camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

I am only repeating what has already been said here, a fast lens is one that has a large maximum aperture, usually f2.8. Fast AF only means that, the lens focus fast.
Your f11 lens is kind of slow AF due to the small aperture but it is also a slow lens, not fast.

CamB Loc: Juneau, Alaska

When I think of "fast glass", as I call it, I think of large maximum aperture AND fast focusing. Fast focusing is important in my fast glass as I shoot a lot to theater where all the action is in constant motion. Fast glass is not just just aperture or focus, but both working together. One without the other is of little value in my photography.

Canisdirus

One begets the other...

User ID

Some lenses are silver, some are black.

OldCADuser Loc: Irvine, CA

There's another issue when it comes to 'speed' when shooting images.

Back in my film days, it was pretty common for your normal lens to very 'fast', by today's standards. For example, my first SLR was a Minolta SR-1, what you'd call an entry level camera, that I got in 1968. It came with an f1.8 x 55mm lens. A year later I upgraded to a Minolta SRT-101, which came with an f1.4 x 58mm lens. Now there was a reason for these 'fast' lens because we were dealing with what, by today's standards, was slow media, that is film.

Now when dealing with film, we used the term ASA to designate the speed of the film, today we use the term ISO. Note that they are the same. That is an ASA of 100 is same as an ISO rating of 100.

Back in those film days, at least for those of us who almost exclusively shot slides, Kodachrome II was the gold standard, used by most people, and it had an ASA of 25. If you wanted to spend a bit more money you could shoot Kodachrome 64, which, you guessed it, was rated at ASA 64 (note the original Kodachrome, when it was first introduced, was ASA 6).

Note that I didn't use all that much Kodachrome, I referred Ektachrome, as I liked it's cooler colors and besides, I could develop it myself (you had to send Kodachrome to Kodak-licensed labs as the process was proprietary). The standard was Ektachrome-X, which was ASA 64, and I often shot High-Speed Ektachrome, which was ASA 160.

At that time I was only shooting color slides and B&W film. And when it came to B&W we had faster films. I shot either Kodak Pan-X, ASA 125, or Kodak Tri-X, ASA 400 (and it was common to 'push' Tri-X to ASA 1,600 with good results).

Now by today's standards, that was very slow. For example, my mainline camera starts at ISO 100 (and some brands only goes down to ISO 200) but going up to ISO ratings of 2,500-32,000 is not uncommon (my Sony a6500 goes to ISO 51,200). And it's getting better all the time. I know Sony has invested very heavily in their sensors and the CPU chips so as to support these high ISO ratings, giving us amazing low light capabilities (or higher shutter speed shooting). That's why today's standard kit lens generally have a maximum aperture of f3.5 or f4.5. This makes for smaller, lighter and cheaper lens.

Now don't get me wrong, there's still a need for large aperture lens, but not as much for fast shooting but for leveraging depth-of-focus and other visual characteristics, such as bokeh. Which is why my fastest lens is an f2.8 x 60mm macro lens. My two workhorse lens are an f3.5-5.6 x 18-135mm and an f4.0 x 10-18mm. Most of the time I let my camera set the ISO automatically, but I do control it when trying to get certain effects, either shooting at ISO 100 for maximum image quality and clarity, when the subject is not moving or is well lit, to higher ISO settings for when I'm shooting moving subjects (and I want to freeze the motion) and when the light is low.

Anyway, those are my thought about 'fast' lens and how the technology has evolved to where there are other attributes of today's cameras which make the need for 'fast' lens less of an issue.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

One of the items which should be added to this discussion is that light, specifically more of it, will make the autofocus happen faster as well. Most modern cameras focus with the lens at it's maximum aperture, which will let in more light for the focusing system, allowing a faster focus. The lens is actually not stopped down to the shooting aperture until the shutter is engaged. Thus, if your lens has a native aperture of F8, it will focus slower than a lens that is a F2.8. Lower light will slow focus down even more. A good friend, who happens to be a top notch wildlife guy, does use the 800 upon occasion, but he also uses the 600/F4 and the 400/2.8. For him it's great fun, for me, I'm too old. Best of luck.

CamB Loc: Juneau, Alaska

I am pretty sure there was an ectachrome 400. Also, I think Ectachrome 160 was the tungsten light version that you could have pushed to 400 for a few dollars more during development. We had an e-6 line at the school I went too and as I was good in the dark room I would have to roll about seventy rolls of ectachrome onto dip and dunk reels every Monday morning. Tool about two hours.
quote=OldCADuser]There's another issue when it comes to 'speed' when shooting images.

Back in my film days, it was pretty common for your normal lens to very 'fast', by today's standards. For example, my first SLR was a Minolta SR-1, what you'd call an entry level camera, that I got in 1968. It came with an f1.8 x 55mm lens. A year later I upgraded to a Minolta SRT-101, which came with an f1.4 x 58mm lens. Now there was a reason for these 'fast' lens because we were dealing with what, by today's standards, was slow media, that is film.

Now when dealing with film, we used the term ASA to designate the speed of the film, today we use the term ISO. Note that they are the same. That is an ASA of 100 is same as an ISO rating of 100.

Back in those film days, at least for those of us who almost exclusively shot slides, Kodachrome II was the gold standard, used by most people, and it had an ASA of 25. If you wanted to spend a bit more money you could shoot Kodachrome 64, which, you guessed it, was rated at ASA 64 (note the original Kodachrome, when it was first introduced, was ASA 6).

Note that I didn't use all that much Kodachrome, I referred Ektachrome, as I liked it's cooler colors and besides, I could develop it myself (you had to send Kodachrome to Kodak-licensed labs as the process was proprietary). The standard was Ektachrome-X, which was ASA 64, and I often shot High-Speed Ektachrome, which was ASA 160.

At that time I was only shooting color slides and B&W film. And when it came to B&W we had faster films. I shot either Kodak Pan-X, ASA 125, or Kodak Tri-X, ASA 400 (and it was common to 'push' Tri-X to ASA 1,600 with good results).

Now by today's standards, that was very slow. For example, my mainline camera starts at ISO 100 (and some brands only goes down to ISO 200) but going up to ISO ratings of 2,500-32,000 is not uncommon (my Sony a6500 goes to ISO 51,200). And it's getting better all the time. I know Sony has invested very heavily in their sensors and the CPU chips so as to support these high ISO ratings, giving us amazing low light capabilities (or higher shutter speed shooting). That's why today's standard kit lens generally have a maximum aperture of f3.5 or f4.5. This makes for smaller, lighter and cheaper lens.

Now don't get me wrong, there's still a need for large aperture lens, but not as much for fast shooting but for leveraging depth-of-focus and other visual characteristics, such as bokeh. Which is why my fastest lens is an f2.8 x 60mm macro lens. My two workhorse lens are an f3.5-5.6 x 18-135mm and an f4.0 x 10-18mm. Most of the time I let my camera set the ISO automatically, but I do control it when trying to get certain effects, either shooting at ISO 100 for maximum image quality and clarity, when the subject is not moving or is well lit, to higher ISO settings for when I'm shooting moving subjects (and I want to freeze the motion) and when the light is low.

Anyway, those are my thought about 'fast' lens and how the technology has evolved to where there are other attributes of today's cameras which make the need for 'fast' lens less of an issue.[/quote]

Jerry Bruzek

Very helpful.

Thank you!

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

[/quote]

I will respectfully disagree! Today's Digital Cameras ALL have native ISOs, mostly 64 and 100 for the Nikons I'm familiar with. Yes, it's very easy today just to dial up that ISO, but when you do NOISE comes along with it; you don't get something for nothing! My second issue is that natively faster lenses will allow faster autofocus especially in low light situations. I have several slower lenses as well, but I use them only in select situations, mostly to obtain a lighter rig and in situations where I know the images will remain fairly small. As a sports shooter (mainly), my 400/2.8 TC is a necessity and is used in just over 50% of my work day and night (think HS Football). I also have several very fast lenses I use for portrait work and indoor sports. IMHO. Best of luck.

Canisdirus

One of the main reasons why the AF is so fast on 'fast' lenses is...they put their best AF motors in them...that's all.

You're paying for that fast lens up front as a premium...and they usually get all the bells and whistles...as opposed to slower lenses.

therwol Loc: USA

[/quote]

As I recall, Ektachrome 160 was for daylight. Ektachrome 125 was for Tungsten. You could pay a small amount for a special mailer that would tell Kodak to push process them to 400 and 320 respectively. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong. It's been a long time.

OldCADuser Loc: Irvine, CA

Yes, both Ektachrome-X (ASA 64) and High-Speed Ektachrome (ASA 160) was for daylight (I shot hundreds of rolls and developed most of them myself).

CamB Loc: Juneau, Alaska

Most of this post isn't mine. Somehow my one paragraph about ectachrome got mixed with something I was responding to and it made it look like I wrote pages of info that were actually written by someone else a few comments earlier. I dont know how that happened.

therwol Loc: USA

It looks like the other user's statements were copied and pasted after your comment. If you hit "Quote Reply", the other user is named, and the text of the other user appears smaller than yours above yours. You can edit someone's text to highlight a particular statement you want to respond to, basically deleting everything else, but you have to be careful not to delete the first and last things in brackets or everything gets screwed up. You'll have to figure out what you did. I'll show you how Quote Reply is supposed to work with screenshots.

CamB Loc: Juneau, Alaska

Posted here many times. Almost always use Quote Reply. First time blowing it. Oh well. Life goes on.