With today's high ISO performance of digitals do we still need super fast lenses?

<blockquote>

<p>Remember - "the best lens is a tripod."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Mmm, Id like to see a fast lens being substituted by a tripod and catch a bird in flight....<br>

How does that work ? Do you throw your tripod at the bird to stop it from moving ...? :-) :-)</p>

<p>C.P.M. - First tie the bird to the tripod. There's probably a plamp attachment for egrets. :-)<br />

<br />

I was having a go at photographing small birds in hedgerows on Boxing Day, with my shiny new (well, sort-of) 500mm AI-P, a teleconverter, and an (inadequate) tripod. My ISO was in the thousands a bit more than I expected. I've got some image processing to do before I decide whether my manual focus technique is any good and whether I was being unduly paranoid with shutter speed. I may or may not have done any better with an autofocus lens (hedges do not interact well with autofocus). Would life have been easier with a 200-500 f/2.8? Well, I doubt I'd have been any more able to hand-hold it, but I might have some less noisy blue tit. What I really needed was light - ideally, to have been antisocially shooting on Christmas Day, which was sunny, instead of Boxing Day, which was overcast. My SB-600 wouldn't have contributed much at the range I was shooting, even if I could have put it in the right place. I needed sunlight.<br />

<br />

The best lens is a tactical nuke, set off at a suitable distance, preferably positioned by radio-controlled helicopter (and a reflector)?</p>

<p>Mostly I want wide aperture lenses for DOF reasons, not so much low light these days...</p>

<blockquote></blockquote>

<p>IMO, yes. AFAIK lower (especially native) ISO always yields better IQ, if not in terms of outright noise, then in terms of DR, contrast, tonal gradation, etc. The other advantages of super fast lenses have already been mentioned (brighter VF, better control of DoF, surer AF), except that they generally also have better bokeh if that matters to you.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Mmm, Id like to see a fast lens being substituted by a tripod and catch a bird in flight....<br /> How does that work ? Do you throw your tripod at the bird to stop it from moving ...? :-) :-)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Just curious - do you get more BIF keepers shooting long teles handheld, or when using a good gimbal mount and a sturdy tripod?</p>

<p>D.B. - I've got okay BIF shots hand-held with an IS lens in tracking mode. I tried shooting - er, photographing - a red kite that flew past over the weekend, with a 500mm f/4 on a (cheap) gimbal and (not very) sturdy tripod, with very little success. That might have had something to do with trying to manual focus on a moving subject, though. I have a few smaller birds taking off from a bird table - shutter speed (ISO and aperture) definitely mattered, since the wings blur even at 1/1000. I've no idea how steady the tripod was keeping me, but at least it let me aim the lens.</p>

<p>Well, Andrew , DB ,<br />Its obvious that you <em>may</em> need both, but I'm trying to break the repeatedly used oneliner "Remember - "the best lens is a tripod." ... because its not true, "no lens no picture.."...<br>

A tripod cannot replace any lens, you still need the lens , and depending on the Lens, and subject and available light and usable ISO capability , and the type of picture you want etc, etc. you may need a tripod or something else to steady your cam. ( beanbag ?) too....</p>

<p>Not really, f2.8 is fast enough for most and a professional zoom has this by design. An ultra-shallow depth of field is nice, but for most not essential. Having said this, however, I do like my 35/50/135 f1.4-f2s, but they are definitely "extras".</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the best lens is a tripod</p>

</blockquote>

<p>well I haven't heard that one before......doesn't even make any sense.<br>

the whole point of small format photography is to be agile and discreet.........if you're going to use a tripod, you may as well break out the MF or LF monsters.</p>

<p>Ty, I think you're confusing the working of the statement with the spirit of the statement. I believe it's meant to mean that if you can't get enough light to shoot (or for your lens to shoot at a sharp aperture), then a tripod does wonders. And it does. Assuming I have a tripod with me, I'd rather shoot f/4 and 1/15th of a second over f/2 and 1/60th, unless I'm doing a wedding or something where people are moving a lot.</p>

<p>Also, the smaller sensor/film of the 35mm-sized cameras allows for large telephotos, something not really an option with medium or large format film. Your 600mm f/4 would be equivalent to around 200mm if you were shooting 4x5 film, and 200mm just isn't going to cut it for any wildlife more dangerous than a sparrow. Plus it would probably end up being an f/11 or f/16 lens.</p>

<p>But it still weighs a lot. Hence tripod, or prone position.</p>

<p>One issue to consider also is that on a DX camera the DOF is increased at the same aperture, so until all things become FX, I believe that wide primes remain very important. <br>

In your case however with a D700, it seems that a F1.8 (less than a 1 stop difference from 1.4(2/3rds to be exact)) lens would be sufficient if the build quality, glass quality and number of aperture blades were all to your liking. One thing to note however, is that If you like to use the lens at say F2 the 1.4 will probably serve you better given that it is stopped down a whole stop rather than just a little bit. <br>

I tried to read the whole thread to see if I was going to be redundant, but missed parts here and there so i apologize if this post simply repeats what was said before.</p>

<p>Since we've taken the radical move back to the OP's original question, rather than debating whether a tripod + pinhole is better than using glass...<br />

<br />

I have to say the 24-70 f/2.8 is an awfully nice piece of glass (as far as I can tell from reviews). It keeps up pretty well with the 50mm primes, which are much simpler designs, and it's pretty sharp even at f/2.8 - at least, it's close to how good the primes are at that aperture. Aside from a little outlining, the bokeh's not bad either (and no worse than the bokeh of the AF-S 50mm). I love my 50mm f/1.8, but one and a third stops - and fuzzy at that aperture - isn't much over the zoom, especially since the prime is so light you'll lose a bit of stability compared with the zoom.<br />

<br />

I'd get the 50 f/1.8 if you want something light to carry around on the camera. I'd choose it over the f/1.4 for the same reason. Given that you own the 24-70 already (and I don't), I'm not sure I'd bother with it to add much functionality. If you want it for subject isolation, I'd choose a longer lens anyway (even on the D7000).<br />

<br />

The 50 f/1.4 G is much sharper wide open (away from the centre) than the f/1.8 or the old AF-D f/1.4, so I'd be more inclined to consider it usable at two stops faster than your zoom. It still has slightly sucky bokeh (the Sigma is better but less sharp), but it depends on your subjects and what look you're trying to get as to whether this is an issue for you. Of course, it costs more than the AF-D. Not that there's anything wrong with the AF-D wide open so long as you like centering your subject. I'm vaguely hoping an AF-S 50 f/1.2 might crop up (with a more advanced optical formula), but I doubt I'd be able to afford it when it does.<br />

<br />

To summarise: I'd get the 50 f/1.8 if you want a light walkaround lens, but not to add optical functionality over your zoom. I'd get the 50 f/1.8 G if you want sharp photos at two stops faster than your zoom and don't mind dodgy bokeh; I'd get the Sigma or possibly a replacement AF-D if you want better bokeh but less sharpness. If you want everything, I'd cross fingers and hope a 50 f/1.2 that's perfect turns up. I'd also look through my EXIFs and see how much I was using the lens.<br />

<br />

Of course, if you can repair it yourself for free anyway... Good luck!</p>

<p>Some very good points have been made. I'll address a few on which I have an opinion:</p>

<p>First, a tripod is not the best lens. Now, I'm a big fan of tripods. In fact, I just spent over $1300 on a new one including an arca-swiss head. But, when I'm trying to take photos of my young cousins at a Christmas dinner holding the camera still is not going to solve the movement problem. Those little rascals are fast. </p>

<p>I do feel that my 24-70 f2.8 is as good if not better quality at 50mm than the 50mm f1.4. Even opened up at f2.8. Now the ability to blow out the background more can be had by moving back a bit and zooming the 24-70 to more like 70mm at f2.8. </p>

<p>Many of the responders made the assumption that all of my bodies are DX format. When, in fact, I only own one DX format body today and it's not my primary camera. I only pick up the D7000 when I want something light weight or does video. My D700 is my default camera. Yes, I get the confusion over the model numbers but I blame that on Nikon. </p>

<p>I honestly don't find much of a loss of IQ when cranking my D700 up to ISO 3200 or even 6400. The physically large sensor and amazing low noise performance create stellar IQ even at high ISO. My older D300 wasn't even close to the performance of my D700.</p>

<p>In the end, I will attempt to fix the 50mm f1.4 on my own following instructions I have found on the internet. If I destroy it, I have lost nothing. However, if I do, I seriously doubt I will replace it.</p>

<p>Thanks for all of the input,</p>

<p>Kevin</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Kevin, the D700 is indeed phenominal at high ISOs. Still grainy, but at 6400 it looks like 800 ISO film - much more natural than noice typically is.</p>

<p>If you're not sold on the primes, I'd look into a 50mm 1.4 AIS, F2-era. I've had one for years (not quite as long as its been around), and it's still my most reliable lens and my general go-to. Image quality is much sharper than the 1.4 G, although its more prone to showing pores and other small imperfections. I find it very easy to focus on the D700, fairly easy on the D7000 and D300, and pretty hit-or-miss on the D90 and below, as the less expensivecameras do not have viewfinders sharp enough to judge a thin sliver of focus as well. That said, it's more-or-less permanently attached to my D7000.</p>

<p>It can also be had used for $100-$300 depending on condition.</p>

<p>Zack - I doubt the AI lens would help with the "little rascals". :-) I suspect a zoom lens would help, too.<br />

<br />

I'm interested to hear your opinion of the AI-S. The review I've seen (KR's) suggest it has slightly better bloom resistance than the AF-D (in spite of being roughly the same design), but I'm surprised that you find it better (well, sharper) than the AF-S - although I could believe it does a bit better in the centre in return for softer edges. I'll keep an eye out in case I spot a cheap one, but my experience of normal primes is that I value autofocus more than I do with other focal lengths.</p>

<p>I did a dirt, fast resolution test (but still reliable to me) months ago and found the AiS and AFS performance wide open to be quite the same on the D700... in fact, the only way I found to recognice each lens was in the highlight spots; on the AFS are almost circular, clearly polygonal on the AiS. It was surprising to me, for whatever the reason I used to consider the AiS a very soft lens under this conditions. I was not able to find any bokeh differences.</p>

<p>I only checked center resolution. I really don`t care about side&corner performance when shooting at such apertures.</p>

<blockquote>I only checked center resolution. I really don`t care about side & corner performance when shooting at such apertures.</blockquote>

 

<p>I've heard that argued a lot, and I'm sure it suits the style of shooting of many. Myself, I've never bought the theory. If you have subject detail on the (pseudo-)rule-of-thirds point on a full-frame camera, they're almost as far from the centre as the top middle is on a crop body. That's often well away from the sweet spot. I also tend to have something - floor, tabletop, whatever - in view that's bisected by the focal plane. Sure, it's usually not the main subject of the photo, but if the bokeh blurs into pure sharpness near the middle of the frame point and into splodge at the edges, I find it distracting (my eye tends to follow the line of focus when peering around the scenery). I don't expect every lens to be perfect, but nor would I be happy with the Lensbaby effect every time I shot faster than f/4. This may be a failing of my compositional skills, or just be because I work in computer graphics and I'm naturally drawn to pixel-peep at details.</p>

<p>Well, better to have a great performance in the whole area, of course. There will be always a situation to desire it in this way. I must admit that most of the times I shoot f1.4 just for fun... :)<br /> <br /> <img src="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00T/00T8c4-127215684.jpg" alt="" width="488" height="700" /></p>

<p>It was taken with a 50AFS, wide open.</p>

<p>Another one, 50AFS wide open too.</p>

<p><img src="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00T/00TkEF-147603584.jpg" alt="" width="566" height="770" /></p>

<p>This time with a 50AiS version, wide open.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Last one, 50AFS wide open, again:</p><div></div>

<p>Alex Z and Jose, nice,nice, nice, love the shots. And YES, I want the fast lenses. I know too I could do better with a 700 or 7000 but I still feel I'm comfortable enough with my trusty D200s and the 1.4 and 1.8, and Alex I shoot jazz club stuff ISO800 with the old manual 50 1.8 alot but I really admire that shot with the 30 1.4 So another vote for the faster lenses here. Dave</p>

 

<p>hmm, not super crazy about the 50/1.4 AF-S bokeh. nice shots though.</p>

<div></div>

<p>*waves hands*</p>

<p>Voigtlander 58/1.4. Handles being pointed at light sources pretty darn well, not a lot of barrel distortion or vignetting, but you get a lot of green fringing pretty easily. Plus, nice bokeh and a much better focusing action than any Nikon lens I've held. It might just be perfectly damped.</p>

<p>I'm with Eric, I just don't like the bokeh on many of the Nikon primes (the 30/1.8 and most of the 50s too). They're beautifully sharp, but that's not always what I'm looking for. Likewise you don't need to shoot wide open to get nice bokeh from many lenses. But you do need the fast lenses for low, available light photography. If you're looking for a fast, manual focus prime it's hard to go wrong with the 58/1.4. The out of focus rendition is beautiful, the transition from focused to not focused is fantastic, it's small. But it's prone to green fringing (which /can/ make the bokeh pretty busy) and takes 58mm filters (an odd size for Nikon kit it seems). I mention the Arsenal Mir-24N 35/2 because if you don't NEED the speed of the Sigma, it's cheap (about $100 off of eBay), has a beautiful focusing action, nice aperture ring with lots of detents, and focuses pretty close (0.24m). Seemingly less vignetting than the Sigma, and it too takes 58mm filters (which fits in well with my kit, I just leave the step up adapter on the 28/2.8 all the time).</p>

<p><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4034/4402951269_11a86b5b22_z.jpg?zz=1" alt="" /><br>

D200 • ISO 800 • Mir 24N • ƒ/5.6 • 1/125th<br>

Note: I *had* to use this lens because I was going to shoot some pictures of Soviet tanks. How could I not? :D</p>

<p><img src="http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5004/5229582415_c6e785b276_z.jpg" alt="" /><br>

D200 • ISO 800 • Voigtlander 58/1.4 • ƒ/3.5 • 1/180th</p>

<p><img src="http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5166/5282494764_fcb42de892_z.jpg" alt="" /><br>

D200 • ISO 640 • Voigtlander 58/1.4 • ƒ/1.6 • 1/60th</p>