photograph.
--
Roel Hendrickx

lots of images : http://www.roelh.zenfolio.com

my E-3 user field report from Tunisian Sahara: http://www.biofos.com/ukpsg/roel.html

 

[Great Bustard]

IMO you dont get half of what you deserve

I so agree on that. My 5D is what, four years old? I definitely deserve a D3s and Nikon lenses by now.

you do not own Olympus gear.....just why are you here?
just why are you here continually

I thought you asked me to come here once with your question:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=27563516

who do you know that uses UWA bokeh
thats just dumb
WA is about more DoF not less

I had forgotten about it when I answered it here:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=36057373

But then there are so many other "questions" that need to be answered:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=36379784

You know, when you think about it, you could just ignore my posts. Nah -- that would be too simple, wouln't it?

 

[Great Bustard]

So is the 55mm 2.8 DA on a 645D faster than say a 85mm F2 on FF?

The 55 / 2.8 DA on a 645D is equivalent to a 43 / 2.2 on FF, so, no, it isn't "faster". However, it's odd to compare the speed of two lenses with different AOVs.

A more appropriate comparison would be to a 50 / 1.4 or 35 / 1.4 on FF, but, regardless, it's still slower. By the way, there is no 85 / 2 for FF -- did you mean 85 / 1.2? No matter -- it's a lot slower than that.

 

[Great Bustard]

I've had time for this chat between 6.00 and 8.50 this morning.
Now I will leave my computer and go out to walk and photograph.

Opposite end for me. I'll be hitting the sack in the next hour or so. Enjoy your day!

 

[Sergey_Green]

..

the whole problem when dealing with dorks is, they always want to have it both ways at once (pretty sure you know what i mean there) They want you to believe your system is ISO limited, in that the onset of unacceptable noise is sooner than for other formats, and they want yo to believe your lenses are slower than they are. What dorks wont tell you is, that cant happen both at once.

Dorks might give you 50 links to where they said it somewhere else, but you wont hear it here unless someone speaks up. Thats the way dorks are.

I think I need to post 50 more images for outdoor photographer Rriey. Would it solve your problem then?

--
- sergey

 

[sadwitch]

There is a minolta MD 85mm F2

It just very confusing that how come all calculations reverts back to FF 36x24mm?

Can't calculations of a particular format stay within the format?

Does it mean the samsung ex1 f1.8 can't be considered a fast lens? What about the canon s95 or LX3 at F2?

--
My Galleries
http://picasaweb.google.com.au/sadwitch

 

[Sergey_Green]

Very nice portrait. With a prime, right? I like them too.

And you see, even if the very extreme corner was in focus (in Joe's example), I would mean absolutely nothing for overall image.

Here, the first is wide open, the last is stopped down, do the corners in each make any difference?





The answer is NO. Unless it is a landscape or some real estate indoors shots, where you would not shoot wide open in the first place, across the frame sharpness @ wide open is meaningless.

--
- sergey

 

[Rriley]

IMO you dont get half of what you deserve

I so agree on that. My 5D is what, four years old? I definitely deserve a D3s and Nikon lenses by now.

clueless
then you are to be surprised

nikon FF by its mount geometry isnt especially s suitable home for ultra fast glass
f/ 1.2 anyone ?

systems are compromises
nikon dont do ultra fast by canon standards
canon dont do UWA by anyones standards

you do not own Olympus gear.....just why are you here?
just why are you here continually

I thought you asked me to come here once with your question:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=27563516

who do you know that uses UWA bokeh
thats just dumb
WA is about more DoF not less

indeed fast UWA is more about being pointless than anything else, to me its a gimmick
and another reason i rarely open links you provide

I had forgotten about it when I answered it here:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=36057373

But then there are so many other "questions" that need to be answered:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=36379784

You know, when you think about it, you could just ignore my posts. Nah -- that would be too simple, wouln't it?

--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended

 

[Great Bustard]

There is a minolta MD 85mm F2

Ah! I didn't know that.

It just very confusing that how come all calculations reverts back to FF 36x24mm?

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#sensorsizes

The reason that 35mm FF (24mm x 36mm) is chosen as a standard is due to its popularity in the days of film and the fact that there are more lenses made for this particular format which many of the smaller sensor DSLRs also use, but we can use any format as a reference.

To calculate the equivalent settings from one format to another, you simply compute the sensor ratio:

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#sensorratio

and you can use any format you want as the reference. It's just that people usually use 135 as a reference point.

Can't calculations of a particular format stay within the format?

I'm not sure what you mean. A 55 / 2.8 is equivalent only to a 55 / 2.8 in the same format.

 

[sadwitch]

Does it mean the samsung ex1 f1.8 can't be considered a fast lens? What about the canon s95 or LX3 at F2?

--
My Galleries
http://picasaweb.google.com.au/sadwitch