Better ISO ratings or faster lens?

Those of you who've bought the D3 or D300: Do you still plan to purchase fast lenses or shoot slower lenses at

higher ISOs? I still use the D200 and go for better lenses, but I'm curious if the sensitivity of those cameras trumps

f2.8.

We don't always choose fast lenses to shoot low ISO. We also choose them for the way they throw the background/foreground way out of focus to isolate the subject. In some cases the faster lenses are designed with pros in mind so the optical quality is also higher, improving resolution, contrast and colour rendition. Despite improving high ISO performance the faster lenses will still have their place.

Higher ISOs can't give you all the possibilities that reduced depth of field provide. I have always felt the strength of fast lenses lie in their creative uses, not their light gathering power.

I just took some shots with my 35/1.4 on a D300, f2, ISO in the four-digit range, shutter speed enough to stop very slow movement (but just barely). There are many situations for faster lenses, but not everyone shoots in those. If you put a D300 on a tripod and take a photo first with ISO 200 then with ISO 800 with the same aperture, then the ISO 200 will have better quality. The D3 pushes the quality up a bit, but there are still dark rooms, night scenes, the need to stop motion. Recently, I need to go f2 to stop motion in a dusk scene. Just some examples why fast lenses are still needed.

That's kind of what I thought (re: DOF and image quality), but just wanted some "boots-on-the-ground" feedback.Thanks.

You see! Low high ISO noise is like a Flush and high lens speed is like three Aces. Three Aces is a lot more

expensive than Flush but then a flush beats 3 Aces. Of couse you also have high mega pixels which is like a Pair.

Pairs are cheap and easy to come by but when you combine your 3 Aces with them, you then have a full house.

Full house always beat flush any days (or nights) in most of our houses. What you want (and Canon is hoping for)

is a Royal

Flush. This is when Lens Speed, ISO noise, AF performance, megapixel and gizmo all five things lined up :-)

I think that the D3 has changed the way cameras are used in low light and when cheaper cameras with the same low light ability come out the average user will not need to spend a premium for speedy lenses.

 

Burt Keppler said that he didn't feel super fast lenses were usually not great wide open and you should if possible stop them down a couple of stops. Sometimes you need all the speed you can get, if you like available light at night or in dark interiors there is no substitute.

 

With low light low noise cameras comming down in price I think f2.0 is fast enough to blur backgrounds and get some really good shots at ISO 3200. Its nice to carry lighter lenses and save money too.

Hey Tommy, did I see you on TV in the poker championships in Vegas?

<i>Burt Keppler said that he didn't feel super fast lenses were usually not great wide open and you should if possible stop them down a couple of stops.</i>

 

<p>Yeah, that's true, but when you stop down a 35/1.4 or a 50/1.2 to the f2-f2.8 range then you have already very high image quality whereas the slower lenses would be at full aperture and not as good as the faster lenses. So the equation is a bit complex in practice...

Oskar thats not always true, many of the Leica F2 lenses are excellent wide open as befits their price.

Harvey, that may be true, but I was thinking primarily in terms of Nikon equipment.

The Nikon 200/2 AI is an example of a Nikon lens that beats every lens that I have ever had (over 25 years) wide open and then gets ridiculously sharp closed down to f2.8 or f4. My 14/2.8, 28/2, 135/2, and 400/2.8 are no slouches either and I am sure there are more Nikon superfast lenses that fit in this category.