Cold hard truth out there, man! Clients and even your friends, if photography is your hobby, don't give a damn about your gear, so if you can deliver with less superior lenses - you're more pro then the other guy who buys 1.2 prime and shoots wide open. Also reminded me of a time when i started photography 10 years ago and most common source of knowledge were photography forums where rich guys in their 50s boasted about their new L lens and measured distortions and sharpness on photos of brick walls. Sadly, that was the only types of photos they produced. Oh, also maybe photos of cats where every whisker should be in focus.
For portraits, even casual ones, stopping down to f2.8 - f5.6 usually ends up being a lot more pleasing than wide open at f1.4 or so. You can get a face in focus, instead of one eye. For shots with more than one person, stopping down is a must, unless you're shooting at a significant distance.
Yep, exactly... Studio shoots normally require to showcase a product or some brand, so you have to stop down to make all that in focus, for environmental kind of portrait you too need to include surroundings to be a part of composition, that's the point of environmental portrait.
For me, it wasn't the result of any kind of marketing. I felt in love with bokeh way before knowing what it was and I wanted to have it, so I started investigating how it works, years ago. That led me to photography, cameras and lenses. I now have a Sony 50mm f1.2 GM and I absolutely love it.
“Any kid can shoot a pretty picture with a fast glass at a wide aperture” I see this with all the youtube photographers that just buy a fast glass and spam the autofocus makes me vomit
Bro hit everything in the nail. 👌🏼 I am for one guilty about the shallowest dof chasers when I started my photography career but as you go further the rabbit hole you’ll realize that it wasn’t the DOF that’s make the great photos. It’s the story behind it , the good color /dynamic ranges which you can only get from shooting on small aperture! I have too many situations where my photos are out of focus because of shooting at wide open, nowadays I just comfortably shoot at f2 .
Being quite new to photography, the hype to get fast lenses is incredible, I'm was asking a pro photographer why he wouldn't use fast lenses, the was theres no need, work and understand aperture, light and use it accordingly was his reply, guess I ve got to learn from my mistake/ misunderstanding and stop following the hype! Get you loud and clear, thanx!
I agree with you. Is it really all that creative and special if everybody is doing it? Another photography "creative move" is the milky water look of a waterfall--I find those images SOOOO tiring and overdone.
I'm with you but I will say faster glass is usually better made and will look better at 5.6 over a "kit lens" at 5.6. My 35 1.4 looks way better at 2.8 than my 35 2.8 wide open. It's definitely noticeable. Quality glass is king whether it's 1.4 or 3.5 at the widest. That being said I use all fast primes but rarely if ever shoot them wide open. I really never go below 2.8 and say I'm usually at f4-5.6 most of the time if lighting allows
So much truth being spoken on this channel! The misconception that fast aperture (f1.2,1.4 etc.) is need portraits is ridiculous. The best portrait I have ever taken was shot at f8 on a 50mm lens as it was able to show the environment around the model. Most portraits simply taken at f1.2 are boring, all you have is a model and fully blurred out background, it hardly requires any skill to produce a photo like that, like you said, a kid with $3000 worth of gear can do that. In addition the depth of field is so narrow, the models ears may be out of focus in some scenarios anyway. Similarly with event and wedding photography where I used a flash, I never used an f2.8 aperture on my 24-70 as it would sometimes cause subjects on the outer edge of the frame to fall out of focus. Just because your lens has a f2.8, doesn't mean you should always use it. The only instances where I have used the minimum aperture on my lens is for light gathering. When shooting volleyball and basketball I HAVE to use f2 and f2.8 so I can use a fast shutter speed and as low of an ISO as possible. We shouldn't be relying solely on our gear to create unique and interesting shots and more focus should be put on composition, styling and lighting of portraits.
I got fast primes to shoot indoor basketball on my apsc Nikon. That's pretty much the biggest advantage, when shooting fast motion in low light without too much noise. For everything else though, I actually shoot at higher apertures, to get more of the frame in focus. Even in low light, iso is handled well even on the 6 year old apsc.
Truth - I know this was 3 years ago but it's even more true today. I see one pretty well known photographer out there using bokeh as the subject along with his custom LUT - it's the exact same LUT every time and people go crazy for it even though the actual subject in his photos is boring as hell...It's all about the LUT. The more I watch your channel the more I like it - your not some fanboy pushing the latest release and getting paid by the manufacturer. I appreciate it.
Strongly agree! In many situations you want deeper focus (even if there's little light). Say in a photo of a group of people where people are not standing in a line parallel to the plane of focus. Fast lenses doesn't help you one bit in that situation! I sometimes wonder if this bokeh obsession is in part fuelled by people looking at photos on small phone screens. On bigger screens or bigger print even minimal out-of-focus (say f4 on APS-C on 23mm) still is enough to clearly separate, but on a phone you might need the background to be more out-of-focus for to create that separation. Either way, great video! Thanks for making it!
Thanks, I really hope this bokeh rush will pass by and with things like Bokeh AI introduced recently in Photoshop people will move from desire of speed to desire of quality👌
@@SergioMusel haha I blame Kai Wong (I love him though), he's been pushing bokeh ironically and non-ironically for the past 10+yrs. DigitalRev was what got me into photography and I can still remember him going on about bokeh to this day haha
For me, the MAIN benefit of a fast lens is shooting in low light. I was at a friend’s wedding the other day with the 14mm f2.8 as my only lens and unfortunately this didn’t provide a fast enough shutter speed to get sharp shots when they turned the lights down for the couple’s first dance. Of course, an f2 Fujicron would have been a bit better. Also I was using an XT1 which doesn’t have the greatest high ISO performance. But an f1.4 lens would have been a significant boon on this occasion. IBIS wouldn’t have helped to freeze the couple’s motion.
You need artificial light bro. Even with FF body with 0.95 lens aperture. Flash or any artificial light can freeze your subject and make it very sharp.
Just because fashion campaigns are shot with high apertures to show off the clothes and locations does not mean boke is bad in portraits. Your eyes see with boke, hold your hand out infront of your face and focus on it. Notice the background is blurred. It's an intimate effect and that's why people love it in portraiture.
The argument wasn’t that bokeh is not beautiful or pleasant to the eye. The point is that doesn’t show professionalism or skill or what’s called “pro”. Because all pro work is done at high apertures.
I am looking into getting a fast lens, as I want a bit more subject isolation but at wider angle and mostly to get lower ISO shots in really dark situations, where I can not use a flash and still have to freeze motion. Otherwise I mostly agree with your statements, really great photos tell stories and show nice composition, mostly with everything in focus but sometimes also with a dreamy bokeh!
Bravo. Fast glass made sense when film ISO for decent quality was 50 or below. Then the choice was what impairment to choose, the softer super(F1.4) fast glass or the grainer faster film. Then F2 was considered fast, but decent quality and F2.8 was normal. F4 the base model.
back when i started to use real camera over smartphone camera, I had this kind of understanding to have a fast and long lens, just for more blur LOL. Got my first prime lens f1.2 but holy, the sharpness was bad and I was not satisfied with that. But by the time I explore more in photography and trying to be more original and creative, f2.8 27mm is enough for me, for every composition I took.
It's great to hear everyone's photographic journey - I'm glad you settled with f/2.8, personally I rarely go below f/4 and I don't feel it being a constraint at all👍🏻
😆😂🤣...AV, thanks for your honest, witty & humorous assessment of the misguided trends for fast lenses, bokeh, special coating...et al. I’m looking forward to seeing your images from those 3 lenses you’d teased us with. ✌🏼& 📸
I was ready to hate on this, but I agree. I use canon non-L primes, starting as a concert and nightlife photographer. And getting more involved in editorial portraits, I have no need to invest in heavy, ultra fast optics when I’m stopping down to F/8 anyways.
It's so refreshing watching your content, mate ! I'm the kind of person who'd have a 0.95 in the bag, but rather use the 1.4. As long as it gets the job done. That's for work by the way, and I shoot in extremely low light conditions most times. Other times, I'd be shooting with the PRO camera from the fruit brand company with crazy ass fake bokeh 👻👻👻
My favorite portraits are always higher f stops, there is always something extra to those. Don’t get me wrong I love some Bokeh shots also ;) . I did find at a shoot I did recently in a small book shop that I was able to get a bit more variety with having some fast glass to calm down all the books and vintage stuff to get that separation….. BUT would I have taken more time and set up the bookshop in a way to really create a portrait that includes most of the background would always be more epic ;) .
Recently, I fell in love with night street photography and thinking to buy xf33 1.4, but your video left me asking myself if xf 35 f2 would be still great for low light with 125/1 SS and acceptable iso? I don't care about bokeh at all I just want to be able to have iso below 3200. Do you think I could go with f2? Thx!
I was actually riding on the f1.4 wave… had a sigma 56 1.4 for my sony and it was outstanding. Now i am planning to get a fuji xpro3, those huge and heavy 1.4 lenses dont really fit on the camera that well and are actually as expansive as two fujicrons. I also experienced that a lot of times f1.4 at daylight is way to overexposed and i would always need a nd filter. I saw myself stopping to down to f4 -f8 and was comfortable in this range.
I loved my fast lenses, but found that I rarely shoot wide open day to day. I most commonly shoot at 2.8 as a balance between bokeh and slight background detail to add context to scenes. And a look at my portfolio made me realize that most of my best work has pretty much everything in focus lol. The only time I say I require fast glass is for my film work, as iso change cant really happen mid roll and I always have a camera on me for street work and have no idea what the light will be like when I see my next photo
Yes, exactly, if I really need 2-2.8 will do the bokeh job for me without the harsh blowing everything into the bokeh abyss beyond the tip of the nose and eye pupil 🤣
Fast glass does apply to certain scenarios, no doubts; the need in their existence is undeniable... but some will shoot wide open every time, all the time, and that is a bit ridiculous, ahah😅
While I agree that the obsession with bokeh is ridiculous and can really detract from photography. Looking back at my images recently, barely any of my personal work uses bokeh. However, I do take issue with you seemingly putting down professional photographers who do and enjoy event and more commercial styles of photography such as wedding or event. Simply because you are more interested and hold more fine art styles of photography that truely aim to say something above them, doesn’t mean one is lesser for taking a more commercial route. I’ve done wedding shoots and very much enjoy event photography, along side my more personal art because I simply enjoy using cameras so getting paid to just run around with my camera is a win in my book. Furthermore the fact that I’m helping create and maintain memories for people is a big personal bonus. I mean recently I got contacted for some re-edits of some images I took of a brides grandfather at a wedding after he passed away as they were the best most recent images they had of him. That was a very powerful realisation for me that my images can be used to hold the memory of that person beyond their passing for their loved ones. The knock on effect is I need fast lenses for event to create shallow depth of field because when yo ur shooting an event and there’s a brilliant moment you want to capture, may not be able to control the light and background on your subjects to seperate them in the image, so bokeh is the most readily available option you have to create some subject separation in any moment.
only reason I like fast glass, is Because I shoot mostly at night. if I was a primary day shooter, I would choose compactness over speed any day! That said, the excellent Fuji 35mm 1.4 is fast and compact! an excellent lens with character.
@@SergioMusel Well I have the same sentiment. Just upgraded my Canon 60D after over 10yrs with only a poor kit lens. But I also get that people get excited about the tech in those cameras. I remember buying a compact camera for a south America trip, the X20 and being amazed by the mechanically shifting view finder. So this might be just a completely different angle on this hobby (professionals won't excite over technicalities I guess). But I am glad that you cover the other angle. Great content!
Question: Would there be a difference in image quality at F2 between an F2 and an F1.4 lens? I would suspect so, since lenses tend to be sharper stopped down from wide open. What has your experience been?
F2 and 1.4 aren't too far from each other, so in more expensive lenses the difference will be only slight, others may already be better at f2. Very often the lens variation takes place, so you just gotta test specifically your glass. But definitely at f5.6-8 you will see the difference with wide open, and we're not talking only sharpness, but also distortion and contrast.
I can see a use for fast lenses when it comes to low lights situations. I have friends who mostly do festivals and concert photography which often happens at night. I tried shooting with him with a Tamron 17-70 2.8 on a festival (Paléo) and he was using the viltrox 13mm f1.4. Not the same focal distance but the 2 stops of additional light made sens in that situation. Freezing the action with people dancing, jumping and doing portraits while the action was happening proved a bit trickier for me as my ISO was often not less than 10’000. I managed to get great shots sont get me wrong, but it’s true that I would have liked to be able to use a 1.4 and avoid shooting 10 pictures to get only 1 that wasn’t blurry. During the festival daytime, honestly I didn’t see any advantage of having an f1.4. Fast glass is definitely useful, but as every more extreme gear, it is specialized for a specific shooting type or situation. Fast glass definitely has it’s place in photography, just not for what most people shoot.
I have a paradox. I wan to shoot photo of fast moving subjects thus faster shutter speed. Thus faster lens . But wide open would make the depth of field very short. Which make catching the subjects eve harder.. thus siad paradox
It's not a paradox, it's an exposure triangle. You just need a camera that has good high ISO performance and burst speed aka all those pro cameras with long lenses you see at olympics and such
So I’ve been saving up for months to get the new Sigma 56/1.4 for my Fuji. I’ve been counting down the minutes to get it. It came today. Then I watched your video. 😢
OK, I've been a FT shooter since 1987 first as a newspaper photojournalist and then as a documentary photographer having added street and travel to the mix about 5 years ago. I opted for the faster Fujilux lenses because much of my work can be in marginal lighting and that extra stop of light gathering ability along with better build quality was the determining factor for me. BUT.... I am considering the fujicrons to test out and see if they really are as good for less cost and weight. Since it's been said that Fuji's look is a result of 50% Camera/Sensor and 50% glass (Same can be said for Leica) and I don't ever see myself needing anything more than 26MP, I'd rather save my $$$ by using slightly older lens formulas and using the savings to travel. Each of my Fujilux lenses are made in Japan, from what I've seen, the Fujicrons are made in the Philippines - I don't need weather sealing in my work so again, the newer lens designs are superfluous as a feature. I don't shoot video for the most part so again, the latest and greatest isn't a need for me. At some point there is a demising return on upgrading - I shot Olympus for 7 years, their IBIS was amazing and I do miss that since moving to Fuji, but again, one tech feature isn't a make or break feature in my work.
IBIS is slowly making its way into X system, I hope it is the same story as with X100V flip screen - they will do it only if it won't affect the size and looks too much, not to mention the extra power draw from already (relatively) small batteries. They make the IBIS unit as small and effective as possible and implement new battery for all the X system lineup - then it will come, and seems like they got really great units in latest cameras, so just need to wait for September X Summit😋
My thinking with megapixels is that if you go very far beyond 26MP it get's kinda hard to get to actually get sharp shot without resorting to very high shutter speeds (a non-option in low-lit situations). For my kind of work IBIS doesn't really help since people wont' be standing still anyway. If the extra pixels I have are just going to be blurred what's the point anyway? I just bought a photo book of Henri Cartier-Bresson and his photos are *beautiful*, but honestly, not super sharp. But they're still powerful images. (all this depends on genre of course, there are genres where you really need more sharpness)
I mostly agree with everything. However, ISO speed is not a great answer past a few steps because the shots get noisy. Sometimes fast lenses are cheap. The Canon 50mm f/1.8 STM is one of the sharpest lenses ever made (see the dxomark sharpness measure for reference) and it's. Cheap as dirt. When the light is low (for instance indoors) or thing are moving (at the soccer match) a faster lens prevents blurry shots. Now, even in low light and fast motion, if you take a great number of shots, some will probably be sharp. A lot of the arguments for faster lenses are pixel-peeping arguments. Great pictures are a lot more about subject, composition, etc. Now, I do think lenses like the f/0.95 Mitakon 50mm are rather silly because they are optically poor. And those zillion dollar Noct lenses take nice pictures, but they are a king's ransom to purchase. You mentioned f/2 and f/2.8 as not being fast, but I consider f/2.8 as fast. Even an f/4 lens is a lot faster than most kit lenses that come with the camera. So I think needing a fast lens or not partly depends on how you define fast. I,do strongly agree that f/2 is fast enough for most purposes and for long telephoto, f/4 is plenty fast enough for most purposes.
There are ways and means of working with ‘fast glass’ that are not well known. I have a collection of standard focal length lenses that range from F1.2 all the way to F3.5, and depending upon the individual optical design, they all have secrets and treasures at each and every aperture and focus point. Bokeh is only one part of this complex equation.
I’ve had many fast primes, and none turned out to be worth carrying in the bag for “just in case”...😅 That’s why always end up trading them for something more useful👌🏼
I'm so glad I've found your channel and see that you're into minimalism! I was obsessing over getting a Fujian 35mm f1.7 and this came out, it is really cheap, but i still question if I actually need it or it's just gonna be one innecessary lens around my room, gonna check your other videos!
If you are an indoor sports photographer, then you need fast glass. There is only so much that can be done on ISO to achieve the needed shutter speed (1/1000-1/1600).
Well, how fast you wanna go on 200-300mm? Surely, it's impossible to go f/1.4-1.2, and even f/1.8 - that's gonna be a tough task for AF to keep up. I'm not even talking about affording something like f/2-2.8, especially full frame. So for those scenarios it's more reasonable to shoot M4/3 or APS-C. It's a tough task, if you're talking serious sports photography, so I would say you have to rely more on your skill and burst rate/buffer rather than speed of the lens.
In the micro four thirds world, f1.2 offers an equivalent depth of field as f2.4, letting the user shoot at lower ISO, faster shutter speeds, and capture more of the subject and still isolate the subject.
@@SergioMusel True. You can shoot close up and/or telephoto. And f1.2 at the same focal length will still allow lower ISO, faster shutter speeds and more subject separation than f1.8, 2.8 or 4. You don't need fast glass, but it has its benefits.
Great video man, thanks a lot for going against the grain and advocating for the other side of the fast lens debate! 😁 I do however want to point out that it seems not all the lenses have a sweet spot stopped down. Of course knowing the price of those lenses, Leica ones are apparently engineered so that they perform their best right from their widest apertures. Leica Akademie Australia has a webinar on their channel where you can see graphs about it, if interested, I highly recommend to check them out! Cheers
Thanks!👌 As for the Leica lenses, I do agree that some modern ones perform with equal sharpness wide open and stopped down (that's the point of aspherical elements), not to mention that a great part of Leica glass performance is played by sensor with a thinner filter stack in Leica cameras. Nevertheless, performance is not just sharpness; we're also talking distortion, vignette, etc. And it is against all the basic physics and optics laws for the lens to perform the same in all categories at any aperture. That's not how the light works. But anyway, Leica owners are not the kind of people who are critical about the performance: they are either not concerned about it at all or just blindly believe they have the best of the best since they spent a fortune on that Summilux 😂
While I agree that Leica is better made, I wouldn't pay more for it than for Fuji, considering what you're getting... But Leica guys know what are they buying, camera and specs are not on the top of the list😏
you mentioned no good f2.8 primes i have to mention my 30mm f2.8 sigma art for m43 and its future companions 19mm and 60mm, tiny little prime and super sharp. completely agree though
im a musician but i do photography as a relaxing hobby and i wanted to take this more seriosly but when you research gear you automaticly get pushed in in the direction of fast big heavy lenses i just wanted to buy a tamron 22-200 2.8-5.6 lens cause it seems like a good price performance budged lens with a good compromise for a beginner but everyone talked me out of it and told me i should get the tamron 35-150 2.0/2.8 sure its an impressive lens but is so heavy and i did not know if i would need it and im still on the fence cause everyone is telling me that i cant take low light pictures with the 22-200 in the city cause everything is to dark plz help me guys xD
I saw this video a second time (because that's how good and entertaing some of your videos are), and I had some further thoughts. I think you give too much of the blame on camera companies, and maybe not quite enough on photographers buying the equipment. Fujifilm might be the darling of high-quality compact primes that aren't very fast these days, but back then Micro Four Thirds was more in fashion they really emphasised small glass early on. Olympus did espescially do this. They had a series of compact primes, often with metal construction and (for the time) very high optical quality. A good example is the M.Zuiko 17mm 1.8. However, they kinda went out of fashion. Consumers reaction to Sony going full frame with their mirrorless system made it clear to camera companies that small compact primes weren't that relevant, and big fast primes was where the money was. This included Sony… they launched with a relatively small and excellent Zeiss 35mm 2.8. But all the attention went to the big primes. It took many many years for other small primes to be released. So I think consumers is partly to blame. This is part of why I have to much respect for Fujifilm, espescially with their Fujicron line-up. That was a pretty big gamble to make those. The public might have reacted as they did to earlier attempts (complaining that relative expensive high quality lenses that are not fast is pointless). It did work out however, and Fuji is pretty unique in the camera world having such a cult following for their slower lens line-up (even the 27mm 2.8 has ardent fans). I suspect the reason might Fuji having a different focus than the others, and the fact that they have a camera line (X-Pro) where a lens being small has a *very* important function considering the OVF. Oh, and one more thing: let's be honest. The Fujicrons *are* fairly fast! F2 is kinda fast! The people who actually using slow lenses are the people using things like the XF16-80mm f4! And that's kinnda an interesting point in itself I think: if you go for just fast instead of stupid fast lenses… primes can be really small! I'm hoping we see more brands make smaller not-crazy-fast- primes. In the Sony system I've seen Samyang make som really small ones, and even Sony themselves have recently started making a line of not-crazy-fast-yet-kinda-small primes. Taking photos with setups like that is so freeing compared to lodging around big honking lenses.
You are missing the point of fast glass. Fast lenses are not just about bokeh; they are about getting decent shots in low light. Sometimes the best light comes in small quantities, and an extra stop is everything.
Well, I never said nobody needs fast glass😅 I'm just saying it's overrated; and again, I talk about other things that can get you fav low light shots😉 And lastly, I'm still sure average photographer doesn't do as many low light shots
You can always increase ISO these days with most cameras and you will not notice much ‘noise’. I think this video is mainly aimed at enthusiasts who are bamboozled by advertising and UA-cam into buying gear they really don’t need. A most useful and relevant video for our times when we need to be saving our money.
I disagree that only a pro photographer's opinion matters. I'm certain that the world's greatest artists will never be known, and their work sits in a room or in a landfill somewhere. Professionals are good at monetizing their work. Additionally, if someone already have a full time job earning an amazing income, it would be silly to become a pro photographer. Pro photographer's greatest advice is how to successfully market and sell work, not how to take photos.
It is really easy to say that someone is an artist. You and I can be that. Artists do not necessarily know what they're doing with gear. Something that works for them doesn't have to be the standard. You didn't quite get the idea of a pro-photographer I'm talking about, I never said a professional is the one who is famous or knows how to monetize him/herself. If we're talking specifically gear advises, it's all about a vast background and experience in photography. That is why only their opinion matters. It just so happens that people who are doing it for 20+ years are rare and highly payed, because most others "already have a full time job earning an amazing income" =)
@@SergioMusel My point is that you're making generalizations and stating absolutes that aren't true. Yes, it is smart to add more weight to a pro's opinion on the assumption that they likely have good experience. But that doesn't mean that many non-pros don't have as much or more experience. And many non-pros know how to use the gear better and produce better works. Being pro does not mean being correct. To only value the opinion of a pro means you'll be losing insight from the vast majority of photographers. It's also gatekeeping photography, which there is already enough of as it is. Professional only means that the artist was able to monetize the work, nothing more. A pro can take awful photos and not know how to use their gear, but if they can market and sell their photos, then they are pro by definition. Go Google Vivian Maier. She is considered one of the greatest photographers of the 20th century, and she was not pro. Her work wasn't discovered until after her death. Van Gogh was the same. He was only able to sell one painting while he was alive. He was not a pro. I hope we can agree that saying Van Gogh's opinion doesn't matter is silly. He was penniless and had to produce good work with subpar gear. Would I ask Van Gogh how to be a pro (ie, make money off his work)? No, absolutely not. But I don't care about that, I care about producing great works. You're putting emphasis on labels. Being a pro doesn't make you talented, and not being a pro doesn't mean you don't know what you're doing. I know pros that only know how to use their gear in their tiny niche. Hope that makes sense. Also I enjoy your content, so please know my comments come from a place of respect and admiration.
@@jmctavishiii You can define pro differently, that is why I made sure to say what is a definition of a pro photographer to me personally. So according to my definition (!), a pro cannot be a person that "not know how to use their gear", and it is very important how you define it. Because so many youtubers refer to themselves as pro photographers and push the idea of a fast glass and label it as pro lenses. That is what the video is about. I think I made it clear that to me making money does not make you a pro. Again, when we're talking gear(!), people who spent their life shooting and processing film by themselves, and then went through the whole era of DSLRs and now shoot mirrorless, these people know a bit more than a person that picked up Sony just 5 years ago, right? We're not talking artistry here, that is subjective. Vivian Maier and other photographers of the post-war era that marked the beginning of photography boom, might not be the best example. There are DOZENS of people who do similar photographs nowadays, but so what? What matters is the time and place. Perhaps Ansel Adams will be of a much better example. He did't just document his time and make pretty pictures, he actually contributed to and influenced photography A LOT. There's a difference between a pro and a non-pro. Vivian Maier was a non-pro artist, yes, whose photography undoubtedly has value, but if I am to get an advice on processing or shooting film, I would rather ask Ansel than Vivien, you know what I mean? Artistry level has little to do with gear proficiency, and, as you've said, vice versa too. You don't need to know much to do art, it relies on something else. So asking an artist about lenses consideration - they might use the best ones, or the worst ones, that doesn't help you, right? To sum up, my message is that it is better to listen less to "youtube pros" and people who watch them, and learn more from people who actually know what they're doing. I think both of us will agree on that 👌😅
I literally made a video on the 50 f1.2 and I don’t think people liked it. I said there’s not really a really to buy it and I think the people who own it got mad 😂
Too many truth bombs in one vid!! 🤯🤯🤯hahaha. I agree!! Love your sense of humour keep up the great work!!! next video - why you need super fast bokeh licious glass ASAP!!!!! click my affiliates...
So... where we start? ))) THERE IS a company, besides Leica, who went a road of affordable (not cheap!) high quality 1.8 lenses -- it's called Nikon. Ah, yes. Also -- Fuji. Ah sorry, also Tamron SP (35, 45, 85 1.8) are pro quality affordable super duper sharp great 1.8 lenses. So, it's not that this is something non existing. There is another freaking company, which products I had to use, called Canon. Those farts make great (really. G.R.E.A.T.) 1.2 lenses. Like there RF 85 1.2 is MAYBE the best portrait lens ever. Or second best, after GF 110. And there 1.8 lenses are... not really a crap but... ok. Crap they are. Not for me. Being said -- I see little real need to use 1.2 lenses. I am happy with amount of blur mine 24-70 2.8 makes, so I am totally fine with 2.8 on a small format. Just remember, some time ago(not far away) 2.8 was considered as a fast lens, so I think it still valid to be seen like that. I have 2 systems and 9 lenses, the fastest of them is GF 110 2.0. All the rest are 2.8/4.0. And I am fine with that. I will, probably, add RF 50 1.2 -- not because I need 1.2, but because freaking Canon do not make other good native 50 lens and I am a big fan of 50mm...
Really feel for your Canon pain😔 I lost my virginity to Canon, basically🤣 , but soon after learning more about lenses and finding out APS-C is not the way to get anything good really left a mark on my heart...💔
@@SergioMusel so yes, they force you to buy 2500 Euro 1.2 lens, cause there is no real alternative. A way they do. Fuji, for sure, makes this choose more real -- both 1.4 and 2.0 lenses are great. I had Fuji 23 1.4 and it was one of the best lenses I have seen from image quality department, but same I can say about Fuji 35 2.0. 23 2.0 is not in the same league.
They're not always more expensive... I have a 35mm 1.4 for 600 euros new. Saying aperture doesnt matter anymore is kinda bullshit. Yes ISO is improving but the difference between shooting at 1.4 with a prime in the dark or shooting my f4 zoom is insane. It can literally be the difference between having to use 6400 iso or 51200...
i found it somehow disappointing. there were not really arguments against fast glass but just your opinion - and your opinion is totally ok, of course. on the other hand, it's evident that you cannot replace fast glass with anything. that's just physics. in a commercial setting you will have to pay that extra money to achieve certain effects. that's just how commercial photography works. if this is justified is up to your customers to decide. if you can convince your customers of your point of view then, of course go for it. when it comes to artistic photography (or amateur photography) you're completely free to define your very own estethics. but in the end it just does not matter. if you love fast glass keep loving it. if you think you can do better with slower glass do your thing and feel good about it.
Whatever rocks your boat pal. This video is in OPINIONS playlist anyway😅 I think not just me, but many others "can do better with slower glass... and feel good about it." That's why I made the video in the first place, supporting it with not just opinions of myself, but hard facts as well... Because internet is filled with ideas like yours that fast glass is irreplaceable and pros need it🙂
Fast lenses are still desirable, regardless you shoot with M43, APSC, FF, medium format, bla bla bla... Well, there are some cases where fast lens is desirable, e.g tight shoulder to head portrait. For example, Google "julia roberts gregory heisler". The shot was taken on 110 f/2 lens (medium format) wide open. Bokeh? You got it. I think this is overall a nice, well thought composition, not just bokeh for the sake of bokeh itself. That said, in the book you'll find more environmental portraits, which means smaller apperture like f/11 or f/16 was used. Oh the book title is "Gregory Hesiler's 50 Portraits".
Cold hard truth out there, man! Clients and even your friends, if photography is your hobby, don't give a damn about your gear, so if you can deliver with less superior lenses - you're more pro then the other guy who buys 1.2 prime and shoots wide open. Also reminded me of a time when i started photography 10 years ago and most common source of knowledge were photography forums where rich guys in their 50s boasted about their new L lens and measured distortions and sharpness on photos of brick walls. Sadly, that was the only types of photos they produced. Oh, also maybe photos of cats where every whisker should be in focus.
True story!..🙌 Hope this will change soon🙏 It has a very discouraging effect...😓
For portraits, even casual ones, stopping down to f2.8 - f5.6 usually ends up being a lot more pleasing than wide open at f1.4 or so. You can get a face in focus, instead of one eye.
For shots with more than one person, stopping down is a must, unless you're shooting at a significant distance.
Yep, exactly... Studio shoots normally require to showcase a product or some brand, so you have to stop down to make all that in focus, for environmental kind of portrait you too need to include surroundings to be a part of composition, that's the point of environmental portrait.
For me, it wasn't the result of any kind of marketing. I felt in love with bokeh way before knowing what it was and I wanted to have it, so I started investigating how it works, years ago. That led me to photography, cameras and lenses. I now have a Sony 50mm f1.2 GM and I absolutely love it.
This channel is a gift from algorithm gods. Great content!
Thanks😉 Good to know algorithms are on my side😈
Glad I found this lens before fully falling into the marketing hype
“Any kid can shoot a pretty picture with a fast glass at a wide aperture” I see this with all the youtube photographers that just buy a fast glass and spam the autofocus makes me vomit
Yep😅
This is one of the most underrated channels on UA-cam. Keep up the good work!! Subscribed.
Bro hit everything in the nail. 👌🏼 I am for one guilty about the shallowest dof chasers when I started my photography career but as you go further the rabbit hole you’ll realize that it wasn’t the DOF that’s make the great photos. It’s the story behind it , the good color /dynamic ranges which you can only get from shooting on small aperture! I have too many situations where my photos are out of focus because of shooting at wide open, nowadays I just comfortably shoot at f2 .
Thanks!
It's rare for youtube recommendations to be this good, subscribed.
Thanks and welcome🤜🏼🤛🏼
Being quite new to photography, the hype to get fast lenses is incredible, I'm was asking a pro photographer why he wouldn't use fast lenses, the was theres no need, work and understand aperture, light and use it accordingly was his reply, guess I ve got to learn from my mistake/ misunderstanding and stop following the hype! Get you loud and clear, thanx!
I agree with you. Is it really all that creative and special if everybody is doing it? Another photography "creative move" is the milky water look of a waterfall--I find those images SOOOO tiring and overdone.
I love the 27 f2.8!! Got some of my favorite photos with it
Agree, it's a neat little lens👍
I'm with you but I will say faster glass is usually better made and will look better at 5.6 over a "kit lens" at 5.6. My 35 1.4 looks way better at 2.8 than my 35 2.8 wide open. It's definitely noticeable. Quality glass is king whether it's 1.4 or 3.5 at the widest. That being said I use all fast primes but rarely if ever shoot them wide open. I really never go below 2.8 and say I'm usually at f4-5.6 most of the time if lighting allows
Like I said - it's hard to find a good lens that is not fast, usually because companies aren't interested in making such glass...
So much truth being spoken on this channel! The misconception that fast aperture (f1.2,1.4 etc.) is need portraits is ridiculous. The best portrait I have ever taken was shot at f8 on a 50mm lens as it was able to show the environment around the model. Most portraits simply taken at f1.2 are boring, all you have is a model and fully blurred out background, it hardly requires any skill to produce a photo like that, like you said, a kid with $3000 worth of gear can do that. In addition the depth of field is so narrow, the models ears may be out of focus in some scenarios anyway.
Similarly with event and wedding photography where I used a flash, I never used an f2.8 aperture on my 24-70 as it would sometimes cause subjects on the outer edge of the frame to fall out of focus. Just because your lens has a f2.8, doesn't mean you should always use it.
The only instances where I have used the minimum aperture on my lens is for light gathering. When shooting volleyball and basketball I HAVE to use f2 and f2.8 so I can use a fast shutter speed and as low of an ISO as possible.
We shouldn't be relying solely on our gear to create unique and interesting shots and more focus should be put on composition, styling and lighting of portraits.
Completely agree 🤜🤛
I got fast primes to shoot indoor basketball on my apsc Nikon. That's pretty much the biggest advantage, when shooting fast motion in low light without too much noise.
For everything else though, I actually shoot at higher apertures, to get more of the frame in focus. Even in low light, iso is handled well even on the 6 year old apsc.
Hit the nail on the head, mate. Earned yourself a sub.
Cheers!✌️ And welcome aboard 🤜🤛
Truth - I know this was 3 years ago but it's even more true today. I see one pretty well known photographer out there using bokeh as the subject along with his custom LUT - it's the exact same LUT every time and people go crazy for it even though the actual subject in his photos is boring as hell...It's all about the LUT. The more I watch your channel the more I like it - your not some fanboy pushing the latest release and getting paid by the manufacturer. I appreciate it.
Thanks!
couldn't have said it better. fast glasses have their own pluses, but you are for sure DON'T need them to create perfect shots. Thank you.
Glad you liked it!
Strongly agree!
In many situations you want deeper focus (even if there's little light). Say in a photo of a group of people where people are not standing in a line parallel to the plane of focus. Fast lenses doesn't help you one bit in that situation!
I sometimes wonder if this bokeh obsession is in part fuelled by people looking at photos on small phone screens. On bigger screens or bigger print even minimal out-of-focus (say f4 on APS-C on 23mm) still is enough to clearly separate, but on a phone you might need the background to be more out-of-focus for to create that separation.
Either way, great video! Thanks for making it!
Thanks, I really hope this bokeh rush will pass by and with things like Bokeh AI introduced recently in Photoshop people will move from desire of speed to desire of quality👌
@@SergioMusel haha I blame Kai Wong (I love him though), he's been pushing bokeh ironically and non-ironically for the past 10+yrs. DigitalRev was what got me into photography and I can still remember him going on about bokeh to this day haha
@@foxtrotyankee6131 DigitalRev TV is the OG of UA-cam photography channels, ahah😁
For me, the MAIN benefit of a fast lens is shooting in low light. I was at a friend’s wedding the other day with the 14mm f2.8 as my only lens and unfortunately this didn’t provide a fast enough shutter speed to get sharp shots when they turned the lights down for the couple’s first dance. Of course, an f2 Fujicron would have been a bit better. Also I was using an XT1 which doesn’t have the greatest high ISO performance. But an f1.4 lens would have been a significant boon on this occasion. IBIS wouldn’t have helped to freeze the couple’s motion.
You need artificial light bro. Even with FF body with 0.95 lens aperture. Flash or any artificial light can freeze your subject and make it very sharp.
That is a good idea actually. I have not used flash at a large gathering - do people not get annoyed by the flashes?@@zacx6970
Just because fashion campaigns are shot with high apertures to show off the clothes and locations does not mean boke is bad in portraits. Your eyes see with boke, hold your hand out infront of your face and focus on it. Notice the background is blurred. It's an intimate effect and that's why people love it in portraiture.
The argument wasn’t that bokeh is not beautiful or pleasant to the eye. The point is that doesn’t show professionalism or skill or what’s called “pro”. Because all pro work is done at high apertures.
I am looking into getting a fast lens, as I want a bit more subject isolation but at wider angle and mostly to get lower ISO shots in really dark situations, where I can not use a flash and still have to freeze motion. Otherwise I mostly agree with your statements, really great photos tell stories and show nice composition, mostly with everything in focus but sometimes also with a dreamy bokeh!
Bravo. Fast glass made sense when film ISO for decent quality was 50 or below. Then the choice was what impairment to choose, the softer super(F1.4) fast glass or the grainer faster film. Then F2 was considered fast, but decent quality and F2.8 was normal. F4 the base model.
Agree with you 100%. Thanks for this video. 👍🏿
back when i started to use real camera over smartphone camera, I had this kind of understanding to have a fast and long lens, just for more blur LOL. Got my first prime lens f1.2 but holy, the sharpness was bad and I was not satisfied with that. But by the time I explore more in photography and trying to be more original and creative, f2.8 27mm is enough for me, for every composition I took.
It's great to hear everyone's photographic journey - I'm glad you settled with f/2.8, personally I rarely go below f/4 and I don't feel it being a constraint at all👍🏻
😆😂🤣...AV, thanks for your honest, witty & humorous assessment of the misguided trends for fast lenses, bokeh, special coating...et al. I’m looking forward to seeing your images from those 3 lenses you’d teased us with. ✌🏼& 📸
Thanks🙏 I hope it won't take me a whole month to make next episode😅
I was ready to hate on this, but I agree. I use canon non-L primes, starting as a concert and nightlife photographer. And getting more involved in editorial portraits, I have no need to invest in heavy, ultra fast optics when I’m stopping down to F/8 anyways.
Yep, exactly) I'm not saying fast lenses are useless or shouldn't exist, it's just that their importance is overplayed a lot
Thank you. That was great!
Cheers!
Thank you! The most valuable photography video I have ever watched!
Thanks🙏
It's so refreshing watching your content, mate !
I'm the kind of person who'd have a 0.95 in the bag, but rather use the 1.4. As long as it gets the job done.
That's for work by the way, and I shoot in extremely low light conditions most times.
Other times, I'd be shooting with the PRO camera from the fruit brand company with crazy ass fake bokeh 👻👻👻
My favorite portraits are always higher f stops, there is always something extra to those. Don’t get me wrong I love some Bokeh shots also ;) .
I did find at a shoot I did recently in a small book shop that I was able to get a bit more variety with having some fast glass to calm down all the books and vintage stuff to get that separation….. BUT would I have taken more time and set up the bookshop in a way to really create a portrait that includes most of the background would always be more epic ;) .
Recently, I fell in love with night street photography and thinking to buy xf33 1.4, but your video left me asking myself if xf 35 f2 would be still great for low light with 125/1 SS and acceptable iso? I don't care about bokeh at all I just want to be able to have iso below 3200. Do you think I could go with f2? Thx!
That depends on the kind of subject you're after. I would just borrow lenses and try it for one time, so you can see for yourself
I was actually riding on the f1.4 wave… had a sigma 56 1.4 for my sony and it was outstanding. Now i am planning to get a fuji xpro3, those huge and heavy 1.4 lenses dont really fit on the camera that well and are actually as expansive as two fujicrons. I also experienced that a lot of times f1.4 at daylight is way to overexposed and i would always need a nd filter. I saw myself stopping to down to f4 -f8 and was comfortable in this range.
I loved my fast lenses, but found that I rarely shoot wide open day to day. I most commonly shoot at 2.8 as a balance between bokeh and slight background detail to add context to scenes. And a look at my portfolio made me realize that most of my best work has pretty much everything in focus lol. The only time I say I require fast glass is for my film work, as iso change cant really happen mid roll and I always have a camera on me for street work and have no idea what the light will be like when I see my next photo
Yes, exactly, if I really need 2-2.8 will do the bokeh job for me without the harsh blowing everything into the bokeh abyss beyond the tip of the nose and eye pupil 🤣
@@SergioMusel it really is the perfect middle ground
I do own and use fast glass, mostly from Fuji, but than agin, I'm a reporter who often lurks in the dark...
Fast glass does apply to certain scenarios, no doubts; the need in their existence is undeniable... but some will shoot wide open every time, all the time, and that is a bit ridiculous, ahah😅
While I agree that the obsession with bokeh is ridiculous and can really detract from photography. Looking back at my images recently, barely any of my personal work uses bokeh. However, I do take issue with you seemingly putting down professional photographers who do and enjoy event and more commercial styles of photography such as wedding or event. Simply because you are more interested and hold more fine art styles of photography that truely aim to say something above them, doesn’t mean one is lesser for taking a more commercial route.
I’ve done wedding shoots and very much enjoy event photography, along side my more personal art because I simply enjoy using cameras so getting paid to just run around with my camera is a win in my book. Furthermore the fact that I’m helping create and maintain memories for people is a big personal bonus. I mean recently I got contacted for some re-edits of some images I took of a brides grandfather at a wedding after he passed away as they were the best most recent images they had of him. That was a very powerful realisation for me that my images can be used to hold the memory of that person beyond their passing for their loved ones.
The knock on effect is I need fast lenses for event to create shallow depth of field because when yo ur shooting an event and there’s a brilliant moment you want to capture, may not be able to control the light and background on your subjects to seperate them in the image, so bokeh is the most readily available option you have to create some subject separation in any moment.
only reason I like fast glass, is Because I shoot mostly at night. if I was a primary day shooter, I would choose compactness over speed any day!
That said, the excellent Fuji 35mm 1.4 is fast and compact! an excellent lens with character.
It is, I loved it for photographing people!
Wow wow wow: That few seconds explaining the composition. That’s a whole video on its own in a few seconds.
Thanks!🤝 I hope more photographers will care less about technicalities and more about things that actually matter👌
@@SergioMusel Well I have the same sentiment. Just upgraded my Canon 60D after over 10yrs with only a poor kit lens.
But I also get that people get excited about the tech in those cameras. I remember buying a compact camera for a south America trip, the X20 and being amazed by the mechanically shifting view finder. So this might be just a completely different angle on this hobby (professionals won't excite over technicalities I guess).
But I am glad that you cover the other angle. Great content!
Eventually it will be "why your phone is just as good as a professional camera "
😂😂
Hello man, just thanks to speak about that subject.
Question: Would there be a difference in image quality at F2 between an F2 and an F1.4 lens? I would suspect so, since lenses tend to be sharper stopped down from wide open. What has your experience been?
F2 and 1.4 aren't too far from each other, so in more expensive lenses the difference will be only slight, others may already be better at f2. Very often the lens variation takes place, so you just gotta test specifically your glass. But definitely at f5.6-8 you will see the difference with wide open, and we're not talking only sharpness, but also distortion and contrast.
I can see a use for fast lenses when it comes to low lights situations. I have friends who mostly do festivals and concert photography which often happens at night. I tried shooting with him with a Tamron 17-70 2.8 on a festival (Paléo) and he was using the viltrox 13mm f1.4. Not the same focal distance but the 2 stops of additional light made sens in that situation. Freezing the action with people dancing, jumping and doing portraits while the action was happening proved a bit trickier for me as my ISO was often not less than 10’000. I managed to get great shots sont get me wrong, but it’s true that I would have liked to be able to use a 1.4 and avoid shooting 10 pictures to get only 1 that wasn’t blurry. During the festival daytime, honestly I didn’t see any advantage of having an f1.4. Fast glass is definitely useful, but as every more extreme gear, it is specialized for a specific shooting type or situation. Fast glass definitely has it’s place in photography, just not for what most people shoot.
Well said👌🏻
I have a paradox.
I wan to shoot photo of fast moving subjects thus faster shutter speed. Thus faster lens .
But wide open would make the depth of field very short. Which make catching the subjects eve harder.. thus siad paradox
It's not a paradox, it's an exposure triangle. You just need a camera that has good high ISO performance and burst speed aka all those pro cameras with long lenses you see at olympics and such
Thats the reason i love fujifilm
Edit: great and important video btw!
Thanks for watching!👏 Hope it helps some people✌️
So I’ve been saving up for months to get the new Sigma 56/1.4 for my Fuji. I’ve been counting down the minutes to get it. It came today.
Then I watched your video. 😢
I mean, if it excites you, then why not😅 The world would be a boring place if people owned only the things they need😉
Great video. Subscribed !
Thanks for the sub!🙌🏼
OK, I've been a FT shooter since 1987 first as a newspaper photojournalist and then as a documentary photographer having added street and travel to the mix about 5 years ago. I opted for the faster Fujilux lenses because much of my work can be in marginal lighting and that extra stop of light gathering ability along with better build quality was the determining factor for me. BUT.... I am considering the fujicrons to test out and see if they really are as good for less cost and weight. Since it's been said that Fuji's look is a result of 50% Camera/Sensor and 50% glass (Same can be said for Leica) and I don't ever see myself needing anything more than 26MP, I'd rather save my $$$ by using slightly older lens formulas and using the savings to travel. Each of my Fujilux lenses are made in Japan, from what I've seen, the Fujicrons are made in the Philippines - I don't need weather sealing in my work so again, the newer lens designs are superfluous as a feature. I don't shoot video for the most part so again, the latest and greatest isn't a need for me. At some point there is a demising return on upgrading - I shot Olympus for 7 years, their IBIS was amazing and I do miss that since moving to Fuji, but again, one tech feature isn't a make or break feature in my work.
IBIS is slowly making its way into X system, I hope it is the same story as with X100V flip screen - they will do it only if it won't affect the size and looks too much, not to mention the extra power draw from already (relatively) small batteries. They make the IBIS unit as small and effective as possible and implement new battery for all the X system lineup - then it will come, and seems like they got really great units in latest cameras, so just need to wait for September X Summit😋
My thinking with megapixels is that if you go very far beyond 26MP it get's kinda hard to get to actually get sharp shot without resorting to very high shutter speeds (a non-option in low-lit situations). For my kind of work IBIS doesn't really help since people wont' be standing still anyway. If the extra pixels I have are just going to be blurred what's the point anyway?
I just bought a photo book of Henri Cartier-Bresson and his photos are *beautiful*, but honestly, not super sharp. But they're still powerful images.
(all this depends on genre of course, there are genres where you really need more sharpness)
I mostly agree with everything. However, ISO speed is not a great answer past a few steps because the shots get noisy. Sometimes fast lenses are cheap. The Canon 50mm f/1.8 STM is one of the sharpest lenses ever made (see the dxomark sharpness measure for reference) and it's. Cheap as dirt. When the light is low (for instance indoors) or thing are moving (at the soccer match) a faster lens prevents blurry shots. Now, even in low light and fast motion, if you take a great number of shots, some will probably be sharp. A lot of the arguments for faster lenses are pixel-peeping arguments. Great pictures are a lot more about subject, composition, etc. Now, I do think lenses like the f/0.95 Mitakon 50mm are rather silly because they are optically poor. And those zillion dollar Noct lenses take nice pictures, but they are a king's ransom to purchase. You mentioned f/2 and f/2.8 as not being fast, but I consider f/2.8 as fast. Even an f/4 lens is a lot faster than most kit lenses that come with the camera. So I think needing a fast lens or not partly depends on how you define fast. I,do strongly agree that f/2 is fast enough for most purposes and for long telephoto, f/4 is plenty fast enough for most purposes.
I dont usually comment, but this man is spitting facts!!🔥🔥
Damn right😎😂
There are ways and means of working with ‘fast glass’ that are not well known. I have a collection of standard focal length lenses that range from F1.2 all the way to F3.5, and depending upon the individual optical design, they all have secrets and treasures at each and every aperture and focus point. Bokeh is only one part of this complex equation.
The only focallength where a fast lens is worth it is 35mm for me (fast means 1.4-2.8 for me)
I’ve had many fast primes, and none turned out to be worth carrying in the bag for “just in case”...😅 That’s why always end up trading them for something more useful👌🏼
Why no 23F2? I also have the fujicron colldction except the 16F2.8 lol
I explain it here 😂ua-cam.com/video/gPn4JGnGXSI/v-deo.html
I'm so glad I've found your channel and see that you're into minimalism! I was obsessing over getting a Fujian 35mm f1.7 and this came out, it is really cheap, but i still question if I actually need it or it's just gonna be one innecessary lens around my room, gonna check your other videos!
Thanks a lot!🤝 Yeah, I have more vids about minimalism, hope you like them!🙏
@@SergioMusel if you want to go ultra minimalism you should try one camera one prime lens 😆
Small and slow at day, fast and heavy at night! 😀
Ahaha, maybe, maybe😁 All my nightscapes are still shot closed down on tripod😏
Great video
Thanks!
If you are an indoor sports photographer, then you need fast glass. There is only so much that can be done on ISO to achieve the needed shutter speed (1/1000-1/1600).
Well, how fast you wanna go on 200-300mm? Surely, it's impossible to go f/1.4-1.2, and even f/1.8 - that's gonna be a tough task for AF to keep up. I'm not even talking about affording something like f/2-2.8, especially full frame. So for those scenarios it's more reasonable to shoot M4/3 or APS-C. It's a tough task, if you're talking serious sports photography, so I would say you have to rely more on your skill and burst rate/buffer rather than speed of the lens.
In the micro four thirds world, f1.2 offers an equivalent depth of field as f2.4, letting the user shoot at lower ISO, faster shutter speeds, and capture more of the subject and still isolate the subject.
You don't have to shoot fast glass to "isolate the subject"
@@SergioMusel True. You can shoot close up and/or telephoto. And f1.2 at the same focal length will still allow lower ISO, faster shutter speeds and more subject separation than f1.8, 2.8 or 4. You don't need fast glass, but it has its benefits.
Great video man, thanks a lot for going against the grain and advocating for the other side of the fast lens debate! 😁
I do however want to point out that it seems not all the lenses have a sweet spot stopped down. Of course knowing the price of those lenses, Leica ones are apparently engineered so that they perform their best right from their widest apertures. Leica Akademie Australia has a webinar on their channel where you can see graphs about it, if interested, I highly recommend to check them out!
Cheers
Thanks!👌 As for the Leica lenses, I do agree that some modern ones perform with equal sharpness wide open and stopped down (that's the point of aspherical elements), not to mention that a great part of Leica glass performance is played by sensor with a thinner filter stack in Leica cameras. Nevertheless, performance is not just sharpness; we're also talking distortion, vignette, etc. And it is against all the basic physics and optics laws for the lens to perform the same in all categories at any aperture. That's not how the light works. But anyway, Leica owners are not the kind of people who are critical about the performance: they are either not concerned about it at all or just blindly believe they have the best of the best since they spent a fortune on that Summilux 😂
and that's the reason i love fujifilm. it's the "cheaper" leica
While I agree that Leica is better made, I wouldn't pay more for it than for Fuji, considering what you're getting... But Leica guys know what are they buying, camera and specs are not on the top of the list😏
you mentioned no good f2.8 primes i have to mention my 30mm f2.8 sigma art for m43 and its future companions 19mm and 60mm, tiny little prime and super sharp. completely agree though
Thank you!🙌🏼
Well put!
Thanks🙏
Wish I saw this video earlier!
im a musician but i do photography as a relaxing hobby and i wanted to take this more seriosly
but when you research gear you automaticly get pushed in in the direction of fast big heavy lenses
i just wanted to buy a tamron 22-200 2.8-5.6 lens
cause it seems like a good price performance budged lens with a good compromise for a beginner
but everyone talked me out of it and told me i should get the tamron 35-150 2.0/2.8 sure its an impressive lens but is so heavy and i did not know if
i would need it
and im still on the fence cause everyone is telling me that i cant take low light pictures with the 22-200 in the city cause everything is to dark
plz help me guys xD
I saw this video a second time (because that's how good and entertaing some of your videos are), and I had some further thoughts.
I think you give too much of the blame on camera companies, and maybe not quite enough on photographers buying the equipment. Fujifilm might be the darling of high-quality compact primes that aren't very fast these days, but back then Micro Four Thirds was more in fashion they really emphasised small glass early on. Olympus did espescially do this. They had a series of compact primes, often with metal construction and (for the time) very high optical quality. A good example is the M.Zuiko 17mm 1.8. However, they kinda went out of fashion. Consumers reaction to Sony going full frame with their mirrorless system made it clear to camera companies that small compact primes weren't that relevant, and big fast primes was where the money was. This included Sony… they launched with a relatively small and excellent Zeiss 35mm 2.8. But all the attention went to the big primes. It took many many years for other small primes to be released.
So I think consumers is partly to blame. This is part of why I have to much respect for Fujifilm, espescially with their Fujicron line-up. That was a pretty big gamble to make those. The public might have reacted as they did to earlier attempts (complaining that relative expensive high quality lenses that are not fast is pointless). It did work out however, and Fuji is pretty unique in the camera world having such a cult following for their slower lens line-up (even the 27mm 2.8 has ardent fans). I suspect the reason might Fuji having a different focus than the others, and the fact that they have a camera line (X-Pro) where a lens being small has a *very* important function considering the OVF.
Oh, and one more thing: let's be honest. The Fujicrons *are* fairly fast! F2 is kinda fast! The people who actually using slow lenses are the people using things like the XF16-80mm f4! And that's kinnda an interesting point in itself I think: if you go for just fast instead of stupid fast lenses… primes can be really small!
I'm hoping we see more brands make smaller not-crazy-fast- primes. In the Sony system I've seen Samyang make som really small ones, and even Sony themselves have recently started making a line of not-crazy-fast-yet-kinda-small primes. Taking photos with setups like that is so freeing compared to lodging around big honking lenses.
Agreed, it almost became a chicken/egg dilemma... But it is what it is
fuji x body's are proper right? those are aps-c. you really neeeed better body's then those fuji x's?
You are missing the point of fast glass. Fast lenses are not just about bokeh; they are about getting decent shots in low light. Sometimes the best light comes in small quantities, and an extra stop is everything.
Well, I never said nobody needs fast glass😅 I'm just saying it's overrated; and again, I talk about other things that can get you fav low light shots😉 And lastly, I'm still sure average photographer doesn't do as many low light shots
You can always increase ISO these days with most cameras and you will not notice much ‘noise’. I think this video is mainly aimed at enthusiasts who are bamboozled by advertising and UA-cam into buying gear they really don’t need. A most useful and relevant video for our times when we need to be saving our money.
I see x-pro3 on your 'camera shelf'. You decided not to use it for a video recording?
The one on the shelf is X100, X-Pro3 is the only camera I own that shoots decent video🥲
I shoot at f8 a lot. No need for an f1.2. way too heavy.
Exactly. I'm also an f/8 shooter🤜🤛
@@SergioMusel live by "f8 and be there!"
Heresy!! I need the fastest lens possible! f0.4!!!
🤣🤣🤣
This is awesome. And hilarious because it’s true.
Thanks a lot, glad you liked it👏
haha -- facts all throughout this video 💯
I disagree that only a pro photographer's opinion matters. I'm certain that the world's greatest artists will never be known, and their work sits in a room or in a landfill somewhere. Professionals are good at monetizing their work.
Additionally, if someone already have a full time job earning an amazing income, it would be silly to become a pro photographer. Pro photographer's greatest advice is how to successfully market and sell work, not how to take photos.
It is really easy to say that someone is an artist. You and I can be that. Artists do not necessarily know what they're doing with gear. Something that works for them doesn't have to be the standard. You didn't quite get the idea of a pro-photographer I'm talking about, I never said a professional is the one who is famous or knows how to monetize him/herself. If we're talking specifically gear advises, it's all about a vast background and experience in photography. That is why only their opinion matters. It just so happens that people who are doing it for 20+ years are rare and highly payed, because most others "already have a full time job earning an amazing income" =)
@@SergioMusel My point is that you're making generalizations and stating absolutes that aren't true. Yes, it is smart to add more weight to a pro's opinion on the assumption that they likely have good experience. But that doesn't mean that many non-pros don't have as much or more experience. And many non-pros know how to use the gear better and produce better works. Being pro does not mean being correct. To only value the opinion of a pro means you'll be losing insight from the vast majority of photographers. It's also gatekeeping photography, which there is already enough of as it is.
Professional only means that the artist was able to monetize the work, nothing more. A pro can take awful photos and not know how to use their gear, but if they can market and sell their photos, then they are pro by definition.
Go Google Vivian Maier. She is considered one of the greatest photographers of the 20th century, and she was not pro. Her work wasn't discovered until after her death.
Van Gogh was the same. He was only able to sell one painting while he was alive. He was not a pro. I hope we can agree that saying Van Gogh's opinion doesn't matter is silly. He was penniless and had to produce good work with subpar gear.
Would I ask Van Gogh how to be a pro (ie, make money off his work)? No, absolutely not. But I don't care about that, I care about producing great works.
You're putting emphasis on labels. Being a pro doesn't make you talented, and not being a pro doesn't mean you don't know what you're doing. I know pros that only know how to use their gear in their tiny niche.
Hope that makes sense. Also I enjoy your content, so please know my comments come from a place of respect and admiration.
@@jmctavishiii You can define pro differently, that is why I made sure to say what is a definition of a pro photographer to me personally. So according to my definition (!), a pro cannot be a person that "not know how to use their gear", and it is very important how you define it. Because so many youtubers refer to themselves as pro photographers and push the idea of a fast glass and label it as pro lenses. That is what the video is about. I think I made it clear that to me making money does not make you a pro.
Again, when we're talking gear(!), people who spent their life shooting and processing film by themselves, and then went through the whole era of DSLRs and now shoot mirrorless, these people know a bit more than a person that picked up Sony just 5 years ago, right? We're not talking artistry here, that is subjective.
Vivian Maier and other photographers of the post-war era that marked the beginning of photography boom, might not be the best example. There are DOZENS of people who do similar photographs nowadays, but so what? What matters is the time and place. Perhaps Ansel Adams will be of a much better example. He did't just document his time and make pretty pictures, he actually contributed to and influenced photography A LOT. There's a difference between a pro and a non-pro. Vivian Maier was a non-pro artist, yes, whose photography undoubtedly has value, but if I am to get an advice on processing or shooting film, I would rather ask Ansel than Vivien, you know what I mean? Artistry level has little to do with gear proficiency, and, as you've said, vice versa too. You don't need to know much to do art, it relies on something else. So asking an artist about lenses consideration - they might use the best ones, or the worst ones, that doesn't help you, right?
To sum up, my message is that it is better to listen less to "youtube pros" and people who watch them, and learn more from people who actually know what they're doing. I think both of us will agree on that 👌😅
.. master your camera settings... Never a truer word spoken.
Thanks 🙌
I literally made a video on the 50 f1.2 and I don’t think people liked it. I said there’s not really a really to buy it and I think the people who own it got mad 😂
I had a non-APD version for a while, but couldn't really make good use of 1.2...🥲Sold it to get 16-80 f4😊
@@SergioMusel I got such a good deal on it I just kept it, but I’m really considering selling it for something I’ll use more frequently 😁
Same here👍
You're just not open minded enough to understand the cosmic importance of wide aperture. Only great minds can grasp the essence of sub 0 f.
@@REMY.C. sure thing😂
Sub! ❤ very honest and Real! Real Talk Men Real Talk!
Thanks🤜🤛
Come on, if you have the money just buy it, why suffer?
Ahah, well, also right😂 I would buy the xf 50mm f/1 from the thumbnail just to have it on my shelf, such a marvel of a lens
Subscribed now
Welcome aboard 🤜🤛
Too many truth bombs in one vid!! 🤯🤯🤯hahaha. I agree!! Love your sense of humour keep up the great work!!! next video - why you need super fast bokeh licious glass ASAP!!!!! click my affiliates...
BAM, BAM , BAM!.. Ahaha😂 Thanks, I think this vid will pull the scales back towards common sense👌
So... where we start? ))) THERE IS a company, besides Leica, who went a road of affordable (not cheap!) high quality 1.8 lenses -- it's called Nikon. Ah, yes. Also -- Fuji. Ah sorry, also Tamron SP (35, 45, 85 1.8) are pro quality affordable super duper sharp great 1.8 lenses. So, it's not that this is something non existing. There is another freaking company, which products I had to use, called Canon. Those farts make great (really. G.R.E.A.T.) 1.2 lenses. Like there RF 85 1.2 is MAYBE the best portrait lens ever. Or second best, after GF 110. And there 1.8 lenses are... not really a crap but... ok. Crap they are. Not for me. Being said -- I see little real need to use 1.2 lenses. I am happy with amount of blur mine 24-70 2.8 makes, so I am totally fine with 2.8 on a small format. Just remember, some time ago(not far away) 2.8 was considered as a fast lens, so I think it still valid to be seen like that. I have 2 systems and 9 lenses, the fastest of them is GF 110 2.0. All the rest are 2.8/4.0. And I am fine with that. I will, probably, add RF 50 1.2 -- not because I need 1.2, but because freaking Canon do not make other good native 50 lens and I am a big fan of 50mm...
Really feel for your Canon pain😔 I lost my virginity to Canon, basically🤣 , but soon after learning more about lenses and finding out APS-C is not the way to get anything good really left a mark on my heart...💔
@@SergioMusel so yes, they force you to buy 2500 Euro 1.2 lens, cause there is no real alternative. A way they do. Fuji, for sure, makes this choose more real -- both 1.4 and 2.0 lenses are great. I had Fuji 23 1.4 and it was one of the best lenses I have seen from image quality department, but same I can say about Fuji 35 2.0. 23 2.0 is not in the same league.
@@slavakhudyakov3807 Know about 23 f2😅 That's why to try this focal length I bought X100😁
They're not always more expensive... I have a 35mm 1.4 for 600 euros new. Saying aperture doesnt matter anymore is kinda bullshit. Yes ISO is improving but the difference between shooting at 1.4 with a prime in the dark or shooting my f4 zoom is insane. It can literally be the difference between having to use 6400 iso or 51200...
It’s just a rookie approach to solve your problems using gear
i found it somehow disappointing. there were not really arguments against fast glass but just your opinion - and your opinion is totally ok, of course. on the other hand, it's evident that you cannot replace fast glass with anything. that's just physics. in a commercial setting you will have to pay that extra money to achieve certain effects. that's just how commercial photography works. if this is justified is up to your customers to decide. if you can convince your customers of your point of view then, of course go for it. when it comes to artistic photography (or amateur photography) you're completely free to define your very own estethics. but in the end it just does not matter. if you love fast glass keep loving it. if you think you can do better with slower glass do your thing and feel good about it.
Whatever rocks your boat pal. This video is in OPINIONS playlist anyway😅 I think not just me, but many others "can do better with slower glass... and feel good about it." That's why I made the video in the first place, supporting it with not just opinions of myself, but hard facts as well... Because internet is filled with ideas like yours that fast glass is irreplaceable and pros need it🙂
Although I agree 100% with you, there are no sample photos in the video. e.g. ua-cam.com/video/04InY8cyuEY/v-deo.html
how u sound asian
years of practice
Fast lenses are still desirable, regardless you shoot with M43, APSC, FF, medium format, bla bla bla...
Well, there are some cases where fast lens is desirable, e.g tight shoulder to head portrait.
For example, Google "julia roberts gregory heisler". The shot was taken on 110 f/2 lens (medium format) wide open. Bokeh? You got it. I think this is overall a nice, well thought composition, not just bokeh for the sake of bokeh itself.
That said, in the book you'll find more environmental portraits, which means smaller apperture like f/11 or f/16 was used. Oh the book title is "Gregory Hesiler's 50 Portraits".