why are so few lenses fast (large) aperture these days?
Back in the day I learnt SLR on a minolta X300. Relatively cheap, 50mm prime lens going down to f/1.7. Rock solid thing and respectable lens as default. I still have it, and happily use it to keep my hand in with film (in case anyone has any MD lenses or similar they don't want anymore....)
I've tried to find a lens something like that for a canon APS-C... and it sesms there isn't much to be had without paying a lot for a full frame version... All the affordable aps-c lenses seem to be f/3.5 upwards with only a few exceptions. The 17-55 APS-C IS zoom is f2.8 across the board, but some reviews suggest above f/3.5 is needed to avoid for best image quality. Any lens in the sub 20mm range seems to start at 3.5 and go up from there. I know a zoom lens will compromise things a bit, but how come the shorter range zooms aren't offered with faster apertures? (shorter range as in difference between min and max zoom ratio, rather than wide angle zoom etc) I'd rather have two zooms with better aperture ranges than one giant zoom hamstrung to f/6.3 for the last quarter of its focal range - particularly for telephotos.
I don't want to boost everything in ISO settings, I find I get much richer colours in ISO100 than even ISO400 but is this the new take on it, you don't need a fast lens, just bump the ISO to 1600 and be done?
The fastest APS-C zoom I've found is the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 but I've read a few reviews saying it isn't that great for the wider apertures anyway.... and IMO the wider apertures would be more use on longer focal lengths than on the wide angle focal lengths
I can't find anything more long range with a fast aperture without paying thousands for an L series. Anyone know of anything?
Re: why are so few lenses fast (large) aperture these days?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ik9000
Back in the day I learnt SLR on a minolta X300. Relatively cheap, 50mm prime lens going down to f/1.7. Rock solid thing and respectable lens as default. I still have it, and happily use it to keep my hand in with film (in case anyone has any MD lenses or similar they don't want anymore....)
I've tried to find a lens something like that for a canon APS-C... and it sesms there isn't much to be had without paying a lot for a full frame version...
There's loads.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-EF-50-.../dp/B00005K47X
For example.
Modern lenses in general though are more expensive because they have AF motors, high quality lens coatings and generally have to be much better optically because they're being asked to resolve far more detail than was the case in film days.
Re: why are so few lenses fast (large) aperture these days?
Ok, there are a couple of things here.
Fast lenses traditionally have been primes, fast means wide big bits of glass, letting them move about it hard, even harder in the old days of having a screw drive (the motor in the camera body, rather than multiple motors around the lens).
Something like Sigma's 18-35mm f/1.8 has never really been made before. It's big, it's heavy, it's the only game in town.
Now if you are wanting something that lets you shoot low light better, remember that you've got less Depth Of Field at the wider aperture. This might well mean that you still want to use f/4.5 or higher to get enough focusable area in your shot.
My question is, what kind of thing is it you want to shoot? Also why are you having such problems with 400ISO, that should be very do-able without issue.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/stud...76643831132488
The thing is, glass hasn't really improved much over the years, autofocus aside. I was playing with a bit of Ziess and it was far better than my nifty fifty, but then I've got all these old PK mount lenses that just work fine on my body.
Bodies on the other hand really have. The last 5 years has seen a massive evolution in low light ability. I don't know what kit you have, but you might want to look at upgrading your body, if you can't manage 400 ISO nicely, I included the k-30 on that link because it's such a cheap camera, which is also a couple of years out of date, yet produces very usable 1600 ISO images, and almost perfect 800 ISO ones, they are only worth £200 second hand now.
Buying a lens because you want to take better low light might not be the right answer, it might just be disappointing, buy a fast lens because you want it's characteristics, its bokeh etc.
Re: why are so few lenses fast (large) aperture these days?
Why are there so few?
I suggest it's because "fast" implies large elements, and as lens elements get larger, then the difficulty of maintaining image quality, keeping distortion and aberrations under control, especially at the edges, gets exponentially larger.
And therefore, so does cost.
So .... you end up with relatively large, and commensurately heavy, and rather expensive lenses. Which appeals to a specific and distinctly limited market, which limits production volumes. We are, after all, talking about pro use, and a niche but enthusiastic (and well-heeled) amateur market.
At the same time, the profile of photographers has changed. Those regularly taking pictures has grown vastly, not least due to social media, etc, but taking pictures with what? In large part, obviously, smart phones. But also, the results obtainable from compact cameras has improved radically, and for many, those results are good enough.
Then, there's a growing trend to move to CSC. The quality, again, is capable of being VERY impressive, and the design criteria mean much smaller bodies and lenses than SLR. So if you want an optically high-end but fast zoom, it's MUCH easier to do it if the system design means you can keep element size in lenses small.
I know quite a few keen amateurs that either have, or are thinking about, switching from SLR to CSC. Apart from anything else, as you get older, lugging a bag full of SLR bodies, and especially lenses, all over the place gets less appealing, less practical, more painful and eventually, impossible.
And even among enthusiasts keen enough to use SLRs, "fast" lenses represent a financial challenge that many just can't cope with.
So, most buyers have to decide if the price premium of "fast" is justified by the proportion of timss when "fast" is needed, and "decent slower" just won't cut it. Do I, as a theoretical new buyer, get one limited-range "fast" zoom, or three or four mid-range ones?
I wonder, to be honest, about the long-term future of SLR as a format.
Put all that together and I suspect your answer comes down to "market forces".
Re: why are so few lenses fast (large) aperture these days?
Re: why are so few lenses fast (large) aperture these days?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Saracen
I wonder, to be honest, about the long-term future of SLR as a format.
Absolutely.
One of the oddest things I've found amongst prosumer types is the "FullFrame is Pro" type thing. Apparently Medium Format is too big for practical use, but FF is perfect, despite the biggest proponents not having legacy glass, they appear to think this way. I struggle to concieve how for a digital sensor, the benefit of being half the size of cini film helps at all. That's my polite way of saying these guys really talk nonsense.
Yes, 5 years ago I'd have loved a full frame digital body, because the difference between the best crop body and best full frame was significant. Now we're lucky if its 1ev for most circumstances.
This trend is obviously pushing onwards, look at a phone camera from 2004, compare it to my nokia 1020. This tiny sensor, has better image quality in most respects than a digital SLR from 2004!
The last 2 years or so we've not seen much improvement in image quality from digital cameras, much like the way computer graphics have minor incremental improvements now, the same is probably due to set in to larger bayer sensors, a doubling of photosites, resulting in the same IQ as before, wouldn't result in much of a net change due to the whole differences of squares thing. 2k video isn't much better than 1080p.
This is very exciting in a way, as the CSCs show, you don't have the same limitations of old range finders, you can get that SLR WYSIWYG feel (sorry non computer geeks, but this is Hexus!). Myself I still prefer the mirror than the screen on the back, but many do not.
So DSLRs will stay to some degree, there is simply too much good glass nocking about, but remember not much has stayed in say Canon 35mm despite all the great glass that they decided you couldn't use on a digital camera, so having a large volume of good lenses won't be enough to ensure survival of the format alone, if the benefits of the newer ones are enough.
Re: why are so few lenses fast (large) aperture these days?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kalniel
That's an EF lens for full frame. On APS-C that would give 50*1.6 = 80mm focal length. It is cheaply made, has a plastic mount, is noisy and only 5 aperture blades so gives ugly bokeh. It is very sharp though, and yes is cheap. But I was talking about dedicated APS-C lenses of sensible focal lengths for APS-C
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheAnimus
My question is, what kind of thing is it you want to shoot? Also why are you having such problems with 400ISO, that should be very do-able without issue.
I don't know what kit you have, but you might want to look at upgrading your body, if you can't manage 400 ISO nicely, I included the k-30 on that link because it's such a cheap camera, which is also a couple of years out of date, yet produces very usable 1600 ISO images, and almost perfect 800 ISO ones, they are only worth £200 second hand now.
Buying a lens because you want to take better low light might not be the right answer, it might just be disappointing, buy a fast lens because you want it's characteristics, its bokeh etc.
I'm using Canon 60D with twin kit lenses 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS II and 55-250 f/4-6.3 IS II
I find ISO100 gives much richer sky tones on landscape shots, and looks nicer blown up full screen on a 1080p 23" monitor. When I get home I'll upload a few pics at 100 and 400 I took last week so you can see what I mean. I'm not saying 400 is rubbish, just that the colour depths seem better at ISO100.
As for what I take, I am a nightmare case of everything all at once:
Main love = landscapes, so wide angle, long DOF, long exposure ND etc
Also love night shots, as above + low noise
But I also end up photographing at gigs - often where low light, non-flash preferred.... and yes, narrow DOF desirable for this depending on the shot
Plus macro flowers and insects, again narrow DOF can give nice effects
And my wife is into bird watching and photographing the little blighters at high speed. (and is slowly sucking me into that too)
While I ought to be into architectural photography there is no way I will ever afford a decent tilt+shift lens, so I am steering clear of getting too hooked on that, however much my work needs it. I just make do with whatever wide angle lens I can justify.
The gig stuff and bird watching need fast speed at high zoom. I found I still wasn't getting nice images even at ISO1600 on my 250 lens. It needed more light. The stage lighting was phasing between colour blends and it made getting a decent shot problematic due to the shutter speed it was limiting me to. Again, will upload some pictures tonight. Anyone know a decent photo site that doesn't require you to sign anyway your copyright?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Saracen
And even among enthusiasts keen enough to use SLRs, "fast" lenses represent a financial challenge that many just can't cope with.
So, most buyers have to decide if the price premium of "fast" is justified by the proportion of timss when "fast" is needed, and "decent slower" just won't cut it. Do I, as a theoretical new buyer, get one limited-range "fast" zoom, or three or four mid-range ones?
I wonder, to be honest, about the long-term future of SLR as a format.
I will never, short of winning the lottery, be able to justify buying an L series lens. I might just stretch to £600 for the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS or Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 but it only addresses part of the problem. Getting a series of moderate lenses (we're not pros and can't justify spending masses) I think we will be looking at:
macro lens either the 40mm pancake or 60mm EF-S, still trying to decide whether the resultant 64mm focal length or 96mm will be better.
Canon 17-55 f/2.8 EF-S general zoom
stick with the 55-250 telephoto since not seen anything faster out there for a price I can afford. Even if it is doing my head in at gigs.... Maybe I could try swapping it for the 18-200 f3.5-5.6 zoom, though I would lose some of the telephoto ability...
Re: why are so few lenses fast (large) aperture these days?
thinking about it, I will need to watermark the pictures, and probably compress them a bit. Probably won't be able to do that for a few days. But watch this space.
Re: why are so few lenses fast (large) aperture these days?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ik9000
....
I will never, short of winning the lottery, be able to justify buying an L series lens. I might just stretch to £600 for the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS or Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 but it only addresses part of the problem. Getting a series of moderate lenses (we're not pros and can't justify spending masses) I think we will be looking at:
macro lens either the 40mm pancake or 60mm EF-S, still trying to decide whether the resultant 64mm focal length or 96mm will be better.
Canon 17-55 f/2.8 EF-S general zoom
stick with the 55-250 telephoto since not seen anything faster out there for a price I can afford. Even if it is doing my head in at gigs.... Maybe I could try swapping it for the 18-200 f3.5-5.6 zoom, though I would lose some of the telephoto ability...
Hmmm. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. I won't say I wrote the book (yet) on that, but I've certainly written a few articles over the years. :D
Okay, based on what you've said, I have a few thoughts. Not solutions, or even advice, but thoughts.
First, you have the absolutely classic dilemma - you want excellent quality, want to do everything, and haven't won the lottery. There is no solution to that, only compromise.
Compromise 1. Relatively easy, this one. You can get great landscape lenses, relatively cheap. Just think about exactly what you really need, not want but need to do most of what you want, most of the time. Do you really need zoom, or one, maybe two, decent, fast wide-angle primes? You say "fast", but .... how fast? f2.8 is doable, even on a budget, but faster than that is going to get seriously expensive, pretty quick.
I like landscape too, but it isn't my primary interest. I ended up with a Tamron (hi, Bobster;)) 17-50 2.8 non-IS. The IS version wasn't out when it got it. But, as MOST of my landscape stuff is on a tripod, do I need IS? So, £700 for the Canon IS or (then) £250 for the Tamron? No brainer, for me. Or, optionally, or additionally, one of the ultra-wides. I'd like one, keep being tempted, but so far, have resisted. Bobster had a bad experience with Tamron, and I'm sure his advice would be different. I've been using mine for years, am delighted with image quality, and it's been (so far) 100% reliable.
Macro. Hmm. It does depend what you shoot, but I'm nervous about shorter macros. You need to get VERY close indeed, and that alone presents challenges, especially if your subject might spook and beggar orf. ;)
If you're prepared to risk 2nd hand, keep an eye out for Canon's 100mm 2.8 macro when people sell to upgrade to the 100mm 2.8 IS. Or, at about £400-ish, maybe new, if they're still being sold. The old non-IS lens isn't quite as good as the outstanding IS version, but nonetheless, it is very, VERY good in it's own right. I still use one (non-IS), albeit, seeing as macro is my thing, with an MPE-65 and MT-24 flash too. Oh, and that 100mm macro doubles up as a blooming good 100mm portrait lens too.
Low-light gig photography? Not my bag, but I'd suggest you want fast for that. Step 1 = 50mm 1.8, and settling for not getting close-ups. Step 2 = working on getting permission to get close to the stage. How easy that is will, I suspect, depend entirely on who the band is. Probably not hard on music night at your local pub, but if the band chartered a 747 for their 4 month world tour .... best of luck. ;)
All told, you have to either ...
- spend loads, or
- narrow down what to spend on, or
- think creatively, and sacrifice versatility for quality.
Oh, and be aware, if you have a fixed budget, you can probably hope to do many things, lens-wise, averagely well, maybe a couple pretty well, or one, where your primary interest lies, very well.
So, if you try to cover all bases right now, you'll get "okay" on all. And probably not be
content with any. But if you do ONE, well, you invest in long-term satisfaction. So if landscape is your thing, buy well on that, and get creative on macro. Maybe buy an old manual 28mm or 35mm lens and a reversing ring, for (relatively speaking) peanuts, for macro. You might be surprised at what you can do with some effort, and it's one hell of a good learning experience. Or a set of dirt-cheap Chinese manual extension tubes. Either way, reversing ring or extension tubes, scratch your macro itch that way for a couple of years and enjoy your really nice landscape lens.
And in a couple of years, when funds have rebuilt a bit, THEN come back and do macro properly.
But experience tells me if you try to cover too much ground with lens purchases, too quickly, then short of spending a fortune, you likely won't be long-term happy with any of them.
Oh, and as for telephoto/zoom, here's another bit of lateral thinking. Olympus do (or rather did) a VERY high quality 1.4x teleconverter for the E10 / E20. Because they had very good, but non-interchangeable lenses, this went on the end of the lens, not between body and lens, so (with a step down ring, perhaps) can be used on non-Olympus lenses. And as the filter size on tne E20 lens was pretty big, it'll work with all but very large (typically L) telezooms.
Thing is, it's an extremely good quality piece of glass, has very low impact (for a TC) on image quality, and involves virtually immeasurable light loss ... unlike virtually every other TC. And, there are still a few floating about, to be had. Mine cost me about £15 on eBay, and was still shrink-wrapped.
The downside? It's a bulky beggar, quite heavy, and takes time to fit and remove, being screw-on. But, costs next to nothing, no appreciable lignt loss and low levels of effect on IQ. Like I said, think literally.
In fact, especially re: macro, take "thinking laterally" as part of the challenge. Any idiot can get a decent macro of a flower with an £800 IS lens and a £700 macto twin-flash. I know, 'cos I can. Try doing it with, say, £50 for a lens and reversing ring? Try doing it without taking out a second mortgage, and treat that as part of the challenge. At least, for a couple of years.
Oh, and if you hunt the net and find the right sites, you'll be stunned speechless at what skill, ability and expertise can do with next to no money. An old enlarger for a camera mount, a lab jack for the subject, an old enlarger lens and reversing ring for the optics, home-made lighting rig, and the results can be mind-boggling macro .... if you can supply the skill. Just don't think it'll be easy.
Anyway, those are my thoughts. And good for thought, I hope.
Re: why are so few lenses fast (large) aperture these days?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kalniel
this
if you google the words "Canon Plastic Fantastic" you'll find the reviews
but it its FAST PLASTIC not glass ;)
Re: why are so few lenses fast (large) aperture these days?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ik9000
The fastest APS-C zoom I've found is the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 but I've read a few reviews saying it isn't that great for the wider apertures anyway.... and IMO the wider apertures would be more use on longer focal lengths than on the wide angle focal lengths
That's interesting because pretty much all the reviews I read said the opposite. Check out the dxomark data here: http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma-18-35-1-8/3
In fact the reviewer says: The 18-35mm is remarkably sharp even wide open at F1.8, and in the wider half of its range (18-24mm), there's no measurable increase on stopping down...
Re: why are so few lenses fast (large) aperture these days?
Re: why are so few lenses fast (large) aperture these days?
I figured out the perfect solution for you!
Buy an affordable new camera
http://blog.mingthein.com/2014/06/27...x-645z-part-i/
Re: why are so few lenses fast (large) aperture these days?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheAnimus
its a pretty nice bit of kit, but I found write and preview times a little on the slow side compared with a PhaseOne back, but then it could have been down to the SD card..
Re: why are so few lenses fast (large) aperture these days?
If they use the same design as their regular image processors (which apparently they borrowed heavily from, hence the dropping of bittage) it should come up instantly after the image processor has done it's work, for a very short time, whilst it then writes to the memory card, once written, it should then display properly.
TBH, I think SD is the wrong technology for these things should be mSata.
