Some people like less context for their subjects. A faster lens can isolate. A longer lens can isolate. Is using a telephoto a shortcut to "fix" a bad image?
How much context is purely subjective.
And out on the street, i want to see the subjects environment. That is what gives the image context. Blurring out any background just seems like a shortcut to fix a bad image.
Some people like less context for their subjects. A faster lens can isolate. A longer lens can isolate. Is using a telephoto a shortcut to "fix" a bad image?
How much context is purely subjective.
Within a given line of lenses, Pentax, Olympus, Leitz, whatever, and a given time period (e.g. 1980's), are the slower lenses better overall compared to the faster ones?
Correct. Very few wide aperture lenses were optimised for use at their maximum aperture, the Noctilux being a rare example of one that is. Most benefit from being stopped down a click, which noticeably increases sharpness, but raises another issue of f1.4 and f1.2 lenses which is focus shift. This clears up by f5.6, but at f2.8 and f4 a number of such lenses back focus, in other words the point of sharpness on the screen and on the negative are different. Not all wide aperture lenses suffer from uncorrected astigmatism ("focus shift"), but quite a few do (even expensive modern optics), and it goes unnoticed because people shoot wide open (where it doesn't occur), or back focus is put down to user error.The older lenses are pretty bad wide open, but stepped down at f2.8 they are very sharp
I used a canon 50mm FD F1.8 for most of the 90's and never wanted for anything else.In the past 10 years or so I've acquired 50mm 1.4's and 50mm 1.2's and 55mm 1.2's of various descriptions and I really like the brighter image in the viewfinder.
...
The Japanese took almost 30 years to design a 50mm f1.2 the first was Pentax. Older 55mm f1.2 weren't up to the standard of later 50mm f1.2, here there's Nikkor's take on the 55mm f1.2 (they also say it wasn't a great lens) with some interesting story:
http://www.nikkor.com/en/story/0049/
The Canon New FD 50mm f1.2 L although still expensive is probably the best fast aspheric lens ever made for a single lens reflex camera and was certainly right on the cutting edge of optical technology when it first came out and has still never been beaten.
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/50mm.htm
Generally speaking it's harder to design a good f1.2 than a good f2, for obvious reasons.
The Japanese took almost 30 years to design a 50mm f1.2 the first was Pentax. Older 55mm f1.2 weren't up to the standard of later 50mm f1.2, here there's Nikkor's take on the 55mm f1.2 (they also say it wasn't a great lens) with some interesting story:
http://www.nikkor.com/en/story/0049/
I don't have the expensive L but the normal FDn 50mm f1.2 is a good performer...I'd like to get the L btu perhaps it's better to spend money on the 85m f1.2 L.
I assume,maybe wrongly so, that a faster lens collects more light and makes it easier for the light meter to give precise exposure readings in low light situations.that alone would be reason enough for a fast lensIf a photographer likes the look a f1.2 gives him, it is great that they are available to purchase. If you do not like the look, there is no need to rain on his parade by questioning the need for them.
For most cameras it's true. Although when you have to do stop down metering then the maximum aperture doesn't come in to play anymore.I assume,maybe wrongly so, that a faster lens collects more light and makes it easier for the light meter to give precise exposure readings in low light situations.that alone would be reason enough for a fast lens
Within a given line of lenses, Pentax, Olympus, Leitz, whatever, and a given time period (e.g. 1980's), are the slower lenses better overall compared to the faster ones?
For example, would a 35/3.5 be better in terms of resolution and aberrations than a 35/1.8, generally speaking?
What say you?
I've had a canon FD 50mm f1.4 lens for about thirty years I'm retired and don't delude myself that if I shelled out around £500 for a FDn 50mm f1.2 L lens it would make me a better photographer, just a poorer one.
For those who weren't around then, a clarification: HS Ektachrome was ASA 160. Kodak offered push processing to ASA 400.We both used HS Ektachrome (ASA 400), both sent it to Kodak for processing.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?