Question about large aperture lenses

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

sh1209

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Marketplace
I’ve been shooting on and off for 20 years or so and I’ve owned several large aperture prime lenses over the years. Currently I have 4 1.8 primes and one 1.4 prime. Having said that I’ve hardly ever used any of the large aperture primes over the years at the largest aperture. There’s only a few scenarios that I do and one of which is Astro photography and the other is occasionally on portraits. I personally don’t see any need to go larger than 1.8 at least for my use. In my eyes there’s very little you could use an aperture that large for unless you’re intentionally doing soft focus on flowers, insects etc…. I do have a 600 mm prime which is f/4 and an aperture that size at a distance you could still get most everything in focus. I’m just curious to hear other thoughts and how you utilize your large aperture lenses.
 
I am exactly the same as you. I have the 14 f1.8, 24 f1.4, 35 f1.4, 50 f1.2 and none of them I shoot wide open except for astro. Even though they are faster than I need I find they are the sharpest and most corrected versions within the line up. That is more of why I buy the faster lenses than for their aperture itself.

For the 400 and 600 primes the f stop becomes more important not only for subject isolation but because I tend to need higher shutter speeds so the extra light to combat high iso becomes more important.
 
I am exactly the same as you. I have the 14 f1.8, 24 f1.4, 35 f1.4, 50 f1.2 and none of them I shoot wide open except for astro. Even though they are faster than I need I find they are the sharpest and most corrected versions within the line up. That is more of why I buy the faster lenses than for their aperture itself.

For the 400 and 600 primes the f stop becomes more important not only for subject isolation but because I tend to need higher shutter speeds so the extra light to combat high iso becomes more important.
Yeah my eyes there truly is very little in any genre of photography that you can use that on with good results unless you’re stacking. I’m referring to the super large aperture is like 1.4 1.2 and so on. The F4 on the 600 is fantastic because of that distance you can just about always get everything in focus that you need to. I don’t for see you in the future ever buying another land larger than 1.8 I just don’t think the image quality is any better from what I have compared over the years. These lenses are super popular so perhaps it’s just my ignorance of what they’re supposed to be used on LOL.
 
I’m just curious to hear other thoughts and how you utilize your large aperture lenses.
The long lenses like the 600mm f/4 speak for themselves but outside of astrophotography I'd say the primary use of wide aperture short focal length lenses is incredibly selective focus in portraiture or perhaps some still life (e.g. flower arrangements) work. Sure there's something to be said for wide aperture, short focal length lenses for indoor architecture work where tripods aren't an option but I'd say many 50mm f/1.2, 85mm f/1.4 or similar lenses are used by portrait photographers going for a very shallow DoF.

FWIW, I keep a 14mm f/2.4 and 15-30mm f/2.8 for astro work but for general nature and wildlife photography I don't find much use for very wide apertures on short focal length lenses.
 
The long lenses like the 600mm f/4 speak for themselves but outside of astrophotography I'd say the primary use of wide aperture short focal length lenses is incredibly selective focus in portraiture or perhaps some still life (e.g. flower arrangements) work. Sure there's something to be said for wide aperture, short focal length lenses for indoor architecture work where tripods aren't an option but I'd say many 50mm f/1.2, 85mm f/1.4 or similar lenses are used by portrait photographers going for a very shallow DoF.

FWIW, I keep a 14mm f/2.4 and 15-30mm f/2.8 for astro work but for general nature and wildlife photography I don't find much use for very wide apertures on short focal length lenses.
That's sorta my thoughts as well and even with pet photography I've found f/8 especially on dogs to be about as wide as you can shoot in order to get the nose and eyes in focus.
 
I've never been a fan of ultra fast lenses. I've not found the need for more/better bokeh in my shots and the extra size and weight are not welcome either. More than happy with f1.8 - f2.8. I do have a Viltrox 56mm f1.4 for my Fuji system, but that equates to an 85mm f1.8 in FF terms.

My 85mm f1.8 has a tiny DoF at around 2-3 metres and in the world of shooting models most amateur photographers follow trends like sheep and two very common trends are shooting wide open with ultra fast lenses and excessive skin smoothing.
 
I am a high res and ultra wide lens hound -- but not to shoot ultra narrow DOF shots, which I find appalling when used as a general style.

I wonder how many pros regularly shoot ultra wide open when the subject is fairly to very close. Sure for a special projects or in ultra low light that is fine - but for properly lit every day headshots or portraits -- my guess is NONE.
Real Pros understand that the whole of the face, the whole of the subject and/or the whole of the product had better be in focus when they take the shot otherwise their clients will not pay them.
When taking a portrait the setting is very important to. So shooting with too wide an aperture is simply going to obliterate all that money you invested in hiring a venue, paying a set-builder and staging a scene. Sure subject separation is very important -- but not to the point of obliteration.

The fact one buys an ultra fast lens does not mean one shoots it wide open all the time. AND certainly not when close to the subject.

When shooting from longer distance OK shoot wide open if you wish to from 15ft/4m or more - the face of a normal human subject should be in focus at f/1.2 on a 50mm and a full frame sensor and anything further away than 10"/25cm will be out of focus and so on. I regularly shoot lions before sunrise wide open with a f/2.8 and this is one reason to buy and use these lenses.

For some -- who take photos of subjects 1m away wide open -- they seem to want to say well I invested 3k+ in this lens or more so I have to shoot it wide... well no !! It sounds like they overbought to have a trophy object rather than a tool that they needed to do their job. The category of Dumb A## includes everyone who brings such an attitude to a job.
confused.gif
confused.gif
confused.gif


As I said on occasions completing a project using the widest apertures or using a tilt/shift lens or lensbaby to manage/reduce the DOF across the scene can be good reasons to shoot ultra wide -- but beyond this it is clearly I form of "showing off" -- hey I have this really expensive lens and it can shot f/0.95 -- OK I take crappy photos but look at the "expensive gear" I used, which cost more than your car........ we all know the storey.

So why buy ultra fast primes then -- we those who shoot in low light or astro need the ability to collect as much light as possible with the sharpes settings they can with their cameras -- event, concert and sports shooters are victims of terrible light and need to shoot with crazy gear - like the 200/2.0 I recently sold.
But for the rest of us it is the "promise" of higher edge to edge sharpness and resolving capability, better clarity and transmission and simply a better photographic outcome. These days super primes like my Z 400/2.8TC comes with exceptional AF motors and crazy coatings that take them to another level, way beyond the performance of the previous generation lenses.
Only the photographer can say whether or not their investment was worth it to them and there are a lot of factors in that consideration -- well beyond the performance of the lens itself. AND that is their issue alone.

I sold my last OTUS lens recently (as part of my sale of all the remaining Nikon F-mount lenses in my collection) and I was sad to see it go. BUT - it was very big, very heavy and for shots that need a 24mm I have moved on to Medium Format (well small MF - X2D-100C). I have kept the tilt/shift lenses for now.
 
I use most of my telephoto lenses at their wide aperture (f4 for the 300 PF, and f5.6 for the 500 PF) since I work mostly in low light situations.

For all f1.8 primes, I usually use them at f2.2 because they are sharper than at f1.8. This applies to most Portrait photos, artistic photos, and Macro photos as well (to get most light in, combined with photo-stacking to improve DOF).

The only case where I stick to f8 or more is Landscape.
 
I am a high res and ultra wide lens hound -- but not to shoot ultra narrow DOF shots, which I find appalling when used as a general style.

I wonder how many pros regularly shoot ultra wide open when the subject is fairly to very close. Sure for a special projects or in ultra low light that is fine - but for properly lit every day headshots or portraits -- my guess is NONE.
Real Pros understand that the whole of the face, the whole of the subject and/or the whole of the product had better be in focus when they take the shot otherwise their clients will not pay them.
When taking a portrait the setting is very important to. So shooting with too wide an aperture is simply going to obliterate all that money you invested in hiring a venue, paying a set-builder and staging a scene. Sure subject separation is very important -- but not to the point of obliteration.

The fact one buys an ultra fast lens does not mean one shoots it wide open all the time. AND certainly not when close to the subject.

When shooting from longer distance OK shoot wide open if you wish to from 15ft/4m or more - the face of a normal human subject should be in focus at f/1.2 on a 50mm and a full frame sensor and anything further away than 10"/25cm will be out of focus and so on. I regularly shoot lions before sunrise wide open with a f/2.8 and this is one reason to buy and use these lenses.

For some -- who take photos of subjects 1m away wide open -- they seem to want to say well I invested 3k+ in this lens or more so I have to shoot it wide... well no !! It sounds like they overbought to have a trophy object rather than a tool that they needed to do their job. The category of Dumb A## includes everyone who brings such an attitude to a job.
confused.gif
confused.gif
confused.gif


As I said on occasions completing a project using the widest apertures or using a tilt/shift lens or lensbaby to manage/reduce the DOF across the scene can be good reasons to shoot ultra wide -- but beyond this it is clearly I form of "showing off" -- hey I have this really expensive lens and it can shot f/0.95 -- OK I take crappy photos but look at the "expensive gear" I used, which cost more than your car........ we all know the storey.

So why buy ultra fast primes then -- we those who shoot in low light or astro need the ability to collect as much light as possible with the sharpes settings they can with their cameras -- event, concert and sports shooters are victims of terrible light and need to shoot with crazy gear - like the 200/2.0 I recently sold.
But for the rest of us it is the "promise" of higher edge to edge sharpness and resolving capability, better clarity and transmission and simply a better photographic outcome. These days super primes like my Z 400/2.8TC comes with exceptional AF motors and crazy coatings that take them to another level, way beyond the performance of the previous generation lenses.
Only the photographer can say whether or not their investment was worth it to them and there are a lot of factors in that consideration -- well beyond the performance of the lens itself. AND that is their issue alone.

I sold my last OTUS lens recently (as part of my sale of all the remaining Nikon F-mount lenses in my collection) and I was sad to see it go. BUT - it was very big, very heavy and for shots that need a 24mm I have moved on to Medium Format (well small MF - X2D-100C). I have kept the tilt/shift lenses for now.
Well said
 
FWIW - this was taken at 200mm at f10. I call it Modern Life.

Nikon Z6ii + Nikkor AF-S 70-200 f12.8 E FL ISO 100 and 1/10!!

Z62 GUC Campbell Park 70-200-022.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
FWIW - this was taken at 200mm at f10. I call it Modern Life.

Nikon Z6ii + Nikkor AF-S 70-200 f12.8 E FL ISO 100 and 1/10!!

View attachment 47129
Good shot and example. I fell for the trap with the Sony primes and found the 35mm 1.8 and 85mm 1.8 to be noticeably sharper lenses than the 1.4 offerings. Needless to say, they went back and kept both 1.8 lenses.
 
They are also cheap enough not to need a mortgage to buy :)
Exactly! I bought both lenses for the price of one and half the weight. I think it’s all gimmicks to sell lenses but thought it was possibly my ignorance of not knowing what the lens is for lol. I’m very content with the 1.8 lenses and at this point have zero desire to go larger for anything.
 
Film was, indeed is, the other important reason to use fast lenses fully open at f1.4 or f1.4.
The fastest lens made is a Zeiss f0.7, this is infamous for it's rarity - only ten were made. Five for NASA and three for Stanley Kubrick

 
Film was, indeed is, the other important reason to use fast lenses fully open at f1.4 or f1.4.
The fastest lens made is a Zeiss f0.7, this is infamous for it's rarity - only ten were made. Five for NASA and three for Stanley Kubrick

I’d hate to see the price and size of those lol. I held one of the Sony 50mm 1.2 and it’s as heavy as my 100/400. I like the small 1.8 primes like the 351.8 because they’re so tiny.
 
Traditionally, one major advantage of large apertures has been the ability to focus in low light and to focus more quickly than smaller-aperture lenses. Camera focal systems have gotten so good that this advantage is not really in evidence any more. Or so ISTM.
 
Traditionally, one major advantage of large apertures has been the ability to focus in low light and to focus more quickly than smaller-aperture lenses. Camera focal systems have gotten so good that this advantage is not really in evidence any more. Or so ISTM.
I agree. Even if a person is turned a slight amount with my 1.4 one eye won’t be as sharp. Other than Astro, I see no advantage whatsoever.
 
I owned a 105 mm f/1.4 lens when shooting with a D750 and D850. It was very specialized. I had a client who made jewelry. I photographed ear rings, pendants, and bracelets where a very shallow depth of field on the items with a softer model for the background. For some art bodyscapes, the shallow depth of field was useful. It was also an excellent portrait lens at f/5.6. I mostly agree with your point though. I am now using Nikon Z bodies aand my prime lenses are all f/1.8 and I am satistfied with the results. For wildlife, I use the 400 mm TC 2.8. This was not necessary for DOF. f/4 would be OK. for that. I went to a large aperture telephoto to keep ISO under control is the always cloudy Pacific Northwest.
 
I’ve been shooting on and off for 20 years or so and I’ve owned several large aperture prime lenses over the years. Currently I have 4 1.8 primes and one 1.4 prime. Having said that I’ve hardly ever used any of the large aperture primes over the years at the largest aperture. There’s only a few scenarios that I do and one of which is Astro photography and the other is occasionally on portraits. I personally don’t see any need to go larger than 1.8 at least for my use. In my eyes there’s very little you could use an aperture that large for unless you’re intentionally doing soft focus on flowers, insects etc…. I do have a 600 mm prime which is f/4 and an aperture that size at a distance you could still get most everything in focus. I’m just curious to hear other thoughts and how you utilize your large aperture lenses.
I understand that sharpness, bokeh, and a stop or two of light are the main points for shooting these types of lenses but I find with AI programs I can create any degree of bokeh, adjust sharpness and exposure with just a click of a button. Personally, I find no use for them but that's just me.
 
I’ve been shooting on and off for 20 years or so and I’ve owned several large aperture prime lenses over the years. Currently I have 4 1.8 primes and one 1.4 prime. Having said that I’ve hardly ever used any of the large aperture primes over the years at the largest aperture. There’s only a few scenarios that I do and one of which is Astro photography and the other is occasionally on portraits. I personally don’t see any need to go larger than 1.8 at least for my use. In my eyes there’s very little you could use an aperture that large for unless you’re intentionally doing soft focus on flowers, insects etc…. I do have a 600 mm prime which is f/4 and an aperture that size at a distance you could still get most everything in focus. I’m just curious to hear other thoughts and how you utilize your large aperture lenses.
I’ve been shooting on and off for 20 years or so and I’ve owned several large aperture prime lenses over the years. Currently I have 4 1.8 primes and one 1.4 prime. Having said that I’ve hardly ever used any of the large aperture primes over the years at the largest aperture. There’s only a few scenarios that I do and one of which is Astro photography and the other is occasionally on portraits. I personally don’t see any need to go larger than 1.8 at least for my use. In my eyes there’s very little you could use an aperture that large for unless you’re intentionally doing soft focus on flowers, insects etc…. I do have a 600 mm prime which is f/4 and an aperture that size at a distance you could still get most everything in focus. I’m just curious to hear other thoughts and how you utilize your large aperture lenses.
Hi Steve. Great topic.

I think is more of a paradigm question than anything else. For most people using conventional 2022 photographic techniques there's probably no burning need for extreme aperture but not everyone lives inside the box.

Maybe this is a question that has to be asked twice. Once for physical cameras and again for advanced digital devices. The rules change fast if you gut the advanced CPUs out a device and make it simply a camera. I think the easiest answer is that as long as camera CPU technology and silicon micro circuitry continues to advance that perhaps someday apertures may not even be required in lenses. The Z9 has no shutter because of technology.

I'm with you on what I need for my day to day shooting with the tools I have. The high quality Nikon, or any other manufacturers, fixed f/4 lenses I have combined with VR, microprocessor ISO algorithms and current noise reduction circuitry create amazing images in any light I have needed them to perform in. But I would love to have a f/.92 noctua lens or any other lens with an aperture greater than its focal length but not at 7 grand a pop.

On the other hand, the technology of my D700 is much better suited for an f/1.2 to accomplish what any Z body can produce in the same light with an f/4 but with ISO 6000 limitation and almost 20 year old CPU noise reduction it's not much of a contest. A great Nikkor fast aperture lens on the 700 is an amazing combo and sometimes it's needed. I'd kill to shoot the f/0.92 on a D700.

Here's a high-tech light meter that photographers were dealing with in 1939. 1/2 second exposure at f/2 and 8 seconds at f/8 in the brightest light. And ironically, 82 years later some folks criticize the efficiency of the top Sony devices on the market today. Life is good today.


1665245774128.jpeg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


Personally, the 1/32,000 shutter speed on the Z9, and whatever next generation camerahas fast shutter speed, alone creates lots of reason for wide aperture for creative use and documentary photographer. I doubt we've even begun to see what can be done with super fast shutters and wide aperture.

I'm working on it though. One of my buddies hovering about three feet in front of me getting ready to suck juice out of the orange milkweed. Z9 ZMC 105mm 1/32,000s f/5 in bright sunlight. No editing or it would be a lot prettier:) 1/32,000s is a work in progress.
_BOB2155.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


Happy shooting.
 
Hi Steve. Great topic.

I think is more of a paradigm question than anything else. For most people using conventional 2022 photographic techniques there's probably no burning need for extreme aperture but not everyone lives inside the box.

Maybe this is a question that has to be asked twice. Once for physical cameras and again for advanced digital devices. The rules change fast if you gut the advanced CPUs out a device and make it simply a camera. I think the easiest answer is that as long as camera CPU technology and silicon micro circuitry continues to advance that perhaps someday apertures may not even be required in lenses. The Z9 has no shutter because of technology.

I'm with you on what I need for my day to day shooting with the tools I have. The high quality Nikon, or any other manufacturers, fixed f/4 lenses I have combined with VR, microprocessor ISO algorithms and current noise reduction circuitry create amazing images in any light I have needed them to perform in. But I would love to have a f/.92 noctua lens or any other lens with an aperture greater than its focal length but not at 7 grand a pop.

On the other hand, the technology of my D700 is much better suited for an f/1.2 to accomplish what any Z body can produce in the same light with an f/4 but with ISO 6000 limitation and almost 20 year old CPU noise reduction it's not much of a contest. A great Nikkor fast aperture lens on the 700 is an amazing combo and sometimes it's needed. I'd kill to shoot the f/0.92 on a D700.

Here's a high-tech light meter that photographers were dealing with in 1939. 1/2 second exposure at f/2 and 8 seconds at f/8 in the brightest light. And ironically, 82 years later some folks criticize the efficiency of the top Sony devices on the market today. Life is good today.


View attachment 47352

Personally, the 1/32,000 shutter speed on the Z9, and whatever next generation camerahas fast shutter speed, alone creates lots of reason for wide aperture for creative use and documentary photographer. I doubt we've even begun to see what can be done with super fast shutters and wide aperture.

I'm working on it though. One of my buddies hovering about three feet in front of me getting ready to suck juice out of the orange milkweed. Z9 ZMC 105mm 1/32,000s f/5 in bright sunlight. No editing or it would be a lot prettier:) 1/32,000s is a work in progress.View attachment 47357

Happy shooting.
Thank you and I appreciate the thoroughness of your input.
 
I’ve been shooting on and off for 20 years or so and I’ve owned several large aperture prime lenses over the years. Currently I have 4 1.8 primes and one 1.4 prime. Having said that I’ve hardly ever used any of the large aperture primes over the years at the largest aperture. There’s only a few scenarios that I do and one of which is Astro photography and the other is occasionally on portraits. I personally don’t see any need to go larger than 1.8 at least for my use. In my eyes there’s very little you could use an aperture that large for unless you’re intentionally doing soft focus on flowers, insects etc…. I do have a 600 mm prime which is f/4 and an aperture that size at a distance you could still get most everything in focus. I’m just curious to hear other thoughts and how you utilize your large aperture lenses.
I love fast glass but its not as practical as everyone seems to think.
Even one stop of extra light can double the size and weight of a lens.
I'd never recommend a large aperture for portraits unless the background really needs to be softened.
f1.2 for a portrait means that most of the face could be out of focus - I recommend at least f5.6.
I love my 600mm f4 but its f4 means its big and heavy but its worth it...🦘
 
Interesting discussion. For wildlife, it seemed to me that f2.8/f4 was the sweet spot with long teles to get maximum OOF backgrounds with a lens of manageable weight. For landscapes, more DOF was generally desired, so wider than f2.8/f4 didn't interest me. For macro and architecture, again achieving maximum DOF is generally needed due to the DOF up close reduces DOF.

Portraits/ night photos/ nightlife bands and scenes.....here is where the wide open lenses shine. But I don't shoot this type of photography.

Hence, I've never owned a lens wider than f2.8. And even my f2.8 lenses don't get used at f2.8.

Maybe I totally missed the boat on wide lenses....but I blissfully don't know it! 😃
 
I love fast glass but its not as practical as everyone seems to think.
Even one stop of extra light can double the size and weight of a lens.
I'd never recommend a large aperture for portraits unless the background really needs to be softened.
f1.2 for a portrait means that most of the face could be out of focus - I recommend at least f5.6.
I love my 600mm f4 but its f4 means its big and heavy but its worth it...🦘
I totally agree with all you said. If a person isn’t dead on 90 degree in front of you, even 1.8 is hard to get both eyes in focus. With proper background separation even f/8 gives creamy bokeh. I also agree with the 600f/4 and love mine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Roy
Hi Steve. Great topic.

I think is more of a paradigm question than anything else. For most people using conventional 2022 photographic techniques there's probably no burning need for extreme aperture but not everyone lives inside the box.

Maybe this is a question that has to be asked twice. Once for physical cameras and again for advanced digital devices. The rules change fast if you gut the advanced CPUs out a device and make it simply a camera. I think the easiest answer is that as long as camera CPU technology and silicon micro circuitry continues to advance that perhaps someday apertures may not even be required in lenses. The Z9 has no shutter because of technology.

I'm with you on what I need for my day to day shooting with the tools I have. The high quality Nikon, or any other manufacturers, fixed f/4 lenses I have combined with VR, microprocessor ISO algorithms and current noise reduction circuitry create amazing images in any light I have needed them to perform in. But I would love to have a f/.92 noctua lens or any other lens with an aperture greater than its focal length but not at 7 grand a pop.

On the other hand, the technology of my D700 is much better suited for an f/1.2 to accomplish what any Z body can produce in the same light with an f/4 but with ISO 6000 limitation and almost 20 year old CPU noise reduction it's not much of a contest. A great Nikkor fast aperture lens on the 700 is an amazing combo and sometimes it's needed. I'd kill to shoot the f/0.92 on a D700.

Here's a high-tech light meter that photographers were dealing with in 1939. 1/2 second exposure at f/2 and 8 seconds at f/8 in the brightest light. And ironically, 82 years later some folks criticize the efficiency of the top Sony devices on the market today. Life is good today.


View attachment 47352

Personally, the 1/32,000 shutter speed on the Z9, and whatever next generation camerahas fast shutter speed, alone creates lots of reason for wide aperture for creative use and documentary photographer. I doubt we've even begun to see what can be done with super fast shutters and wide aperture.

I'm working on it though. One of my buddies hovering about three feet in front of me getting ready to suck juice out of the orange milkweed. Z9 ZMC 105mm 1/32,000s f/5 in bright sunlight. No editing or it would be a lot prettier:) 1/32,000s is a work in progress.View attachment 47357

Happy shooting.
VR on or off?

Just kidding!!

Traditionally, the faster lenses were supposed to have superior optics and glass. It didn't always work that way, though.
 
Back
Top