lenses with wide opening - yes!

[dirk_dom1]

<p>Hi!<br /> There are a lot of people who say that lenses with wide opening serve no more useful purpose because the modern sensors go to crazy high ISO's.<br /> The camera industry might listen to that. <br /> I totally disagree.<br /> I like to shoot with shallow depth of field and nice bokeh because I want to separate my subject and background and make composition simple.<br /> I don't mind lugging weight around and paying the money.<br /> I think f/4 - f/5.6 kit lenses are crap no matter whether you can shoot at ISO 100,000.<br /> I think DSLR's should be made again so that you can actually see the effect of a lens with wide opening in your viewfinder.<br /> I hope the camera industry will keep on making / start making / introducing lenses with wide opening.<br /> Luckily there seems to be a lot of movement in that area.<br /> Dirk.</p><div></div>

[dirk_dom1]

<p>Another one:</p>

<div></div>

[dirk_dom1]

<p>last one:</p><div></div>

[Charles_Webster]

<p>Nice photos Dirk, but the fact that you want to shoot wide open at low ISO settings doesn't mean the rest of us do. I often need more depth of field than f/2.8 provides, but in lighting conditions that are far from optimal. I'm looking forward to the day when I can shoot at ISO 6400 with as little noise as I have now at 400.<br>

Different strokes for different folks. </p>

<p><Chas><br /><br /></p>

[JDMvW]

<p>You do need really fast lenses if you want d.o.f. in the millimeters. You don't need really fast lenses to shoot with most of your image out of focus.<br>

I only have one f/1.2 lens, and I do use it a lot; but that does not alter the hard truth that there are f/1.4 lenses in the same manufacturer's lineup that are as good or better at any of their f/stops than the f/1.2 lens - except for f/1.2.<br>

While f/1.2 and faster lenses are not exactly a one-trick pony, the pony is finding it harder to do new tricks as it gets older.</p>

<p>As for</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think f/4 - f/5.6 kit lenses are crap no matter whether you can shoot at ISO 100,000.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>-It just seems gratuitous - a troll's chip on its shoulder.</p>

 

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"I think f/4 - f/5.6 kit lenses are crap ..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Lens tests using standard methodology would disprove that assertion.<br>

<br>

But as long as manufacturers continue making very sharp kit zooms while folks who dislike or haven't used kit zooms claim the lenses are crap, the rest of us can enjoy buying those crappy sharp lenses at very affordable prices.<br>

<br>

By the way, I'd appreciate it if everyone here would dismiss Nikon's new 70-300 lens for the 1 System as "crap". Hopefully that will drive the price down from $1,000 to the $200 range of other 70-300 zooms, so that I can afford it. And I'd like to thank all of the crapsayers who disliked the V1 without having tried it. Really helped me get a great deal on it in 2012, before the prices went back up.<br>

<br>

Oh, and Fuji's 27mm f/2.8 X series lens looks nice but I wouldn't mind if it was closer to $250, the same price as the Nikon 1 System's 10mm f/2.8. So please crap on it too. Thanks.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>I like your second shot although cropping in some would make the flowers stand out more. But the first picture is too edgy for me and too much is out of focus. I think you should have stopped down more to get more DOF. The third's bokeh is also disturbing for what it's doing to the branch in the upper right and the specular highlights. The two leaves on the back right being out of focus distracts from the overall shot. That whole area that's out of focus is just too much negative space with the focused leaves in a small corner on the bottom left. Like most tools, we have to use minimum DOF judiciously as with a scalpel not a hammer. Just because we can do something, doesn't mean we should.</p>

<p>As an aside, big glass lenses were developed originally because film was too slow. Using fast film added a lot of grain. So picking up a stop or two with big glass allowed you to use slower, better film. Also, it made focusing the lens easier, especially manual lenses, because you can see the subject better in the viewfinder. The image was brighter.</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>I've been using classic Nikon prime lenses since the 1960's and my current favorite lens is the 18-105 kit lens. Go figure! I am apparently not very knowledgeable about these things.</p>

[john_robison3]

<p>It is a trade off, in size, in weight, in price. All my system lenses for my OM setup have been the slower versions of focal lengths selected, 24mm and 35mm, f2.8, my 50 is the f1.8, 135 a f3.5 and my 200 is the f5. Only the 85 is f2, the only type available. <br>

I find the weight savings, small size and consistant 49mm filter size worth the limitations. Never had any trouble getting shallow DOF if I wanted it. And had the presence of mind to load some slow film. </p>

[rapyke]

<p>The OP worded his post poorly.<br /><br />Wide aperture lenses <em>are</em> better, generally speaking. If you doubt this, just check out the price lists at Nikon, Canon, (_____Insert brand name here____). <br /><br />Are wide apertures needed in every (most) situations? Certainly not, but can anyone actually defend the idea that they are not necessary/nice to have?</p>

<p>If you doubt the need for wide aperture lenses, perhaps you should talk to a portrait photographer, or, a photo journalist. One needs full artistic control and one often needs ISO 6400 and above AND f 1.4 or more to 'get the shot'.</p>

<p>Maybe the problem is the same as when you discuss cameras...</p>

<p>Why would anyone pay $40,000.00+ for a medium format camera to snap pictures of your kid's birthday parties? Important pictures, yes, but probably not in the $40,000.00 range I'm guessing. I'll bet most people today would be happy with a well composed picture from a phone camera or a reasonable point and shoot.</p>

<p>If you hire a pro to shoot the event though, it is very, very likely they will have that wide aperture lens on the front of their camera as they dodge the flying bits of cake and ice cream...</p>

<p>Does this mean you should only use wide aperture lenses? Of course not. If you have the choice you use the best lens for the job at hand. An f 1.4 - f 22 lens simply gives you more options than an f 5.6 - f 22 lens.</p>

 

[q.g._de_bakker]

Ron, checking price lists only reveals that some things are more or less expensive than other things. Not why that is, or would have to be.<br>Looking at price lists does not reveal that wide aperture lenses are better.<br><br>How could things that you do not use, knowing that you do not nor ever will, be nice to have? The question is not how to 'defend' the idea that you do not miss having things you do not miss having, but how to justify the idea that it would be nice, necessary even, to have them anyway.<br><br>Wide aperture lenses are tools that can produce results other lenses perhaps can't, or not as easily. As such, they deserve a place in the toolkit of someone who wants to use what these things offer. If someone doesn't, or only very rarely, it will be hard to justify the expense.<br>Whether it is worth whatever it costs anyway is not a matter of $40,000 cameras having to produce $40,000 pictures.<br><br>Using a wide aperture lens in a fast moving (dodging flying bits of cake and ice cream) is a recipe for having loads of out of focus images. Something pros like to do?

[AlanKlein]

<blockquote>

<p>If you doubt the need for wide aperture lenses, perhaps you should talk to a portrait photographer,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Good portrait photos include in-focus from the tip of the nose to the back of the head. Wide open apertures are avoided because parts of the head will be out of focus. Any portrait photographer using f/1.4 probably doesn't know what he's doing. Often at that opening, only one eye will be in critical focus. </p>

<p>Faster lenses are more expensive because they have more glass that has to be ground down and included. That doesn't mean they have less aberration, more sharpness, etc. than slower lenses. They are also heavier to carry around especially when you get into the zooms and larger telephotos.</p>

<p>As a landscape shooter using a tripod, I mainly use stopped down apertures and long shutter speeds. So I have little need for wide apertures. </p>

 

[wogears]

<p>Okay, Dirk. You have forty lenses and two images in your portfolio here. You give us three more in this post, none of which would induce me to buy a super-fast lens if I did not already own several. I'm sorry if this appears to be <em>ad hominem</em>, but from the evidence I have, you appear to be someone who has been captured by the fast lens trend without understanding first principles of photography.</p>

<p>I truly wish we could all stop using the ridiculous word "bokeh". How about <strong>BLUR</strong>? "Bokeh" is a mystical quality. It enables amateur photographers to <em>buy</em> better images (in their own minds, at least). "Yes, I know that only one eye is in focus, and she's squinting a little, but look at that awesome "bokeh", man!" I will point out that in 2004, Mike Johnson, the inventor of "bokeh", agreed that it did NOT refer to "subjective quality", but simply to blur in general. It requires a qualifying adjective: smooth, grainy, ugly... How about "smooth blur" or "gorgeously soft blur" or "really nasty blur" as in the OP's image #3?</p>

[phule]

<p>I enjoy large aperture/fast lenses as much as the next person. But if you can't get a soft out-of-focus background with lesser aperture lenses, then you're not trying.</p>

<p>Here's a lens as wide open an aperture as it will allow: f/5.6. At 250mm. Depth of field shallow enough that the leading edge of the cluster of florets is in focus, but the actual flower is not (this is what you get shooting handheld in a slight breeze).<br>

<img src="https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8160/7304132054_2ea9181a13_z.jpg" alt="christen" width="512" height="640" /><br>

Background is nice and smooth using a consumer-friendly 55-250mm f/3.5-5.6 lens.</p>

 

[starshooter]

<p>I suspect you'd get your knickers in a twist if someone told you "bokeh b.s." is mostly crap. If you don't like a lens then don't use it but trying to bully everybody is not very nice and shows a lack of taste and perception. There are people who see things differently than you do and want to make photos that are different from your efforts. It's is okay. You do not run the universe.</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>I want my subject to be in focus and my background frequently OOF so I use a smallish f-stop and my editor. I have an f/1.4 lens but never use it mainly becuase it is manual focus. and I enjoyed reading at least two people questioning the 'B' word which is not followed by 'lurr'.<br>

Obviously my education is lacking but I cannot see what is good or bad about blurr it is just blurr and I dislike intensely OOF highlights ... they are so distracting from the subject.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

The thing however is that blurr does not equal blurr. Not all blurr is created equal, and it shows.<br>So though i don't care much for the word Bokeh itself, mostly because it has indeed acquired mythical properties, there is a need for something more than just the word blurr. The quality, or character, of the out of focus rendenring will do, but is not as succinct. The quality of blurr, or blurr quality is shorter. But i think it would be better by far to educate people about what is happening in those out of focus parts than to search for a better word.<br>Blurr certainly is not blurr, JC. Some blurr hurts the eyes, other blurr is quite pleasing. You dislike out of focus highlights, so must have seen enough of those to grow that dislike. Then you must also have noticed - since these thingies are very good in displaying different (though not all) types of blurr - that blurr is not blurr.<br><br>A 'word' i dislike, by the way, and coincidentally, is OOF.

[hjoseph7]

<p><em>"I think f/4 - f/5.6 kit lenses are crap no matter whether you can shoot at ISO 100,000</em>"</p>

<p>Not exactly crap, but during the film age we use to call those type of lenses "9-5 lenses". The reason is, if you didn't have any fast film in your camera bag, or a tripod you would often miss shots during the hours of dusk and dawn, plain and simple.</p>

<p>These days you can always boost the ISO, also if you have stabilized lenses that also helps. The fact of the matter is that slow lenses in the f4-5.6 and even f6.3 minimum aperture ranges are much cheaper to manufacture. This gives manufacturers the excuse to sell those lenses and earn a higher profit, or sell them at affordable prices depending on the manufacturer.</p>

<p>As guy who shot weddings before, I can tell you that even a relatively fast lens such as f4 can become annoyingly burdensome, because you have to keep boosting the ISO. That extra stop makes a huge difference at weddings which can mean more keepers and less pictures going directly to the round-file. Oh yeah and if you want good Bokeh, or selective focusing those slow lenses just can't cut it.</p>

<p>On the down-side fast lenses are often big an heavy. If you are on vacation, or doing any type of street photography those big, heavy and intrusive lenses can become more of a liability than the "crap" lenses.</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>I’ve said it many times in threads like this: lenses are like paint brushes to a painter. Each has its own special qualities that is capitalized upon when desired. I do a lot of portraits and I do usually like some out of focus background. With a DX camera and 50mm lens I often use f2.5, and with the 105mm lens, f 2.5-4, which gives me a soft background and in-focus facial features. I have 1.4 lenses but I wouldn’t use them in this situation. However, shooting a flower and wanting some nice blur, which I have experimented with, I will use some lenses wide open: 1.4 to 2.8 getting more of an effect like the OP is showing. This is totally a matter of taste, however, and to my eye usually extreme blur and smearing of the image is just distracting, like too much HDR. If I am shooting a landscape with a wide angle lens, stopping down to f 8 or more usually gives the depth of focus desired for this kind of shot, especially if there is detail in the extreme foreground and the distance to infinity is also in the image. My old 90mm (antique) Angulon lens for 4x5 was optimized for shooting at f22-32. It boils down to what effect you want and using the lens to achieve that effect. Different situations have different demands. Even if I had an f 1.2 lens I would probably never use it wide open. I actually use my 18-105 kit lens for most situations these days because it is so sharp wide open and I do get enough out of focus background in my headshots, especially at 105mm. The VR is really nice and with the D7100 I can shoot at any iso I need to get the exposure. The camera, lens combination focuses fast too, and I get more keepers in fast moving situations.</p>

[Karim Ghantous]

"f/4 - 5.6 kit lenses"

 

Well, it depends. You have to test them

first. I don't like them but some are very

good indeed. The lens on the Leica X-Vario is excellent, despite the uninformed rhetoric from detractors. I'm not quite sure I'd call it a 'kit' lens though.

 

Tell me, what would an 85/1.2 lens give

you that an 85/1.8 lens would not?

Apart from costing twice as much? Effectively, SFA.

 

I suggest to all photographers who

might otherwise invest in (slightly)

faster lenses, that not only are they

poor value but they are usually poorer

performers. The Sigma Art 50/1.4 is

cheaper than the Nikon 58/1.4 but at

least twice as good. So test before you

buy, whatever you decide.

 

Even if I were shooting film, I'd never

go for the widest aperture for a given

focal length.

 

Lex, I checked out the reviews of the

V1 (and at least one other Nikon 1

body) to see how it compared to my

micro 4/3 camera of choice. I rejected

it, but I do think it's a decent system for

general use. It's better than a compact

and isn't much bigger.

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Yeah, the V1 is a good niche camera for folks who can use the quick AF and shutter response, appreciate the P&S compact class and want a bit better IQ than a typical 1/1.7" or smaller sensor digicam would deliver. Suits me for most of my candid photography, although I've just added a Fuji X-A1 for landscapes and other stuff that doesn't move quickly. The Fuji's AF isn't as quick as the V1, but it's not bad either. I just prefer the V1's clean, uncluttered top plate for spontaneous stuff - no dials, knobs, etc., to get in the way whether I use my index finger or thumb to trip the shutter. And the slowish variable aperture zoom suits me because I'd stop down for more DOF anyway. I usually prefer a busy milieu in street pix, so most fast lenses would be wasted on me.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Problem with V1's, mft's and similar cameras are they can't unfortunately be worn on your belt or stuffed in your pants pocket.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Wide aperture lenses are one of the many fetish objects for photographers. Once they were perhaps important when film really was normally 400-800. Now it has become a fad to have razor thin depth of field, whether the subject needs it or not. Sometimes it just makes things look out of focus. In addition, as others have said, they are bigger and heavier and much more expensive than is necessary. A logical summary might be that they are probably not worth the hassle for the small % of shots that you make with them at full aperture. Of course, I have at least 3 "fast" prime lenses myself...</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Film "normally" used to be ASA 32 - 64. Even then, half a stop to one stop more light didn't make a big difference.<br>You're absolutely right, Robin: the point of a fast lens is lost when not used wide open. And trying to use an f/1.2 lens with ISO 800 film in normal daylight is a bit of a challenge in itself. You rapidly run out of shutterspeeds fast enough to allow using the lens wide open.<br>But it's undeniable that if you have a lens that opens all the way to f/1.2 instead of f/1.8, you do have a lens that opens all the way up to f/1.2 on those occassions when it would be really good.

[ed_farmer]

<p>It seems, to me, that the OP is talking about an argument that no one is making. Nobody says that, "Nobody needs fast lenses." Like everything else in the photographic realm, not everybody NEEDS them but there are things that simply can't be done without them. <br>

I don't own ANY f1.2 lenses, but I do own 30f1.4, 50f1.4 and 85f1.4 lenses along with my 80-200f2.8 and 300f2.8 lenses. These allow me to shoot in low light. Sure, I could pump the ISO on my camera to 6400 . . . Sometimes I do. The f1.4 lenses allow me to shoot at 6400 when it is DARKER than those shooting with a kit lens at ISO 6400. <br /><br />The same discussion can be had about VR or IS. VR is great! It allows me to handhold my 18-200 at as little as 1/4 second while I am working at a wedding. The problem? People very rarely stay still enough for a sharp shot at 1/4 second. Is VR useless? No, it's just not always useful.<br /><br />I love kit lenses! I used them at the beach and I give them to my kids mounted on my old D200 bodies for them to learn photography. If a lens gets some sand in it or gets scratched, they are cheap enough to replace.<br /><br />ALL of the lenses have a purpose. The mistake is in using the wrong lens for the job . . .</p>

<p> </p>