Fast lenses and ISO: I have always bought prime lenses and when I can afford it, I try to get lenses with a large aperture. But as you all know, large aperture means a lot more money.

pwd2004ringo Loc: Corona CA

I have always bought prime lenses and when I can afford it, I try to get lenses with a large aperture. But as you all know, large aperture means a lot more money. My question is, with the new cameras that are out today, like the Canon 6D which shoots very well in low light, is it worth spending the extra money on large aperture lenses? If I'm comparing apples to oranges, I'm sorry. I thought I understood the triangle to exposure.
Please educate me

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

pwd2004ringo wrote:

I have always bought prime lenses and when I can afford it, I try to get lenses with a large aperture. But as you all know, large aperture means a lot more money. My question is, with the new cameras that are out today, like the Canon 6D which shoots very well in low light, is it worth spending the extra money on large aperture lenses? If I'm comparing apples to oranges, I'm sorry. I thought I understood the triangle to exposure.
Please educate me

The fast apertures help get the image focused quicker and more accurately in dimmer light. ISO won't help there. The lenses I use 99.997% of the time are constant-aperture 2.8 zooms. 2.8 is relatively slow when compared to a 50mm f/1.4 or 85mm f/1.8, but it seems to be plenty for what I shoot.

pwd2004ringo Loc: Corona CA

Thank you. Didn't know about focusing quicker and more accurate.

GoofyNewfie wrote:

The fast apertures help get the image focused quicker and more accurately in dimmer light. ISO won't help there. The lenses I use 99.997% of the time are constant-aperture 2.8 zooms. 2.8 is relatively slow when compared to a 50mm 1.4 or 85mm 1.8 but it seems to be plenty for what I shoot.

JC56 Loc: Lake St.Louis mo.

simple answer is yes.....good glass is always better than a good camera.....i can't explain further....... it's above my pay grade.

pwd2004ringo Loc: Corona CA

I understand that good glass is always better. So are you saying, for example lets look at the Canon 70-200 f/2.8
L IS USM is better glass than the 70-200 f/4L IS USM.
Both are L lenses.

f/

JC56 wrote:

simple answer is yes.....good glass is always better than a good camera.....i can't explain further....... it's above my pay grade.

Macromad Loc: New Zealand

but the 2.8 is far better in low light situations sudgest you read the tests and reviews then you will get a better understanding. best for the season.

pwd2004ringo wrote:

I understand that good glass is always better. So are you saying, for example lets look at the Canon 70-200 f/2.8
L IS USM is better glass than the 70-200 f/4L IS USM.
Both are L lenses.

f/

Danilo Loc: Las Vegas

When one is in the beginning stages of their photographic journey a small investment can yield enormous benefits in image quality.
As one approaches the advanced stages of the photographic experience a huge investment may only produce the smallest advance in the quest for perfection, but is still positively worth the effort.

As long as there is the slightest difference between images recorded at ISO 100 and ISO 10,000, the price of quality glass will be a rewarding investment.

I only add this as a footnote to Goofy Newfie's very astute observations.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Danilo wrote:

When one is in the beginning stages of their photo... (show quote)

Ringo, this is just my 2cents. For me, there is NO substitute for LOW ISO. I try to keep mine at 100. To that end, there is no substitute for fast glass.
I feel that too many are using the fact that todays cameras DO shoot cleaner at higher ISO's, but there is still noise, just less of it, and noise is noise. Sure, the new cameras shoot cleaner, and some PP programs are pretty good, BUT, there is still no substitute for a very clean shot.
Fast glass, as pointed out lets in more light, which yields better colors, less noise. less movement and thus, sharper images. And that is what it's all about.
When somebody looks at one of your shots and says, WoW, that is so clear and sharp, it's usually no accident.
Ringo, don't fall into the high ISO trap. But, when you need it, it's good to know it's there.
For me, high ISO is my LAST resort, not my first. I use the fastest glass I can afford.
May all your shots be quiet.
SS

PS, Ringo, welcome to the Hog !! ;-)

pwd2004ringo Loc: Corona CA

I want to thank everyone for input. I just wanted to know if I was spending unnecessary money on my lenses. All my lenses are prime lenses with f/2.8 or more. I just upgraded from a Rebel xTi to a Canon 6D. I'm amazed how well the pictures are in low light situations. Made me start to wonder if I needed the extra f-stops. Sounds like I'll keep saving for the fast lenses.
Thanks again for the input.

Crwiwy Loc: Devon UK

pwd2004ringo wrote:

I have always bought prime lenses and when I can afford it, I try to get lenses with a large aperture. But as you all know, large aperture means a lot more money. My question is, with the new cameras that are out today, like the Canon 6D which shoots very well in low light, is it worth spending the extra money on large aperture lenses? If I'm comparing apples to oranges, I'm sorry. I thought I understood the triangle to exposure.
Please educate me

That is up to you - you know what you are generally taking pictures of. If 99.9% of your pictures (1 in 1000) are taken at lower apertures than f2.8 - is it really worth spending so much more on a larger aperture lens. Add in to the calculation the extra weight and less DOF and then decide if it is worth it. Quite likely the savings on a few lens would enable you to purchase another prime lens.

You may decide it is worth getting perhaps a 50mm f1.4 for occasional very low light pictures and f2.8 on the other lens.

juicesqueezer Loc: Okeechobee, Florida

Having shot with film for so many years, I find it hard to go above 400 ISO. Fast is where it's at! I'm taking donations for my next fast lens! A little help here? Anyone?

unclebe1 Loc: NYC & Wellington, FL

And, to add one more thought to the thread, don't forget about DoF. You can't reduce your DoF via ISO. You can only do it with faster glass.

wilsondl2 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska

I go along with faster glass becuse of the fster focusing and a lot of pictures I take I like to limit the depth of field. The fast glass that I would not spend the extra money on is the 50mm f/1.4 over the f/1.8 don't think you gain that much and I know the Nikon f/1.8 tests out as a sharper lens. - Dave

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

GoofyNewfie wrote:

The fast apertures help get the image focused quicker and more accurately in dimmer light. ISO won't help there. The lenses I use 99.997% of the time are constant-aperture 2.8 zooms. 2.8 is relatively slow when compared to a 50mm f/1.4 or 85mm f/1.8, but it seems to be plenty for what I shoot.

This is TRUE - and a very important consideration! Also, for the most part faster lenses are sharper at wider apertures. The IQ difference between the 70-200 2.8 and F4 - the 2.8 is slightly sharper @F4 than the F4 is - as measured by scientific testing - but I don't think anyone can actually SEE the difference ! The other reason for fast glass is to be able to use teleconverters and retain AF !

Bloke Loc: Waynesboro, Pennsylvania

juicesqueezer wrote:

Having shot with film for so many years, I find it hard to go above 400 ISO. Fast is where it's at! I'm taking donations for my next fast lens! A little help here? Anyone?

I too used film for eons... One of the things I was taught in the military, though, was to shoot HP5 (400 ASA) rated instead at 25,000 ASA, and spend *hours* with the film in the development tank to coax a response from it.

Surprisingly, provided you have the development stuff worked out right, the results can be spectacular. Our aim, of course, was to get 'sneaky' pictures of people doing things they shouldn't be doing, but just using the technique in a night-time street scene could produce some very 'moody' shots.