I hope this is not a stupid question and it’s probably more complicated than I think. With the improvements in sensor technology and the increasing effectiveness of de noise software isn’t the case for large, expensive and heavy glass reducing considerably?
The case for fast glass
- Thread starter Ian
- Start date
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).
ruley74
Well-known member
For me the answer is definitely no... they still allow you to do more, capture moments that you otherwise may not i.e. action in less than ideal light, AF performance, adding teleconverters for reach with still good IQ and fast AF. Also, even though Denoise software and sensors tech is very good now, if you want fine detail ISO still robs you.
However, I agree that you can still get incredibly good photos with less.
However, I agree that you can still get incredibly good photos with less.
Strodav
Well-known member
If you are talking wildlife / birding a few weeks ago I would have said no, but then Canon came out with 500 and 600mm f/11 glass for like $700-$800. The reviews I have seen for these lenses on an R5 are amazingly good. They are light, easy to handle, and the IQ is said to be excellent. Now if you are talking portraiture, it is a definite no as you still want that nice blurred background.
The above mentioned Canon f/11 lenses actually are 600mm & 800mm both with IS. $700 & $900 respectively. Both Canon R mount. I also watched a YouTube reviewer shoot with one or maybe both (can't remember). Going in he was dubious - afterwards he was pretty amazed. They had decent bokeh @f/11 if the background was some distance from the subject.
Canon no doubt did their market research. They would not have invested the R&D and manufacturing tooling $$ if they didn't believe there is a viable market for super-telephoto small glass.
f/4 big $$ super-tele glass will have it's place. The question we need to ask ourselves is do you really "need" expensive f/4 super-tele glass or would f/5.6 or f/11 really suffice for our use? Technology advancements are giving us more choices. It boils down to an individual cost/benefit decision.
Canon no doubt did their market research. They would not have invested the R&D and manufacturing tooling $$ if they didn't believe there is a viable market for super-telephoto small glass.
f/4 big $$ super-tele glass will have it's place. The question we need to ask ourselves is do you really "need" expensive f/4 super-tele glass or would f/5.6 or f/11 really suffice for our use? Technology advancements are giving us more choices. It boils down to an individual cost/benefit decision.
Squawk
Well-known member
I just can't imagine shooting a long lense at f11. I'm almost always struggling for speed and trying to keep the iso under control, so I'd be reduced to shooting in very good light with a significant background distance in relation to the subject. You'll have to work hard, get lucky and accept a low hit rate. I'd love to try one and be proven wrong but optics is physics so my money is still on the fast glass.
Strodav
Well-known member
Ya, I thought the same thing and then started looking through some of my photos taken with a 600mm f/4 with a D500, sometime a D850. A lot of my shots are taken between 25 and 35 yards at f/8, ISO 400 to 800. DOF at those distances and aperture is roughly 2' in front and 2' behind the subject. I believe I could get away with f/11 for a light, compact lens with great IQ for under $1000. In fact, I could afford both the 600mm and 800mm f/11 at those prices.
Personally I'd say the biggest reason to use fast glass in wildlife photography or portraiture is for the DoF control it gives you. After that comes light gathering and then the ability to take TCs well. But to me the top reason to run fast long lenses is subject isolation and background control.
Last edited:
I was rather thinking of wildlife. I shoot with a Sony A7Riii and the 100-400 G master. The X1.4 TC makes it a 560mm f8 and the X2TC makes it a 800mm f11.
I covet the 600mm f4, BUT it’s twice the weight much much larger and costs about five times what my current tele does. I travel a lot especially to Florida, well I did until Covid came along
.
To be honest lugging a 3Kg behemoth around in the Florida heat or airport terminals doesn’t inspire me.
Along comes the likes of Topaz. I can now afford to jack the ISO up as Topaz compensates that to around 2 stops
so in effect I have a 560mm f4 or a 800mm f5.6 that is considerably smaller, lighter and cheaper.
Two issues, the AF takes a hit on the A7Riii beyond f8 but I shall be acquiring an A9ii and so the AF issue will be resolved. What I can’t resolve as many have correctly pointed out is the DOF. I’m really just thinking aloud here.
I covet the 600mm f4, BUT it’s twice the weight much much larger and costs about five times what my current tele does. I travel a lot especially to Florida, well I did until Covid came along
.To be honest lugging a 3Kg behemoth around in the Florida heat or airport terminals doesn’t inspire me.
Along comes the likes of Topaz. I can now afford to jack the ISO up as Topaz compensates that to around 2 stops
so in effect I have a 560mm f4 or a 800mm f5.6 that is considerably smaller, lighter and cheaper.
Two issues, the AF takes a hit on the A7Riii beyond f8 but I shall be acquiring an A9ii and so the AF issue will be resolved. What I can’t resolve as many have correctly pointed out is the DOF. I’m really just thinking aloud here.
DOF is part of the equations, but focus speed is another. The f11 lenses focus like a f4 or 5.6?
The benefits to fast lenses aren't limited to massive telephotos. Last year I purchased a slightly used Nikkor 20mm f1.8 specficially for a trip to Iceland and a chance to photograph the northern lights--even though I have slower lenses that would cover that focal length. I was rewarded with some spectacular shots, virtually all at f2, eight second exposure, ISO 1600. Equivalent exposures for a slower lens would have required a substantially higher ISO, and a lot more noise in the black expanses of the night sky and the subtle colors of the aurora borealis. Longer exposure times were not possible, as that would have turned the stars into streaks. In a situation like this, a generous f-stop was my only viable option.
According to Sony yes, the A9iii will use PDAF down to f11 as opposed to f8 on the A7Riii
Good point but then the difference between f2 and say f2.8 is one stop. Depends what lens you would have used had you not got the f1.8, in any event the size, weight and certainly cost differential is no where near as great as in the telephoto case. If Topaz can clean an image up enough then the same shot could in theory use the same 8 seconds exposure with a higher ISO. It would be an interesting experiment, to compare the results.
I actually did an article about this exact topic:
![backcountrygallery.com](https://backcountrygallery.com/amazing-high-iso-the-end-of-fast-glass/\"/apple-touch-icon.png\")
backcountrygallery.com
Amazing High ISO - The End Of Fast Glass? - Backcountry Gallery
(NOTE – when I refer to “fast glass” in this article, I’m referring to the maximum opening, not AF speed.) Do we really need fast glass anymore? After all, with all that fantastic high ISO performance we find in modern cameras, should we all just agree to relegate fast glass to the Jurassic...
backcountrygallery.com
Thanks Steve, like I said more complicated than I thought.
I've used a few Sony and other zooms at their widest - 5.6, 6.3, or 8 with a TC. Then started using the Sony 400 2.8 with a TC, so f4. The major advantage to my mind is the scope to isolate the subject. The second is you're less crunched by the exposure triangle.
You pay a lot for this though, in dollars and weight. But after around 100,000 bird shots, I was ready to explore a different set of trade-offs.
You pay a lot for this though, in dollars and weight. But after around 100,000 bird shots, I was ready to explore a different set of trade-offs.
Karl
Active member
I sold a 600 f/4 and bought a 600 f/6.3. The difference for me? More good shots because I have it with me more. And I can "fix" the noise and bokeh with software. So, to justify parting with that beautiful 600 f/4, I'm going with perfect sharpness isn't everything... in fact, I'm getting bored with perfect bird portraits and am now leaning towards more artistic images taking advantage of light, action, composition, etc. And yes, I still miss the 600 f/4 sometimes.
jst1moor
New member
Early worms get the bird. Getting out early in the morning to photograph birds I always prefer fast lenses. They allow faster shutter speeds while helping keep ISO in check.
That being said, I am always more than ready to switch to slower lenses by mid morning!
That being said, I am always more than ready to switch to slower lenses by mid morning!
joe43
Well-known member
I have not read Steve's article yet. For me, the answer is a definite Yes. For example, if you were trying to choose between the two Nikon 500mm prime lenses, the f4 vs the f5.6 pf, I can see no reason why you would spend $7000 more for just one extra stop of light (f4) vs the f5.6. The background blurring is not that much different. And in normal light, AF speed is about the same.
Kjellis
Well-known member
As living in Norway I find the extra stop of light really worth it for me. I shot with the 500/5.6 PF for two years before selling it and buying a 500/4 E last month and it’s a game changer for me shooting in these darkest months of the year. I really would love to have the 500/5,6 PF along the f4 version though, but I couldn’t afford it.
In my limited experience from film to digital Fast glass means the following:
Higher cost
better glass quality
better able to benefit from tele-converters
However, with today's ISO quality maybe F5.6 will be just fine (Hint: Nikon's 500 PF)
I used to think heavier but with today's construction technology weight is being mitigated.
The rationale for most of us is that we would just like to have a fast-glass lens.
Just my opinion on the subject. I will leave the technicallities of fast versus slower glass to Steve.
Higher cost
better glass quality
better able to benefit from tele-converters
However, with today's ISO quality maybe F5.6 will be just fine (Hint: Nikon's 500 PF)
I used to think heavier but with today's construction technology weight is being mitigated.
The rationale for most of us is that we would just like to have a fast-glass lens.
Just my opinion on the subject. I will leave the technicallities of fast versus slower glass to Steve.
A stop of difference in background blur can be guaranteed with dollars but sometimes achieved for nothing with geometry.
Nice article Steve. Came at the right time. I totally forgot how it affected dynamic range. I will have to pay more attention next time I am shooting white birds like the snow geese that I saw on Wednesday. Thanks for the reminderI actually did an article about this exact topic:
[/yAmazing High ISO - The End Of Fast Glass? - Backcountry Gallery
(NOTE – when I refer to “fast glass” in this article, I’m referring to the maximum opening, not AF speed.) Do we really need fast glass anymore? After all, with all that fantastic high ISO performance we find in modern cameras, should we all just agree to relegate fast glass to the Jurassic...
For me it seems that the prime lenses have provided better results under all types of situations and subject matter as it relates to long focal lengths, such as 400mm, 500mm, & 600mm. Once I was able to purchase a 500mm f4 and now moving on to the 600mm f4 my pictures consistently look better. The trade off has been the weight, especially since my lens are the older AF-S "D" type. Even with the weight I wouldn't want to give up the extra stop of light and the quality glass.
Otto
Well-known member
Tamron 150-600G2. It did take me six weeks of trying and standing on a tree foot step stool for a better angle, but that's what was needed and I'm glad I tried.
Nikon 200-500mm. Just happen to be coming back from shooting earlier in the day and these little ones were waiting for me in the front yard.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Nikon 200-500mm. Just happen to be coming back from shooting earlier in the day and these little ones were waiting for me in the front yard.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Of course there is the budget, and also not wanting to hike with the extra size and weight, plus it is easy to dial in lens blur in post, though I know it is not exactly the same. Plus did I mention the budget? And the tradeoffs within the budget for a better body vs. Faster glass. I know, I know, the smart money bets on the glass....
As much as I now appreciate the advantages of the faster glass, the fact of the matter is I am simply not going to travel with it.
Not withstanding the huge difference in price which would make transporting it nerve wracking, especially travel by air; the over all size and weight is going to make it impractical. I’m not now, nor ever will be doing this for a living so I will have to limit my expectations. What I have learnt is that there really is no substitute for getting in close, that of course is not always possible or desirable but in many cases with a bit more effort and field craft it is. So I shall have to learn to be a better photographer.
Not withstanding the huge difference in price which would make transporting it nerve wracking, especially travel by air; the over all size and weight is going to make it impractical. I’m not now, nor ever will be doing this for a living so I will have to limit my expectations. What I have learnt is that there really is no substitute for getting in close, that of course is not always possible or desirable but in many cases with a bit more effort and field craft it is. So I shall have to learn to be a better photographer.