User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/28/2020 7:29:56 PM EDT
[#1]
I have a couple of 1.8’s. A 50 and an 85. I rarely shoot that open since dof is almost nil at 1.8. At 1.4 or faster you’d best NAIL exactly what you want in focus because everything else is blurred. Sometimes you want that. But for my purposes it’s pretty rare.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2020 9:46:52 PM EDT
[#2]
I just started out this year With a rebel t7i, so my fastest is the 50mm 1.8 canon, the rest are all 3+
I’d like to buy a few more lenses, but I feel that when/if I decide to upgrade to a new camera body In a few years I will be moving to a mirrorless. So I don’t want to invest in a bunch of good glass and then buy a new camera that uses a different mount. I know canon has the ef/rf adapter so it could still be very usable but not ideal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2020 10:04:42 PM EDT
[#3]
I have the 50mm 1.4G Nikkor lens.
It's a great prime. Very narrow depth of field. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2020 11:23:14 PM EDT
[#4]
I have the 105 f/1.4 and it's fantastic,... LOVE the compression. If you can nail focus wide open it's great if your background is cluttered or too distracting.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2020 11:36:20 PM EDT
[#5]
I have a Nikon F1.4. Haven’t t used it in years but for,low,light photog it can’t be beat.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2020 11:50:30 PM EDT
[#6]
Canon 50mm 1.4. I honestly don't use it a ton, because on a crop sensor it's more like an 80mm. That cuts off some chromatic aberration on the edges, though, which is nice.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2020 2:02:24 AM EDT
[#7]
The slowest I can really go for my stuff is 2.8. The fastest lens I have is a Sigma 50mm F1.4 art lens. It's amazing. Sharpness which blows my L series zooms away and the light is pretty great too. Most of the time I'm using my 16-35 V3 L lens. I'll probably get a 5DIV when they get cheap in a year or two. Then I'll make the jump to mirrorless which will bring about more crazy fast glass. A lot of the Canon RF mount lenses are very fast.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2020 2:08:28 AM EDT
[#8]
I have a 1.4 lens, but it's manual focus and I don't really use it. I do use 1.8s very frequently, have 35, 50, and 85 as well as a Sigma 50-100. Several 2.8 zooms.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2020 2:08:31 AM EDT
[#9]
f2.8 is my fastest glass.
24-70 f2.8L II and 70-200 f2.8 IS L. I've been looking at the 50mm Sigma ART lens though.. or even that 105... mmmmmm |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2020 2:35:20 AM EDT
[#10]
f1.2 - I often mount it on a bellows extension for macro work.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2020 3:05:55 AM EDT
[#11]
I was looking at 50mm 1.4 and even the 1.2, but then realized that I have little interest in shooting indoors, portraiture, etc. I'm an outside shooter. So my 17-55 F/2.8 and 50mm F/1.8 are more than fast enough for what little low light stuff I do. And I have the 70-200 F/2.8 for longer focal lengths.
I don't carry or use either of my 70-200s (2.8 and 4), but I want to try to shoot some of the local indoor horse barrel-riding, team-roping, etc events indoors this year. I've never been into all of that "western cowboy crap" that I've been pummeled with for my entire life living here in WY and MT. But I think that some balls-out horse action would be pretty badass to catch on camera. I'm thinking mainly about some cool, crazy horse facial expressions. Not really all that interested in the cowboy/cowgirl expressions. LOL. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2020 3:10:17 AM EDT
[#12]
disregard
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2020 3:24:54 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I have a couple of 1.8’s. A 50 and an 85. I rarely shoot that open since dof is almost nil at 1.8. At 1.4 or faster you’d best NAIL exactly what you want in focus because everything else is blurred. Sometimes you want that. But for my purposes it’s pretty rare. Exactly. That was a big part of why I bagged-out on getting anything faster than 1.8. It's hard enough to nail the focus on many shots with my 50 1.8 with that. Shallow DoF certainly has its uses, but few few that I'm interested-in. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2020 7:42:24 PM EDT
[#14]
f/1.8 is my current fastest, but I'd swear there is an old manual 50mm f/1.2 floating around the house somewhere. Been trying to find it to see if f/1.4 would be enough of an increase in light that I could drop my ISO to a less insane number for aurora video.
My dream is to rig up a setup for real time 360 aurora video, but short of something custom or even with it, I might as well start selling organs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2020 4:35:31 AM EDT
[#15]
For my Nikon DSLRs:
50mm f/1.4 - originally got it when still shooting DX bodies but 35mm would have been better had that been an option. f/1.4 is great for low light. It is also a very thin DOF, which may or may not be a good thing depending on your artistic needs. I don't use it that much lately, but its small size can be handy. All my pro level zooms are f/2.8 (17-55mm DX, 24-70mm FX, VR 70-200mm II). Great for low light, like high school gyms, and shallow DOF. I also have a few consumer grade zooms with variable max apertures. Makes for lighter weight vacation lenses when I don't want the size and weight of the f/2.8 zooms. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2020 4:52:49 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: For my Nikon DSLRs: 50mm f/1.4 - originally got it when still shooting DX bodies but 35mm would have been better had that been an option. f/1.4 is great for low light. It is also a very thin DOF, which may or may not be a good thing depending on your artistic needs. I don't use it that much lately, but its small size can be handy. All my pro level zooms are f/2.8 (17-55mm DX, 24-70mm FX, VR 70-200mm II). Great for low light, like high school gyms, and shallow DOF. I also have a few consumer grade zooms with variable max apertures. Makes for lighter weight vacation lenses when I don't want the size and weight of the f/2.8 zooms. What in god's name are you doing up at 3:30am on a school night?????? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2020 7:49:26 PM EDT
[#17]
My fastest lens is an 85mm f/1.8, and I love that lens. I'd like to get a 35mm f/1.8. For me, I have a hard time justifying something in the f/1.4 range because of the weight. A great lens is nothing if it's not with you.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2020 8:35:28 PM EDT
[#18]
I have Nikon 50 1.8, and 85 1.8. Then Voigtlander 58 1.4.
I will own the 85 and 58 forever and don't have any interest in more than that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2020 9:09:41 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I have Nikon ... 85 1.8. That's an almost magical lens. Really like mine, although I've thought about upgrading to the AF-S version. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2020 9:17:55 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's an almost magical lens. Really like mine, although I've thought about upgrading to the AF-S version. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I have Nikon ... 85 1.8. That's an almost magical lens. Really like mine, although I've thought about upgrading to the AF-S version. The AF-S 85mm f/1.8G is almost as good as the f/1.4G at 1/3 the price. Insanely sharp lens. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2020 9:43:02 PM EDT
[#21]
My wife has a 50 1.2L and 50 1.8
The 1.2 is stupid sharp but heavy. It lets crazy amounts of light through. It's awesome for dark weddings. But the depth of field is so shallow if up close to the subject. If she takes a portait of a person and focuses on one eye, the other eye wont be tack sharp. She's lost shots because her camera focused on an eyelash in front of the pupil. I think the nifty 50 (50 1.8) is more than sharp enough...and I don't feel crazy nervous taking it around cities or scrambling on mountains. The 1.8 is also 10-15x cheaper than the 1.2L, way lighter and does most of what the 1.2L does. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/31/2020 2:25:09 AM EDT
[#22]
I have a Sony APS-C/DX A6600, I have a fixed 35mm f/1.8 for low-light, this is the equiv to 55mm in FX. I want to get a Sigma 16mm F/1.4 if it gets a bit cheaper. I shoot mainly stage plays at my local HS, most of the time my Sony zoom lenses are more than suffice, BUT occassionally I do need the extra f-stop or 2, otherwise the high ISOs are intolerable because of the high sensor noise.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/31/2020 11:40:41 AM EDT
[#23]
So, I have a full (almost) line of Fujifilm lenses.
They are amazingly fast when I travel in my car with my gadget bag. Just a bit of humor as 2020 goes away. Lets hope 2021 does better. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/31/2020 2:41:44 PM EDT
[#24]
I have 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm in 1.8 (well, the 85mm was just ordered). That's about as fast as I can justify.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/31/2020 8:59:22 PM EDT
[#25]
My four Pentax fast primes are f/1.4, f/1.8, f/1.9; all three of my Fuji primes are f/2.
My zooms, and 200mm and 300mm primes, are slower. Fast enough for me. Unless I win a huge lottery. Ha. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/2/2021 8:57:39 AM EDT
[#26]
I spent years coveting Canon's 50L 1.2, then saw that they even had a 1.0.
Those are Canon's way of saying "you have too much money, give us some" Currently my fastest is the 135L 2.0. I haven't really had any issues requiring larger apertures than what I own. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2021 8:49:00 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What in god's name are you doing up at 3:30am on a school night?????? Between jobs by choice, with a messed up sleep schedule. Plus, west coast so it is only 12:30am.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2021 5:43:33 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I haven't really had any issues requiring larger apertures than what I own. "Requiring" & "wanting" are two vastly different things, IMO. It may be my lack of knowledge & talent(s), but I would love to own a lens that they use to capture a bullet leaving the barrel of a gun, for example. I can't afford anything like that, obviously. But it's nice to dream. I would love to be able to see a crystal ball 50-75 years into the future, to see what lenses would like like then. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2021 9:17:09 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: "Requiring" & "wanting" are two vastly different things, IMO. It may be my lack of knowledge & talent(s), but I would love to own a lens that they use to capture a bullet leaving the barrel of a gun, for example. I can't afford anything like that, obviously. But it's nice to dream. I would love to be able to see a crystal ball 50-75 years into the future, to see what lenses would like like then. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I haven't really had any issues requiring larger apertures than what I own. "Requiring" & "wanting" are two vastly different things, IMO. It may be my lack of knowledge & talent(s), but I would love to own a lens that they use to capture a bullet leaving the barrel of a gun, for example. I can't afford anything like that, obviously. But it's nice to dream. I would love to be able to see a crystal ball 50-75 years into the future, to see what lenses would like like then. Small confession here... In the military, a favorite among military photographers (of which I am formerly) is to catch the cannon shell, sabot, mortar round, etc. in mid flight just as it exits the barrel. It requires a fairly fast shutter speed but doesn't require an especially fast lens. I completed my career without a single "round in flight" image because I preferred staying down in the bunker because my first outing trying to do that, the missile came up off the rail and exploded, spraying shrapnel everywhere, narrowly missing myself and the commander. With a fairly fast shutter speed, coupled with continuous shutter operation tends to compensate slightly for light camera shake. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2021 10:00:46 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: "Requiring" & "wanting" are two vastly different things, IMO. It may be my lack of knowledge & talent(s), but I would love to own a lens that they use to capture a bullet leaving the barrel of a gun, for example. I can't afford anything like that, obviously. But it's nice to dream. I would love to be able to see a crystal ball 50-75 years into the future, to see what lenses would like like then. If you want to catch a bullet leaving a barrel and have it "stopped", you're going to need more than a lens that will get that shot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2021 10:18:59 PM EDT
[#31]
I've tried the Canon 85mm f/1.2L. INSANELY nice.
But the super-low aperture gets interesting... if your subject isn't nicely square to the camera, you can only keep one eye in focus at a time.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2021 10:54:16 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: "Requiring" & "wanting" are two vastly different things, IMO. It may be my lack of knowledge & talent(s), but I would love to own a lens that they use to capture a bullet leaving the barrel of a gun, for example. I can't afford anything like that, obviously. But it's nice to dream. I would love to be able to see a crystal ball 50-75 years into the future, to see what lenses would like like then. I don’t think lenses are going to get much better, I do think they will get smaller though, it’s already happening with some of the new canon rf mount lenses. What I do feel the future will hold is more artificial intelligence in camera. I think things like using a higher f stop to get multiple people in focus and ai takes over to give that shallow depth of field bokeh look of being wide open while keeping the people sharp, or ai focus stacking on steroids where the camera can recognize each person and take a series of pictures automatically focusing on each person individually and merging them in camera. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2021 7:06:25 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It may be my lack of knowledge & talent(s), but I would love to own a lens that they use to capture a bullet leaving the barrel of a gun, for example. That is a camera ability, not a lens ability. You can rent high speed cameras. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2021 3:34:27 PM EDT
[#34]
I started photography in the film world years ago. When I/we say a "fast" lens it means a lens with a big ID ie the smaller the number, and of course a "slow" larger number means a lens mean a smaller ID.
IMHO the definition of a "fast" lens break off is a F/2.0 or lower, ie f/1.7, f/1.8 etc is a fast lens. And of course a F/0.95 will suck my camera in. Back in those days, the cat's meow was the Leitz f/0.95 Noctilux, and the Summilux f/1.2 & f/1.4, and the Zeiss Planar f/1.4 for 35mm cameras. And of course there was the Canon f/0.95 on their rangerfinder camera. Back then aspheric surface lenses was real big deal because it was really, really tough to grind, and only Lietz brought that technology to market. The Leitz lenses were assembled so that each lens element would cancel out the "tolerance stacking," pretty SotA stuff way back then when computers were in the realm of multi-million corporations. Of course with today's modern computers, materials, rare-earth glasses, and anti-reflection coatings, those are not a big deal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2021 6:59:32 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I started photography in the film world years ago. When I/we say a "fast" lens it means a lens with a big ID ie the smaller the number, and of course a "slow" larger number means a lens mean a smaller ID. IMHO the definition of a "fast" lens break off is a F/2.0 or lower, ie f/1.7, f/1.8 etc is a fast lens. And of course a F/0.95 will suck my camera in. Back in those days, the cat's meow was the Leitz f/0.95 Noctilux, and the Summilux f/1.2 & f/1.4, and the Zeiss Planar f/1.4 for 35mm cameras. And of course there was the Canon f/0.95 on their rangerfinder camera. Back then aspheric surface lenses was real big deal because it was really, really tough to grind, and only Lietz brought that technology to market. The Leitz lenses were assembled so that each lens element would cancel out the "tolerance stacking," pretty SotA stuff way back then when computers were in the realm of multi-million corporations. Of course with today's modern computers, materials, rare-earth glasses, and anti-reflection coatings, those are not a big deal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2021 11:33:30 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I dunnoh, I think a 400 f2.8 is a "fast" lens. Maybe that's just me. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I started photography in the film world years ago. When I/we say a "fast" lens it means a lens with a big ID ie the smaller the number, and of course a "slow" larger number means a lens mean a smaller ID. IMHO the definition of a "fast" lens break off is a F/2.0 or lower, ie f/1.7, f/1.8 etc is a fast lens. And of course a F/0.95 will suck my camera in. Back in those days, the cat's meow was the Leitz f/0.95 Noctilux, and the Summilux f/1.2 & f/1.4, and the Zeiss Planar f/1.4 for 35mm cameras. And of course there was the Canon f/0.95 on their rangerfinder camera. Back then aspheric surface lenses was real big deal because it was really, really tough to grind, and only Lietz brought that technology to market. The Leitz lenses were assembled so that each lens element would cancel out the "tolerance stacking," pretty SotA stuff way back then when computers were in the realm of multi-million corporations. Of course with today's modern computers, materials, rare-earth glasses, and anti-reflection coatings, those are not a big deal. It all depends on what you work with and what you need. I was just astonishingly disappointed the other day when I looked down, confused by how dark the image looked on the back of the camera, only to realize that someone had swapped lenses on the body I was using and it "only" went down to 2.8. It's all relative. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2021 3:51:46 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I dunnoh, I think a 400 f2.8 is a "fast" lens. Maybe that's just me. 2.8 is fast at that long of a telephoto. Nikon has an f2.0 200mm, but I'm not thinking of anything faster than 2.8 at 300mm. The 200/2 is a big lens. Wish I could afford one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2021 5:48:09 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 2.8 is fast at that long of a telephoto. Nikon has an f2.0 200mm, but I'm not thinking of anything faster than 2.8 at 300mm. The 200/2 is a big lens. Wish I could afford one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2021 8:14:36 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You can rent high speed cameras. And women.............  |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2021 6:22:31 AM EDT
[#40]
I have a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2021 1:12:52 AM EDT
[#41]
My fastest telephoto lens is a 500P f4 manual focus I've owned for a couple decades. Did some fine bird photography back in the day with this glass. (of course my eyes and reflexes were better back in yonder year.)
 1.4, back in film days; 14-24 and 70-200 2.8's currently. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2021 1:17:00 AM EDT
[#42]
85% of my shots are with my 85 1.2. Been shooting professionally on and off for 30 years and the lens is magical.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2021 6:41:59 PM EDT
[#43]
Mine is that old standby, the DX 35mm f/1.8.
I rarely use it; got it because it's incredibly cheap and pretty damn sharp and it approximates the nifty 50 in FX. Next up would be the Tokina 11-20 f/2.8. Solves all my wide-angle needs. Then there's the 24-120 f/4; my all-around workhorse lens. The more I use it the more I like it. If I could have only one lens it would be this one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2021 6:54:26 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Then there's the 24-120 f/4; my all-around workhorse lens. The more I use it the more I like it. If I could have only one lens it would be this one. I use that lens about 99% of the time. It's amazingly versatile, IMO. I couldn't afford it, but I'd love to see it in a 1.8f config! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2021 7:50:53 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I started photography in the film world years ago. When I/we say a "fast" lens it means a lens with a big ID ie the smaller the number, and of course a "slow" larger number means a lens mean a smaller ID. IMHO the definition of a "fast" lens break off is a F/2.0 or lower, ie f/1.7, f/1.8 etc is a fast lens. And of course a F/0.95 will suck my camera in. Back in those days, the cat's meow was the Leitz f/0.95 Noctilux, and the Summilux f/1.2 & f/1.4, and the Zeiss Planar f/1.4 for 35mm cameras. And of course there was the Canon f/0.95 on their rangerfinder camera. Back then aspheric surface lenses was real big deal because it was really, really tough to grind, and only Lietz brought that technology to market. The Leitz lenses were assembled so that each lens element would cancel out the "tolerance stacking," pretty SotA stuff way back then when computers were in the realm of multi-million corporations. Of course with today's modern computers, materials, rare-earth glasses, and anti-reflection coatings, those are not a big deal. Fast for portraits/close-up... or fast for wildlife teles... two different worlds. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2021 7:54:01 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don’t think lenses are going to get much better, I do think they will get smaller though, it’s already happening with some of the new canon rf mount lenses. What I do feel the future will hold is more artificial intelligence in camera. I think things like using a higher f stop to get multiple people in focus and ai takes over to give that shallow depth of field bokeh look of being wide open while keeping the people sharp, or ai focus stacking on steroids where the camera can recognize each person and take a series of pictures automatically focusing on each person individually and merging them in camera. Agreed. Glass is [mostly] glass (at the L-series level in Canon). Which is awesome, because a guy can keep his good glass and just keep upgrading bodies. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 3:55:56 AM EDT
[#47]
My fastest are a 17mm f/1.8, a 12mm f/2.0 and a 25mm f/1.7. The zooms are a 12-40mm f/2.8 and a 12-100 f/4.
The latter two zooms are "pro" level lenses. The primes aren't "pro", but they are all pretty damn good. I use them on an Olympus OM-D E-M5 MkIII. The IBIS is amazing. This camera will put others to shame with how slow I can run the shutter and still get stupid crisp images. Down in the Carlsbad Caverns, I took it with the 17mm f/1.8. I think I only pushed the ISO to 1600 on a few shots, mostly shooting at f/2-2.2. I don't think my shutter speeds ever got slower than 1/60 or maybe 1/40. The IBIS didn't even need to work that hard. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2021 3:01:44 PM EDT
[#48]
Daily drivers are f/2.8 (12-40, 40-150) and supertele (300) is f/4. 1.4x and 2x TCs extend the reach and decimate the light (+1 & +2 stops respectively).
Fastest is f/1.4 Shooting micro 4/3 though so still not as much actual light entering as slower FF lenses. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2021 3:33:42 PM EDT
[#49]
My fastest is Sony 135 f1.8:
Got this shot this weekend at a class 1.8 @ 1/5000 background basically disappears:  For me the lens has pretty limited applications but its great at what it does. I use 70-200 f.2.8, 16-35 f.2.8 or 24-105 f.4 for 95% of what I do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2021 4:59:00 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Daily drivers are f/2.8 (12-40, 40-150) and supertele (300) is f/4. 1.4x and 2x TCs extend the reach and decimate the light (+1 & +2 stops respectively). Fastest is f/1.4 Shooting micro 4/3 though so still not as much actual light entering as slower FF lenses. You do realize that at the same focal length, not equivalent, actually equal focal lengths, the aperture size admits the same amount of light regardless of the size of the sensor behind it. People tend to flip their shit when I point this out and state that at the same focal length and aperture, depth-of-field is EXACTLY THE SAME. It only gets different when you try to compare equal field-of-view of the output. 
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
