RichardQ Loc: Colorado

In all my years as a professional using medium-format and large-format cameras, I never owned or used a lens faster than f/3.5, and many of my lenses were f/4.5 or even f/8 maximum apertures. For my money, the emphasis on extreme lens openings (and subsequent prices) is unwarranted, since I can't recall ever shooting at the maximum opening of any lens. If a claim is made that an exposure at f/16 is sharper with an f/1.2 lens than with an equal quality but less expensive f/4.5 lens, I'd like to see the proof.

:wink:

mechengvic Loc: SoCalo

Lens glass is a pathway for light, like a doorway that you're walking through. When you walk through a doorway, your main concern is to not get snagged by the edges. In other words, your maximum potential for unwanted stress is at the edges. It's the same with spherical refractive optics. Light passes through the center "sweet spot" of the lens in good shape (light is bent evenly), but the light that passes through the outer edge of the lens begins to bend more and more unevenly the closer it gets to the edge. In order to make the edges of lenses useful, manufacturers have to put more time and effort into the glass grinding and coating process. That bigger sweet spot is what allows a lens to utilize a larger aperture effectively, making the lens "fast".

amehta Loc: Boston

Different people are shooting different things in different ways. You like shooting at f/16, I like shooting at f/1.4 to f/2.8. It's really hard to get that with a "less expensive f/4.5" lens. :-) Also, I don't think there are "equal quality" lenses at f/4.5 and f/1.2.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

Same here, but mostly because of the size of my sensor...that and all of Olympus's and Panasonic's great glass is faster than f2.8

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

A lens for medium format cameras with a opening of 3.5 is a fast lens ( it equals to about /f2.4 compared to 35mm), so you were used to using fast glass.

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

That's a statement where circumstances need to be taken into account.
It will depend on the type of photography that you did, the creativity that you tried, the light levels and type of light and weather conditions that you shot in. And many other factors.
Saying, "I never did it" and implying that no one else should want to, is either naive or elitist or lacking creativity.

RichardQ Loc: Colorado

Sorry, I certainly did not mean to imply that no one else should want to shoot at f/1.2 lens openings just because I would not. I was expressing doubt that anyone would want to sacrifice that much depth of field, and therefore they would be wasting money by paying for a feature they would probably never use. I can't think of any photos I've seen in the Forum that looked as if they were shot wide open at f/1.2, but I'd welcome a correction on that.

I regret coming across as elitist or naiive, but the author of the thread wondered why such high speed lenses cost so much, which to me implied some doubt as to whether they were worth it. I gather from the objections to my post that others feel this feature is valuable, so I yield to them. It's their money.

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

Stated with class, Sir.

:thumbup:

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Richard, I'm gonna have to agree with Lighthouse. I'm just a little surprised that a photographer with your experience and one assumes level of skill, could not imagine using super-fast lenses and even question their use or need.
A few weeks ago I shot a cyclocross bicycle race in the pouring rain. Knowing that, the night before, I had mounted the hood and taped the connection so that no water would drip on the front element. I needed at least 1/500th and wanted my ISO as low as possible for clean shots. And that's what I got! And that's not to mention that it was VERY dark that day.
A couple of other guy showed up to shoot, but their lenses were not rainproof, so they went home. I could not have done it without a fast prime. I was shooting with my 200 f1.8. If I get really brave, I'll post one of the shots for ya.
I've been around long enough to know that equipment can be very specialized, whether fast for sports or 4x5 for landscape. And in the competitive world that is photography, a pro shooting weddings, all else being equal, the guy with the f1.2 lenses will get more creative results than the guy who is not using them. That can be worth tens of thousands of dollars per year when viewing the portfolio of the shooter willing to invest in the super fast, and yes, expensive lenses. The camera may not make any difference, but the lens certainly will. But that's just reality in today's photographic climate. ;-)
SS

RichardQ Loc: Colorado

Hi, Sharpshooter - I guess I'm surprised at the blowback to my comments. I always worked with the orders from the assignment editors that all the key elements in my shots should be as sharp as possible, which required medium to small lens openings. Of course there were times when a shallower depth was better to fuzz out the undesired background details, but generally more depth was better. But shooting with a wide-open lens would have been questioned unless there was a VERY good reason, which I never had.

You have my admiration for tackling the assignment you described. It would have been impossible 50 years ago, unless some powerful speedlights had been set up with appropriate shielding against short-circuits, all of which would have limited the shooting position. I would not presume to critique photos taken under such conditions but I would be interested in seeing the results if you'd care to share them with us.

amehta Loc: Boston

What sort of assignments were you doing?

RichardQ Loc: Colorado

From 1954 to 1957 I was an industrial photographer/reporter with Interstate Industrial Reporting Service in NY, serving a wide range of blue-chip advertisers (US Steel, Ford, Monsanto, du Pont, Towmotor, various oil well equipment suppliers, etc.) directly as well as through their ad agencies. I virtually lived on airplanes, handling at least one assignment a day, sometimes two or even three, in different cities. When my wife and I couldn't take it anymore, I went to RCA's industrial Products Div. to promote mainframe computers with ad photos for a couple of years, then moved to Germany to be a TV art director with J. Walter Thompson's branch in Frankfurt for three years (all consumer accounts like Ford, Pepsi, Kraft, etc), then back to the US for another stint with Interstate, which hadn't changed (the owner was a former combat photographer in WWII and never forgot it), so I left for another ad agency, then was hired away by a bigger agency where I served big industrial accounts (American Gas Assoc., Exide batteries, SKF Bearings, etc.) for seven years. It was kind of like Interstate, except I was now setting my own schedules and projects. Then I moved to yet another agency, together with the SKF account, for a couple of years before being hired by the advertising/PR department of AT&T's Bell Labs in NJ. I stayed there for 15 years, combining writing and photography for in-house publications as well as various encyclopedias, before retiring.

Wherever I worked, my assignments were intended for advertising illustrations or trade magazine pics, often accompanying articles I ghost-wrote for engineers or scientists. I also worked on annual reports. Everything was shot on-site -- coal-mines, airport tarmac, factories, warehouses, oil wells, construction sites, etc., almost all of it with a 4x5 view camera or medium format roll film. In Germany I bought a special superwide camera (6x10 cm negs) which I used from then on to get trade magazine covers. The camera was designed for panorama shots but I found it was ideal for dramatic verticals in industrial shots, including architecturals. Those editors were eager for dramatic, sharp illustrations: color for the cover, b/w for the editorial pages. In Germany my photography was used for storyboards, mostly with Polaroids. I speak German fluently so I had no problems communicating. Travelling was the worst part of all the jobs.

amehta Loc: Boston

That's really cool, quite the resume! I especially like how you turned the 6x10 to get cover shots. :-)

I can understand how those shots need to be sharp everywhere. I can imagine, for example, a picture of a laser in a lab. Even if the subject is clearly the laser, the engineers and scientists picking up the magazine will want to see everything in the picture. Perhaps the artistic side of photography is different than that, including the shallow DoF type of shot. And I shoot that to deny my scientific side. ;-)

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Richard, at the risk of hijacking the thread, I am posting one shot. But it will also help for Roy(the OP) to visualize why they even make lenses like the ones he is asking about. Fast lenses are also designed to perform in the most demanding of situations. To do that, apart from high quality glass and materials, they are highly weather-sealed.
In my shot, at a CycloXross event, you can see the heavy rain coming down, and I'm NOT under an umbrella either, I'm standing IN the rain. The very OOF (fuzzed out as you say) background has very smooth bokeh with no glaring circles. That completely isolates my subject. In spite of the dark conditions, the colors are still good, the pic is sharp and noise free. And that's with 30 feet of rain between me and the subject.
Stats: taken about 30 feet away with about 75% of the pixels cropped away to make it tight. ;-)
SS

Camera 5Dll, 1/320th, f2.5, auto ISO, ISO 100

(Download)

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

That's the kind of career I could have enjoyed. The traveling would of gotten old after a while. I know that from 25 yrs as a cross-dountry trucker. Still, it sounds extremely interesting.