Brighter than f2 beside portraits (or why I love f3.5)

[darkosaric]

Hi all,

Recently I was shooting on some party, and with low light I used 50mm f1.4 wide open, with 1/125s.
It was difficult to focus, and almost every second shot was slightly out of focus.

This reminded me why I love my Elmar 5cm f3.5 --> I don't need bigger f stop than f3.5 in 95% of the case, and focus miss is not so visible .

Do you use aperture bigger than f2 beside when you want nice out of focus blur, like in portraits (and if yes - where)?

Thanks,

 

[NB23]

Nothing forces you not to use your fast lenses at f3.5...

I use wide apertures when I must. Tmax 100, pan-F films, and the use of filters often cause this.

As a side note, after a scanning marathon of about 1500 kodachrome slides throughout about 500 rolls, I realized how many shots were really ruined from too much bokeyh. Not that I was pursuing boogeh per se, with iso 64 being what it is, but this made me realize that bookhe at all cost is mainly a newbie thing. A fad that keeps coming back.

 

[sterioma]

If you use an SLR, having a fast lens does improve the brightness of your viewfinder.
For aesthetic reasons, my fastest lenses are both 1.8 and I seldom use them at that aperture.

 

[jim10219]

I tend to try to stop down my lenses as far as the light will allow me when shooting events, for the very reason you described. Plus, in event photography, people like to see themselves, even if it's in the background of another person's shot. Intentionally blurring people out, like you would with a portrait, is usually a mistake as the point of the event photograph is to represent the event (which is a gathering of people) rather than just the individuals at the event. In other words, the crowd in the background is an important element.

That being said, the extra speed does come in handy, and I wouldn't want to be stuck with a 3.5 lens unless it was an outside event during the middle of the day. 3.5 is kind of slow for indoor photography or night scenes without a flash (which can be too much of a distraction in some cases). So the option is nice. When the light is low, you just have to pay closer attention to focus and take lots of shots knowing some will be out of focus. It helps to use the right camera for the job, i.e. an SLR with a big viewfinder that's easier to pinpoint focus than something like a rangefinder. Also, it helps to have good eyes, and if your eyes are getting old and can't see as well on small details or in low light, then you probably need to find a camera with a good low-light autofocus.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

but this made me realize that bookhe at all cost is mainly a newbie thing. A fad that keeps coming back.

I do not remember real photographers complaining about the bokeh of Rolleiflex, Hasselblad, Leitz, or SLR lenses in the film era. This bokeh obsession is a doo doo promulgated by the D crowd, along with dual card slots, equivalence, cheating on the ISO, rich dentists and doctors, well depth, and other (useless) stuff (crap) about which they fantasize.

 

[NB23]

I do not remember real photographers complaining about the bokeh of Rolleiflex, Hasselblad, Leitz, or SLR lenses in the film era. This bokeh obsession is a doo doo promulgated by the D crowd, along with dual card slots, equivalence, cheating on the ISO, rich dentists and doctors, well depth, and other stuff about which they fantasize.

Tell me about it.
Back then, the general rule was that shooting wide open was to be avoided at all cost except when then available light was low.

 

[pbromaghin]

I generally prefer the context information residing in depth of field and find the separation fetish overrated. But then, I'm just an old fart amateur.

 

[ciniframe]

Larger aperture, like all things photographic, had advantages and disadvantages.
I like to focus wide open not because of the brighter focusing screen, but because of the reduced DoF.
When you achieve focus at say f1.4 the focus falls off on either side faster than if you focus at a smaller aperture, f4 for instance.
This provides more ‘snap’ to the focused image, more separation between focused image and foreground and background.
So, focus wide open, expose at preferred aperture.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

First, I would not limit myself to 1/125 for real portraits. It could be easily done with 1/30 and rangefinder camera. This is main advantage of rangefinders over SLRs. No mirror shake.
With 1/30 f3.5 is usable instead of 1.4.
Depending on how close distance is @f1.4 it might be one eye portrait and rest is OOF.
@f1.4 understanding of DOF and correct focusing, taking techniques are important.

Also, I have no problem with AF 50 lenses to get objects in focus @1/60 and f1.8 as long as I understand the DOF.

 

[138S]

Hi all,

Recently I was shooting on some party, and with low light I used 50mm f1.4 wide open, with 1/125s.
It was difficult to focus, and almost every second shot was slightly out of focus.

This reminded me why I love my Elmar 5cm f3.5 --> I don't need bigger f stop than f3.5 in 95% of the case, and focus miss is not so visible .

Do you use aperture bigger than f2 beside when you want nice out of focus blur, like in portraits (and if yes - where)?

Thanks,

In normal lenses for 35mm Peak optical performance is obtained usually in the f/4 to f/6.8, depending on the particular lens.

We may stop more if wanting/needing more DOF...

We may open beyond best optical aperture if:

> Wanting to increase shutter speed to reduce blur from camera shake or from subject's movement

> Wanting to isolate subject by softening background or foreground

> We love bokeh of that lens, and its interaction with grain.

> Wanting to help volumes depiction from focus roll-off, the way focus is lost tells the viewer an interpretation of depth !!


Technically, if only requiring to reduce camera shake and not wanting to open iris we have two solutions:

> VR lenses, the Nikon 24-85 VR stabilization works in F5, F6, F65, 75, 80, 100...

> A monopod, that makes wonders, it's an stylish accessory that tells good things about the photographer, and always you may beat somebody with it if required ) joking, of course)

 

[darkroommike]

The "fast" lenses were primarily a byblow of the move to the SLR's. Early SLR's had much dimmer finders. A bright image made focusing in low light easier.

 

[jtk]

The "fast" lenses were primarily a byblow of the move to the SLR's. Early SLR's had much dimmer finders. A bright image made focusing in low light easier.

Yes ! Along came the Exacta !

 

[jtk]

...and speedlights !

 

[Ko.Fe.]

The "fast" lenses were primarily a byblow of the move to the SLR's. Early SLR's had much dimmer finders. A bright image made focusing in low light easier.

In rangefinders which OP is using, 50 1.5 lenses came in 1940s. My wild guess is due to low iso films.

 

[BrianShaw]

...and speedlights !

That’s how I deal with low light conditions! Sometimes even with flash bulbs.

 

[Jim Jones]

When Kodachrome was rated at ASA 10, fast lenses were sometimes necessary. Even when its speed was boosted to ASA 25, I often had to use one second exposures at f/2 in night street photography. Years later I had to use a f/1.4 lens at 1/125 second for indoor sports on Tri-X rated at ISO 400 to retain good shadow detail. Then Kodak produced 2475 recording film, and a superior f/2 Summicron at 1/250 second replaced the f/1.4 Canon, The gross grain of the faster film was preferable to the subject movement and inferior optics of the faster lens. We have made much progress since those times. Last night I could capture digital color of a basketball game in a small town gym at ISO 6400 with a f/5.6 zoom lens, and the grain might have been as fine as on Kodak 2475. Using the right camera for the job beats struggling with pet cameras, lenses, and films.

As for shallow depth of field to emphasize or isolate the main subject, another good approach is optimum composition and lighting with ordinary lenses.

 

[markjwyatt]

In rangefinders which OP is using, 50 1.5 lenses came in 1940s. My wild guess is due to low iso films.

The f1.5 started in the 1930s (1932) for the Contax.

https://themachineplanet.wordpress.com/2016/04/23/50mm-f1-5-zeiss-sonnar-1937-first/

 

[bernard_L]

• one-umanship, owner pride
• showing off "bokeh" (actually, narrow DOF)
• then, some legitimate uses and needs

 

[removed account4]

Darko

You mean you aren't pushing vintage tri x to 6400 developing it in dinafine and shooting wide-open with a noctolux ?

John

 

[Ko.Fe.]

The f1.5 started in the 1930s (1932) for the Contax.

https://themachineplanet.wordpress.com/2016/04/23/50mm-f1-5-zeiss-sonnar-1937-first/

O’my! My FSU copy of it is from fifties

 

[guangong]

There is a reason cameras have a selection of different apertures and speeds: to give the photographer choices for any given situation. Some choices are limited by conditions of subject to be photographed, particular camera type, film and physical abilities of photographer. I have shot printed matter hand held old be impossible with Rollei 35 and Contessa at f3.5 and 1/4 sec that came out sharp. Rollei TLR also performs well at slow speeds. Such slow speeds be impossible with SLR (at least for me). I shoot in many dark places, bars, theaters, etc often with wide open lens in order to get something on film. I stopped using flash in late 1970s because it annoys other people. Most lenses perform best at 5.6 to f8, so I try to adjust speed to those stops. But conditions are not always perfect so compromises are needed.

 

[blockend]

A head and shoulders portrait shot that has both eyes and nose in focus requires an aperture of around f4. I recently took some half length portraits, and couldn't go wider than f2.8 while keeping the head sharp front to back. Whatever those wide aperture lenses are for, it ain't portraits. For spider's webs on rusty gates they're fine.

 

[guangong]

If far enough away from subject, wide stops can often work. The depth of field scale is useful.

 

[BradS]

Darko

You mean you aren't pushing vintage tri x to 6400 developing it in dinafine and shooting wide-open with a noctolux ?

John

...with a 16 stop ND filter no doubt!