• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Use of wide angle lenses at f1.4 or f1.2?

darkosaric

Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Messages
4,567
Location
Hamburg, DE
Format
Multi Format
Anyone has wide angle lens (28, 24mm or wider) with bright aperture (1.4 or 1.2)?
I don't see any point in those, I can understand tele lens and portraits, also I can understand to have brighter viewfinder in SLR, but 24mm f1.4 in for example range finder cameras? For architecture and landscape - one closes the lens more, so I was wondering why ?
 
The popularity of wide aperture, wide angle lenses has grown hugely with the advent of video, especially vlogging. Vloggers want "cinematic" subject separation and arm's length body shots. This means 12 to 20mm full frame equivalent rectilinear lenses of one-point-nothing apertures. For still photography it's difficult to imagine applications that demand it, except weddings in the darkest medieval churches or property photography in dingy basements.
 
For reportage type work with no flash, when I needed something wider than my 35mm f/1.4, I used a Leica 21mm f/1.4 on my M6.



21mm Lenses by Narsuitus, on Flickr
 
Any extra stop above f/2.8 is welcome for a lens that it is going to be used handheld and with available light in a close indoor location like theaters, stadiums, galleries, dinning rooms, halls,... And, of course, for street photograhpy done by night. In this latter case f/2.8 is clearly short.
 

The wider the aperture, the lower the light level available for 'available light' photography. I avoid architecture with wide angle lenses, as the perspective is odd to my eye. I don't see why one would need a fast tele lens, as I'd always use it on a tripod for landscape or architecture where I can stop down. Also, longer lenses in large format will have the larger image circles for architecture too.
 
Darko, which lenses are you thinking of? I ask because I just took a look in the Canon museum and in mir.com.my, found one (1) lens no longer than 24 mm and faster than f/2.0.

I didn't look for modern third party lenses.

There can't be much demand for really fast short lenses.

If you want fast short but not really that short, look at cine lenses. For example. my Elgeet Cine Navitar 12/1.2, the world's first mass produced lens with an aspheric element.
 
I had the wonderful 21mm f/2.8 Rokkor [Minolta] lens. I loved it, but it was like walking around with an automobile headlight hanging in front of my chest. I would not want a larger aperture than than that for a very wide angle lens.
 
Why? Because Sony only offers their 24mm G Master in f/1.4, and Olympus only offers their 17mm Zuiko Pro in f/1.2. They are amazing optics though.
 
Dan Fromm said:
Darko, which lenses are you thinking of? I ask because I just took a look in the Canon museum and in mir.com.my, found one (1) lens no longer than 24 mm and faster than f/2.0.
Click to expand...

I was thinking about Leica Summilux and Voigtlander f1.4 and f1.2 wide angle lenses, as well as Nikkor 24mm f1.4. I am curious why one should choose this over f2, which is much smaller and cheaper,,as this is not my style - but for sure there are lots of different styles that one uses - and in those opinions I am interested .
 
  • Huss
  • Deleted
I posted a pic that I realized was taken on a digi Leica, so I deleted it... But.. the 7A 28mm 1.4 allows me to shoot at 1.4 in low light handheld. It extends your shooting envelope in numerous ways. For general use however, I'll take a smaller/slower 28mm lens.
 
Thanks for the reply. I'm sure that if what they can do will make a difference a motivated photographer might buy one.

I wonder how large the market for these things is. I ask having in mind the apparently tiny market for very fast medium and large format lenses, especially longer ones where speed entails weight.

Cheers,

Dan
 
Last edited:
i only have a 1.4/35 and I don't find it gives much subject separation at f1.4 so aside from giving an extra stop or two in shutter speed to improve hand holdability it serves little purpose for me. I had an FD 1.4/24 SSC ASPHERICAL back in the day but it didn't cut it wide open so I sold it anyway. Not much point having a fast aperture if it doesn't perform, which many modern lenses do because of advanced optics.
 
It let’s you shoot TMAX 100 all day long. Which is a wonderful thing, really.
 
I use quite a few F1.2 50-58mm lenses wide open (plenty of them are very sharp wide open) and this is where the fast aperture really matters because with that focal length you do get much better subject separation with a fast lens, my comment was purely about wide angle lenses. The 1.4/35 that I do sometimes use is the Leica Summilux-R and it is perfectly sharp wide open, no complaints about its performance, but the subject separation is still difficult to obtain even with a 35mm.
 
Sirius Glass said:
I had the wonderful 21mm f/2.8 Rokkor [Minolta] lens. I loved it, but it was like walking around with an automobile headlight hanging in front of my chest. I would not want a larger aperture than than that for a very wide angle lens.
Click to expand...


There are differences between f/1.2 on 21mm lens and f/1.2 on 58mm. I found the latter was more useful for the aperture than on the former. That is why I as happy with f/2.8 on the 21mm lens but shoot a lot of available light fully open with the 58mm.
 
When you're using slower film, every F stop counts

You get some fun night time shots with fast wides - very "reportage"
 
Once, I was in Quebec east of Quebec City coming back to town from a day trip. I saw an amazing old barn at the side of the road. The light was failing. The sun was about to set.

I had my 20-35/2.8 on an F90 body. There was no time for a tripod. There was no time to grab another body and shoot faster film. It was the E100VS I had loaded, or nothing.

I shot at 1/15 at f/2.8 handheld. I got a really nice shot. If I'd had an f/4 zoom, I probably couldn't have gotten the shot.

I realize f/2.8 isn't ultra-fast, but sometimes, the fast lens you have can get the shot that the slower lens can't. Sure, with digital there's a bit more flexibility on ISO, but even there, sometimes, there just isn't enough light or time.

I have one very fast wide angle lens (the Rokinon 35/1.4) and I have used it inside museums wide open or at f/2 for some very interesting shots. It isn't always practical to use a tripod in such spaces.
 
Environmental portraits is one thing. I don't think anyone buys a 24/1.4 to use wide open for landscapes at night but it would do nicely indoors. I'd like a 24/1.4 or 28/1.4 for that reason, night time walks and closer range (1-5m) shooting. But yes, in general f/1.4 is more useful at 35mm or more, f/2.8 does just fine at 21mm.
 
The popularity of wide aperture, wide angle lenses has grown hugely with the advent of video, especially vlogging. Vloggers want "cinematic" subject separation and arm's length body shots.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register