File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
sup /p/


do you consider f2.8 to be fast enough for lowlight indoors?

just wondering as to the general consenus as to what truely was "fast."
>> Anonymous
>do you consider f2.8 to be fast enough for lowlight indoors?
Absolutely not, not for hand-held shots. Even f/1.4 is cutting it if it's indoors and after dusk, even with average indoor lighting. Though f/1.4 is about the best you can get without spending thousands of dollars.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
No and f0.8
>> Anonymous
>>173898
*cutting it close
>> Anonymous
F/2.8 is pretty much baseline. Say from f/4 on is slow, and from f/2 on is fast. Things like f/2.5, f/2.2, f/3.2, f/3.5, etc. occupy a grey area.

But yeah, f/2.8 isn't fast enough indoors unless you're willing to live with monstrous noise/grain and watch yourself against blurred subjects, and know how to handhold your camera yourself.
>> Anonymous
1/2000 of a second is fast.

f/2.8 is wide.
>> Anonymous
I was in an auditorium shooting an author giving a reading from his award winning book. I was using a 80-200mm f/2.8. I should have grabbed the 85mm 1.8. I had to resort to laying down and using my camera bag as a makeshift support - but he, if that's what your into...
>> Anonymous
>>173911
>f/2.8 is wide.
What the fuck are you on? Please make sense next time you speak.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>173914
Well, he's technically right... But fuck his pedantic ass. "Fast lens" means "Lens with a wide aperture to allow a faster shutter speed" and everyone knows it.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>173914
He is making sense, shutter speed is fast/slow whears aperture is wide/narrow.

Shooting at f2.8 on an f2.8 lens is shooting wide open regardless of speed.
>> Anonymous
http://youtube.com/watch?v=5wGxgJXO7gc ballin
>> Anonymous
>>173916
Yes, but "fast aperture" is common nomenclature in photography. It may not be technically correct, but it is an appropriate use of language. Just like fast film and warm colors.
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>173916
"Wide open" refers to aperture, but if you just say "wide" you'll get a lot of confused looks.
>> Anonymous
It's simple aperture science.
Do what you must because you can.
>> Even_Steven !!rUmVORA7JiP
     File :-(, x)
F/0.75 is fast. Everything else is pussy

Pic fucking related

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D70Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 MacintoshMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.7Focal Length (35mm Equiv)75 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2005:07:16 17:27:07Exposure Time1/160 secF-Numberf/18.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/18.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo FlashFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width670Image Height452
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>173999
Pretty sure that doesn't cover full frame. Fastest production full frame lens is still the Canon 50/0.95

>>173974
Portal was fun but seriously eat a dick
>> Anonymous
>>173999
>>174027

i think i remember a few months ago someone posted a link or pic which had all these amazing russian military lenses.

some had insane apertures like 0.4 and some really long lenses with pretty decent apertures too, really kinky shit ay!
just comes down to whether they cover 35mm, doubt it, but would still be fuckin cool to have!
>> Anonymous
>>174035
Most of them didn't.

Optics aren't just used for cameras; they're used for all sorts of weird stuff. I heard a story about a scientist desperately trying to track down Noct-Nikkors for some particle physics experiment only a lens with some property the Noct-Nikkor has would do for.
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>174036
A more mundane use for them is for movies - even when shot on 35mm film, movies only use half frame, and then there are even smaller formats.

There are a lot of fast 25mm and shorter lenses out there that used to sit on movie cameras - wonder if anyone's hacking them to 4/3rds.
>> noko
I use f/2.0-2.2 regularly indoors, it often doesn't seem enough. But going down to f/1.4-1.8 ends up looking much softer on my lens D':
>> Teus !QbSstcPD6U
>>Pretty sure that doesn't cover full frame. Fastest production full frame lens is still the Canon 50/0.95
oh, fuck that stupid lens getting hyped. the Noctilux reigns.

ontopic: I don't use anything slower than f/4. most stuff f/2.8 or faster even. I only rarely use anything slower than f/2 in lowlight
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>174043
I know blah blah blah get a job but the 50/.95 is over $2000 cheaper than a used Nocti.
>> Anonymous
I'm building a camera, down to the lens(es). I planned my lens to be a 50mm F1.0, turned out to be a 55mm F1.05 in theory. In practice it's looking like a 55mm F1.1. Every little loss of speed is hurting my morale. I'm even considering just sending that speed to hell.

F2 and higher is fast, but I've even found 1.8 not to be enough for night shooting. For zooms, it's not going to get any better than 2.8, so I wouldnt expect to get any better than that. If it's a prime, F2,no less.
>> Anonymous
>>174054
While cost is important, isn't the f/.95 lens in question supposedly horrible wide open, while tne Noctilux is... unique and unpredictable, but usable?
>> Anonymous
f2.0 is what I'd call the 'manageable' baseline for shooting indoors during the day. Even then I find that I need all the available lights on if I'm shooting hand-held or a subject that's likely to move.

I recently had to cope with this at a convention in a hotel which had bloody awful lighting itself and effectively no natural light coming in. Hand-held and I couldn't expect every subject to be able to stand perfectly dead still. I ended up using, on average, 1/80, ISO 200 (I can't stand dealing with any noise at all ever so 400+ isn't an option for me no matter what body I'm using), f2.0 and I severely abused my flash (with a diffuser on it and setting it to be much stronger than it usually would be). Even then, getting everything properly exposed was sketchy.

f2.8 wouldn't have been usable, in that situation.

That said, I think just f1.4 would have been comfortably enough. Below that and I think you start drastically sacrificing sharpness for no good reason.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>174076
wtf are you talking about? Jesus.
>> Anonymous
my 1.4 was too slow for the few indoor low light shots I tried
>> thefamilyman !!rTVzm2BgTOa
     File :-(, x)
while center sharpness is still quite good on a quality bright prime, its the DoF that can become quite bothersome.
At f/1.4 the DoF is so damn narrow its easy to either miss completely or not get enough in focus. I'm not saying its an undesirable effect, a nice shallow DoF is pleasing sometimes, but impractical other times.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D70Camera SoftwareVer.2.00Focal Length (35mm Equiv)75 mmMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.4Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern29114Serial Number200159d4Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2007:07:13 19:42:32RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknownExposure Time1/25 secF-Numberf/1.4Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length50.00 mmCommentCopyright 2007 Patrick BridgmanColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width680Image Height1024ISO Speed Used400Image QualityFINEWhite BalanceAUTOImage SharpeningAUTOFocus ModeAF-SFlash SettingNORMALFlash Compensation0.0 EVISO Speed Requested400Flash Bracket Compensation0.0 EVAE Bracket Compensation0.0 EVTone CompensationAUTOLens TypeUnknownLens Range50.0 mm; f/1.4Auto FocusSingle Area, Center Selected, Top FocusedShooting/Bracketing ModeSingle Frame/OffColor ModeLandscape sRGBLighting TypeNATURALNoise ReductionOFFCamera Actuations11124Image OptimizationVIVIDSaturation 2NORMAL
>> Anonymous
>>174106


change your ISO... or maybe, turn a light on
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>174106
You're fucking high as a kite then. You can take shots in pitch darkness with a 1.4 lens. I was shooting in nothing but street lamp light last night at f/2.4, 1/15s, ISO 1600.
>> Anonymous
>>174109
You have to learn to work with the concept of depth of field. The closer you are to your subject, the more shallow it's going to be anyways. Lenses with very wide apertures are best for dusk/nighttime landscapes or street photography, or of any subject in general that is more than 5m away from you.
>> Anonymous
>>174190
>ISO 1600.
Idiot.
>> Anonymous
>>174200
If you think iso 1600 is never to be used, you're one to call someone an idiot.

Inb4 noise BAWWW, get some quality NR
>> Anonymous
>>174190
You tend to underexpose, though, especially in low light. Someone looking for a more even exposure would have problems. F/1.4 at 3200 will sometimes only pull a metering reading of 1/30th or so, or even slower.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>174206
The obvious solution there is to realize that your meter is often wrong, and that the whole world doesn't need to be 18% gray.
>> Anonymous
>>174208
Yeah, I'll let things go black and all, too, but that's not what I always want, that's not what everyone wants. Say you're shooting indoors, where the light is even, just perfect even illumination, no strong highlight-shadow contrast like at a concert, and it looks normal to the eye, but it's actually very dark, and your shutter speed at 3200 and f/1.4 is a fifteenth.

I was referencing a meter reading because what else would I reference? You take a stock memorized or metered exposure and choose whether to deviate from it or not.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>174216
Granted, but my (and I assume Heavyweather's) point is that someone saying flat out "f/1.4 is not fast enough for shooting in low light" is just wrong and needs to learn to break free of their meter.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>174206
>>174200
>>174076
Those of you who can't operate in normal indoor lighting conditions at f/2 must be doing something very wrong. You have to learn to work with a little motion blur and shoot at the appropriate moment. You also have to learn to refrain from using long lenses that you can't hand hold. It's like shootng underwater- it requires doing things slightly differently than you would under normal conditions, but that doesn't mean it's the equipment's fault if your pictures suck.

Pic may not be very good, but it illustrates the point that you can work in low light at slow apertures with slow shutter speeds. ISO 400, f/5.6, shutter speed 1.5s. Shot in a cave with the only light from people's headlamps. Camera braced against a rock for support. Focusing had to be done by scale because there was basically no seeing through the viewfinder. There is motion blur, but remarkably little for a people photo at 1.5s. It's a usable photo. I didn't tell them to hold still, I just waited for the right moment.

Shutter speeds of 1/15 and 1/30 are perfectly workable, and at f/1.4 and ISO 400 that's pretty damn low light. You just have to make two changes to your shooting stile. First, wait until your subject isn't moving. Second, stop moving when you press the shutter button rather than just swinging the camera around spraying exposures.

To answer OP's question, I consider f/2.8 to be fast in a zoom or a prime over 200mm. Otherwise, anything under f/2.8.
>> Anonymous
>>174233
I do, all the time, that's pretty much exactly how I shoot, actually. The camera I use most a small-sensor camera with a maximum aperture of f/2.8 that gets really noisy above 400. Working with motion blur is something I do almost every time I shoot with it indoors, but it's not ideal for every subject or everyone's working style.

I've got no problem doing it, but if someone has, it's not always a lack of skill or looseness on their part.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>173999

A challenger appears! Super-Q-Gigantar 40mm f/0.33

But well. I consider f/2 to be good enough for in door use, but nothing sure beats my f1.2
>> Anonymous
>>174256

SEX
>> Anonymous
>>174256
Just read a bit of history about that lens. The Q stands for Quatsch, and it was, in a way, a satire of ultrafast lenses made by companies competing with Zeiss. According to the Zeiss company philosophy, the lens' maximum absolute aperture didnt matter, what really mattered was the highest aperture at which the lens could provide a good image. They were pretty much saying that making a fast lens (like the Canon 50mm F0.95) is no big feat, what's important is making it usable.
>> Anonymous
>>174292what really mattered was the highest aperture at which the lens could provide a good image
This is a fact very often overlooked. What use is an f/1.2 lens if it doesn't produce acceptable image quality until f/2.8? You might as well just have an f/2.8 lens and half the weight.

It's very true about a fast lens being easy to make. You make your elements big enough, and you can make the lens as fast as you want. The only restriction being the size of the hole in the front of the camera. Making a fast lens that performs well wide open is another challenge entirely.
>> Anonymous
>>174296
Yup, and it seems to happen a lot with most fast lenses. Then again, sometimes we end up sacrificing high image quality for the ability to actually be able to expose the picture correctly, either something or nothing. It's nice when a lens works sharp wide open though, and even considering they're not that good, ultrafast lenses are somewhat impressive nonetheless.
>> Anonymous
>>174256
Last time I read about optics, f/0.5 was the theoretical maximum aperture for a lens producing an image on a flat focal plane.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>174256
>>174306
Oh Shi-
>> Anonymous
I just realized that that round, black protruding thing isn't the lens hood, it's the fucking glass
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>173999
What lens is this? Does anybody know.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>174296

Well, my 85/1.2L II produces nice images at full aperture, so you shouldnt bash all high aperture lenses right away. Attached is an image taken with it at full aperture. It's not the sharpest lense there is at full aperture, but pretty damn impressive for an f1.2 ( A little sharpening applied )

>>174325
It might be a Rodenstock Heligon 50mm f/.75 ?

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 40DCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.2Image-Specific Properties:Image Width3888Image Height2592Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8Compression SchemeUnknownPixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Data ArrangementChunky FormatImage Created2008:05:04 01:16:15Exposure Time1/500 secF-Numberf/1.2Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/1.2Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length85.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3888Image Height2592RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
>>174325
Kowa 65mm f/0.75, it's fucking written right on the lens barrel. Apparently handmade, extremely rare and bound to produce extremely soft images even if you manage to fit your object into the extremely narrow depth of field.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>174256
>but nothing sure beats my f1.2
Except the Noctilux, EF 50mm f/1.0L, and Canon 50 f/0.95. ;)

>>174292
>They were pretty much saying that making a fast lens (like the Canon 50mm F0.95) is no big feat, what's important is making it usable.
Thing is, with lenses like that, if you've got a 50 that's great wide open at f/2.8, and a 50 that's great stopped down 3 stops to f/2.8, the faster one still wins.

If the choice is a lens that's a little soft wide open and a lens that's blurred all to hell because its "wide open" is 8 times slower, I'm still gonna want soft but not blurry.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>174350
The only one that beats 85/1.2 in sharpness would be the noctilux one. Neither one of those are a 85mm, so its not really anything that you should even consider being a snap on my fingers.

Attached is an another image resized and some local sharpening applied, taken with the 85mm f/1.2L II at full aperture.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:05:04 01:25:34Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width667Image Height1000
>> Anonymous
>>174350
The problem with super fast lenses is DoF. Blurry background is nice and all, but it gets annoying when you can't get a person's face in focus due to the lack of DoF at f/1.4 or less.
>> Anonymous
>>174350
>If the choice is a lens that's a little soft wide open and a lens that's blurred all to hell because its "wide open" is 8 times slower, I'm still gonna want soft but not blurry.

True, and as I said before, it can be the difference between getting a shot or not.
>> Anonymous
>>174355
But that's where circle of confusion kicks in. Human eye cant really tell the difference from a web sized image or even from a print on the wall if he does not have his nose literally touching the image.
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>174358
Yep.
As long as the photog focuses on the eyes, everything else should be fine.
>> Anonymous
>>174361
Depends on the picture, sometimes you'd want the hair in perfect focus too. Also, those pesky back-focusing and front-focusing issues (FUCK YOU CANON. IT'S TIME YOU PROVIDED A CALIBRATION OPTION LIKE NIKON DOES)
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>174377
Pretty sure the Mark IIIs have lens calibration.
>> Anonymous
>>174377
What? You SERIOUSLY use autofocus with apertures higher than f/2.0?

Gosh, go play with your Nikon, maybe some day Nikon will be able to do a proper high aperture lense like the 85/1.2L. If you want a 85/1.4, you should go for the CZ one. It's a lot cheaper and a lot sharper.
>> Anonymous
>>174377
Both the 1D and 1Ds Mark III offer this feature.