The compromise of truely fast lenses

[John Bragg]

Last year I bought a 28mm f1.9 Vivitar Series 1 lens. It is built like a tank and has produced some nice images. I know it is soft wide open but the ability to shoot at all in poor light is what attracted me. Tonally it is good but the bokeh wide open is sometimes odd. Do you own any superfast lenses and is the compromise worth it for you ?


Untitled_254018GB by E.J. Bragg, on Flickr

 

[koraks]

Well, if f/1.9 is 'super' fast...I frequently use a Canon 35/2 IS which performs quite well wide-open (although I rarely use it like that) and it does have pleasing bokeh. I also use several Canon f/1.8's (EF and FD) which I guess are quite well known and their wide-open bokeh is equally fine. My EF 100/2 has the 'creamy' bokeh you'd expect from a long, fast lens.

There's nearly always a compromise in terms of sharpness shooting such lenses wide open; there's usually a little coma and there is often some color fringing going on, especially on the wider lenses. Is it worth the compromise? Sometimes a fast lens allows you to photograph under conditions that a slower lens simply wouldn't allow. That's not a compromise, I think.

 

[John Bragg]

Well, if f/1.9 is 'super' fast...I frequently use a Canon 35/2 IS which performs quite well wide-open (although I rarely use it like that) and it does have pleasing bokeh. I also use several Canon f/1.8's (EF and FD) which I guess are quite well known and their wide-open bokeh is equally fine. My EF 100/2 has the 'creamy' bokeh you'd expect from a long, fast lens.

There's nearly always a compromise in terms of sharpness shooting such lenses wide open; there's usually a little coma and there is often some color fringing going on, especially on the wider lenses. Is it worth the compromise? Sometimes a fast lens allows you to photograph under conditions that a slower lens simply wouldn't allow. That's not a compromise, I think.

f1.9 is fast for a 28mm.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Last year I bought a 28mm f1.9 Vivitar Series 1 lens. It is built like a tank and has produced some nice images. I know it is soft wide open but the ability to shoot at all in poor light is what attracted me. Tonally it is good but the bokeh wide open is sometimes odd. Do you own any superfast lenses and is the compromise worth it for you ?


Untitled_254018GB by E.J. Bragg, on Flickr

if f/1.4 counts as superfast then YES but, I see no compromise with my Nikon superfast lenses. what attracts me is not necessarily taking pictures in dim light but also being able to measure the exposure in dim light conditions. A superfast lens can measure dim light more reliably and offers a brighter viewfinder than a normal lens. Well worth it to me.

 

[Dustin McAmera]

Dragging the conversation back to the 1960s, I have a 58mm f/1.9 Primoplan for my Exa. I got it to replace the cheap-and-cheerful f/3.5 Meritar so it was never going to represent a trade of quality for speed: I bought both. It's transformative: the Exa has no slow speeds (it has no fast speeds either; I have 1/25, 1/50, 1/100 and 1/150 second) so the wide aperture is the only way to keep shooting. I took it out recently, and noticed a bit of a film of dirt (I hope) on an inside surface, so I don't suppose I'm getting the best from it for now.

 

[xkaes]

I have plenty of fast lenses -- 135mm f1.8, 85mm f1.7, 58mm f1.2, 35mm f1.8, 28mm f2.0, 24mm f2.0. I use them when I might need the extra "speed", and all of them are softest & have the most light fall-off when used wide open. That's a compromise to get the correct exposure -- in low light without blur -- or a very shallow DOF -- as in the photo above.

As to bokeh, since that is a mix of lens design, flare, coma, film, development, lighting, taste & opinion, I'll just say I am happy with my fast lenses. They get the shot -- as in the photo above.

 

[John Bragg]

I hate flash as a mood killer and the fast lens helped here.

IMG-20240311-WA0003 by E.J. Bragg, on Flickr

 

[Pioneer]

I am a fan of most lenses but particularly so of lenses that help me see to focus in less than stellar light. My Tomioka 55mm f1.2 on my Pentax SV is one of those lenses as my eyes have never been great and they don't seem to be getting better as I get older.

But that is also why I like my Tessar 150 f4.5 lens on my 4x5, and that is not necessarily a lens that pops into most people's mind when the topic of fast lenses comes up.

 

[ic-racer]

The fast lenses I have in the 0.9 to 1.4 range are all very sharp at the focal point. I'd not call any of them 'soft.' The reason I don't use them all the time is physical size and weight.

My 24/1.4 in the background compared to some f2.8 lenses.

 

[Paul Howell]

Fast lens became popular when available light photography was a thing. ln the 50s and 60s press and commercial photographers use flash, bulb and electronic for just about everything, guys with hats with big press tag in the hat band a Speed Graphic popping a M5 press bulbs in daylight was a stereotype. In the mid 60s as MF and 35mm the tend was to shoot in natural lighting. I had a 58mm 1.2 Konica, and have 1.4 for Nikon, Pentax, now for Minolta MC and A mount along with a Sigma 50 1.4, The Sigma although not an Arts lens is very sharp. The others are just so so when shooting wide open. In the day it was a trade off. For press work capturing the action was more important than how sharp a photo was, very few photos made to a 1/2 page over the fold and few yet to full page. Current senablityes value Boka, not an objective measurement, just how pleasing the out of focus area seems to be. In 1970 I had bought a used Konica T that came with a 58 1.2, the shop I was at had the Konica rep on a sales call, the told me that I needed both the 1.7 and 1.2 the 1.2 was optimized for 1.2 and 1.4 while th the 1.7 was optimised for the mid range 5.6 to 6. As I normally shot in good light I rarely used the 1.2 and when I traded in the T for a Nikon F I bought the 1.4. Rather than the Nikon 80 to 180 2.8 I used the 80 to 200 F4 to save weight, a long day on a story every once made a difference. If I need to shoot in low light I would just push Trix to 800 sometimes to 1600.

 

[MattKing]

One minor compromise - which is related to the size and weight compromise - is that faster lenses often require bigger filters and lens caps.
To my mind, the brighter viewing is the biggest advantage, followed closely by the narrower depth of field at the wide-open aperture used when focusing.

 

[xkaes]

I had a 58mm 1.2 Konica,

I almost had one too when I was contemplating my first SLR. Konica had a 57mm f1.2 and Minolta had a 58mm f1.2, but I chose the Minolta due to its viewfinder information. They are both equivalent lenses, but as Matt says, are large and heavy -- and still not inexpensive.

The 55mm/57mm/58mm f1.2 lenses are "soft" wide open -- especially closer to the edges -- but I quickly learned that this can be an advantage. These lenses can easily be turned into great Portrait lenses by adding a 2X tele-converter (especially a cheap one) -- and shooting at about f1.2. That makes it a superb 110mm/114mm/116mm f2.4 soft-focus lens -- the softness is easily adjusted with the aperture.

 

[Paul Howell]

Your right the Konica is a 57mm not a 58mm, the T had a full information viewfinder, I chose the T over Nikon, Canon or Minolta as I wanted the shutter speed priority auto exposure feature, then a few years traded the T for Nikon F that been factory modified to take the motor drive. The Konica 1.2 is a very good lens, fairly shar at 1.2, but the 1.7 is one of the sharpest 50mm lens I have ever used. I have a number of Konica lens, all of them sharp with good contrast, don't think I have ever read of a bad Konica AR mount lens.

 

[Ian Grant]

Lets get real these super fast lenses are nothing new J.H. Dallmeyer made f1.1 Petzval lenses over160 years ago, and Dallmeyer's Petzval lenses were well corrected, so no swirly distortion.

Ian

 

[pentaxuser]

Just out of curiosity, John, what's the compromise/problem with your first pic It's the face that counts here isn't it , that's where the viewer is meant to focus attention and this does it "in spades" as they say

pentaxuser

 

[cliveh]

There is no compromise with fast lenses.

 

[John Bragg]

Just out of curiosity, John, what's the compromise/problem with your first pic It's the face that counts here isn't it , that's where the viewer is meant to focus attention and this does it "in spades" as they say

pentaxuser

Thanks Peter, you are too kind and that is a better example from that lens, shot at 15th second at f2. The lens has a very long focussing throw and focusses incredibly close but it is hard to nail focus. It is a Nikon Ai fit and focus on my Nikkor 28 f2.8 Ais is much more snappy and decisive when achieving critical focus. This was shot on a Nikon FM2n but it works better for an old fart like me on the Nikon F4 or F5 with focus confirmation.

 

[250swb]

I hate flash as a mood killer and the fast lens helped here.

IMG-20240311-WA0003 by E.J. Bragg, on Flickr

Truly fast lenses are f/.95, fast lenses are f/1.4, anything else is an averagely fast lens. But perhaps the problem isn't the lens instead of your ability to focus it accurately, which we can all sometimes have with fast'ish lenses on a manual focus SLR camera. Focus bracket, don't change the focus point on the lens once you think you have it but sway a tiny fraction forward and back while taking a few shots.

 

[John Bragg]

Truly fast lenses are f/.95, fast lenses are f/1.4, anything else is an averagely fast lens. But perhaps the problem isn't the lens instead of your ability to focus it accurately, which we can all sometimes have with fast'ish lenses on a manual focus SLR camera. Focus bracket, don't change the focus point on the lens once you think you have it but sway a tiny fraction forward and back while taking a few shots.

That's a new technique on me. Every day is a school day.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks Peter, you are too kind and that is a better example from that lens, shot at 15th second at f2. The lens has a very long focussing throw and focusses incredibly close but it is hard to nail focus. It is a Nikon Ai fit and focus on my Nikkor 28 f2.8 Ais is much more snappy and decisive when achieving critical focus. This was shot on a Nikon FM2n but it works better for an old fart like me on the Nikon F4 or F5 with focus confirmation.

No problem, John. It is the kind of pic that I would have been proud of taking. I never managed anything as good with my granddaugther when she was a similar age

By the way, Peter is pentaxpete and not me. Peter shows his pics in the Gallery but participates rarely in the forum. I do not show pics in the Gallery but do ask a lot of questions and some would say "becomes a nuisance "

I have been told that Henry King who was nearly called Norman as opposed to Matt King, definitely called Canadian, has been heard to exclaim when near some big church in Kent a few years ago : "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome pentaxuser"

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

"Will no one rid me of this meddlesome pentaxuser"

Don't worry - I'm not going to change my signature line.

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

Way back when I started on Olympus I found a Series 1 28mm f/1.9 for much less than I could find the Zuiko 28mm f/2, and I shot a reasonable amount with it, perhaps a few months of near daily use. It was and is still a fine lens, it had those 'bird wing' coma going on in so you had to be careful with certain lights. I switched to Nikon soon after, and the Nikkor 28mm f/2 was a regular lens; now I find a 10+ year old Nikon 28mm 1.8G is better than those and lighter too. The use of AF for a fast wide angle certainly helps, something I actual didn't think I wanted in a fast 28mm until I shot with a buddy's 28mm Zeiss Distagon Otus. I don't 'always' shoot low light wide open on a 28, but that is one good reason I carry one instead of a 28mm 3.5.

 

[ntenny]

I don’t see the compromise either. That looks like a challenging lighting environment, and it’s a winner of a shot all right.

It’s a good point that fast wides are unusual. They would seem to make a lot of sense, because the dof of a wide lens should be helpful wide open, but I suppose there are design challenges (maybe especially with SLR lenses).

-NT

 

[John Bragg]

No problem, John. It is the kind of pic that I would have been proud of taking. I never managed anything as good with my granddaugther when she was a similar age

By the way, Peter is pentaxpete and not me. Peter shows his pics in the Gallery but participates rarely in the forum. I do not show pics in the Gallery but do ask a lot of questions and some would say "becomes a nuisance "

I have been told that Henry King who was nearly called Norman as opposed to Matt King, definitely called Canadian, has been heard to exclaim when near some big church in Kent a few years ago : "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome pentaxuser"

pentaxuser

I'm so sorry Sir. The little lady is my daughter and she loves to shoot film too. She has a Nikon F90x and 50mm f1.8 with of course a pink strap !

 

[John Bragg]

I don’t see the compromise either. That looks like a challenging lighting environment, and it’s a winner of a shot all right.

It’s a good point that fast wides are unusual. They would seem to make a lot of sense, because the dof of a wide lens should be helpful wide open, but I suppose there are design challenges (maybe especially with SLR lenses).

-NT

Yes indeed. The compromise for me is that I get the shot, but there may be vignetting and softening wide open. I could push two stops and use f2.8 or f4 and trade overall sharpness for more grain and lost shadows. That's the compromise.