What is a Fast Lens?A Post By: Darren Rowse

‘I keep hearing about ‘fast’ lenses and how great

they are, but I’m not sure what they are and

why I need one. Is it something to do with how

fast its shutter speed can go or how fast it

focuses? Can you shed some light on it?’

Theresa

The speed of a lens and how ‘fast’ it is refers to

the maximum aperture of the lens. The larger

the maximum aperture the faster the lens

is.

When a lens is talked about it generally is described with its focal length (for

Tips & Tutorials Cameras & Equipment

Post Production Resources About Us

Search

example it could e a 50mm lens or a 300mm lens) as well as its maximum

aperture (usually it will be a number with an ‘f’ in front of it – for example

f/1.8 or f/4 or f/5.6). The smaller the number is the bigger the maximum

aperture is.

Remember that aperture is the size of the hole in the lens that lets light in

when you hit the shutter. So the bigger the maximum aperture – the more

light that your lens will allow in.

The reason that a lens with a big maximum aperture is referred to as fast is

that it lets more light in and therefore you can use faster shutter speeds even

when there might not be much light around.

Why would you want a fast lens?

Fast lenses can be advantageous over slower ones in certain shooting

conditions and types of photography. They really come into their own where

there is either low light (for example if you need to shoot indoors but can’t

use a flash) or where you need to use a fast shutter speed (for example in

sports or even wildlife photography). They are especially useful when you

need both a fast shutter speed in low light (ie indoor sports).

In general – a fast lens is any lens with a maximum aperture of f/4 or more (ie

f/2.8, f/1.8, f/1.4 etc). The lens pictured above is a Canon 50mm f/1.2 lens

very fast but also quite expensive.

Keep in mind also that because you’re using larger apertures that this has an

impact upon the depth of field that you get in your shots. Larger apertures

lead to shallower depth of field which can be a great thing if you’re wanting to

make your subject really stand out from its background (more on this in our

introduction to aperture tutorial).

Fast lenses can be really useful to have but unfortunately they can also be

quite expensive to buy. However if you’d like a more economical fast lens you

might like to check out 50mm lenses. For example both Nikon and Canon

have some lovely fast lenses in this focal length.

Here are a few:

Canon

Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 L USM Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras

Canon EF 50mm f1.4 USM Medium Telephoto Lens for Canon SLR Cameras

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Camera Lens

If you enjoyed this article, you might also like...

FEATURED IN CAMERAS &EQUIPMENT

MOST RECENT

How to Use UprightGuided Tools in ...6 hours ago

How to Use Your On-Camera Speedlightto ...

Nikon

Nikon 50mm f/1.2 Nikkor AI-S Manual Focus Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras

Nikon 50mm f/1.4D AF Nikkor Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras

Nikon 50mm f/1.8D AF Nikkor Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras

0

Shares

55

Share

...

Share

...

Share

...

Pin it

...

Share

...

Other

Read more from our Cameras & Equipment category

Darren Rowse is the editor and founder of Digital Photography

School and SnapnDeals. He lives in Melbourne Australia and is also

the editor of the ProBlogger Blog Tips. Follow him on Instagram

on Twitter at @digitalPS or on Google+.

11 hours ago

5 Tips for GettingStarted with Wildlife ...1 day ago

Stylized Techniques forEditing Portraits UsingLightroom1 day ago

Some Older Comments

Manmohan Sreedhar April 6, 2013 05:58 am

Hi,

I have a different reason for why a lens is called a 'fast' lens. It may not

be necessarily because a lens with a maximum aperture allows the use

of faster shutter speeds in poor light. An f/1.2 setting is going to be of

practically no use in most circumstances due to the extremly shallow

depth of field. So these 'faster' mens do not really give the advantage of

shootingin poor light that it is credited for.

I belive the phase detection autofocus is faster when the lighting is good.

All SLRs always have the aperture wide open during focusing and

automatically stops down to the set aperture value only when you

release the shutter. So a lens with a larger aperture allows you to focus

faster in low light and this perhaps justifued calling them a fast lens

more than the possibiluty using a faster shutter spped.

I am not sure I am correct. This is justmy thought.

alex mills February 28, 2013 08:42 am

Hi

I hope somebody may be able to advice. I need to buy a new lens for

concert photography and portraits

I can't afford a fast lens with a f/2.8 but I need a zoom lens for the

situations when I can't get near the stage

in dark lighting would these lenses manage ? got a Canon

Tamron AF 18-200mm F/3.5 or 55-200mm ? 135mm ?

George Slusher December 7, 2012 08:26 pm

@john r: The reason you read more about the Canon and Nikon lenses is

that either of those brands outsells all others combined, excluding the

other. (Canon is the largest seller.)

it sounds like your lenses are pretty slow--the kit lens and a slow (high

aperture or f-number) zoom. They won't be much good for birds in flight

unless you are very, very good at tracking, as the bird's motion will lead

to blurring.

Even with a faster lens (and thus faster shutter speeds), it takes a LOT of

practice to do shots of birds in flight. You have to be able to find them

quickly and anticipate where they're going. Start with soaring birds,

which move fairly slowly and stay either in straight lines or gradual

circles. It also helps to be fairly close to the birds and to shoot larger

birds--pelicans are fine! Shooting smaller birds and/or further away will

require longer focal lengths, which makes tracking even harder. Serious

bird photographers might use a 500mm lens, but mounted on a tripod

with a gimbal head for tracking. I used to use a Canon 100-400mm lens

but now a Sigam 120-400mm lens for birds. Neither is lightweight;

they're just barely useable handheld.

A trick: keep your zoom at the WIDE end (75mm). That will make it a lot

easier to find a bird in flight. Once you're tracking the bird, zoom in to

get the framing you want. Also, exposure against the sky will probably

make the bird look dark, so use exposure compensation as you would

for backlighting (about +2 stops). A bird on the ground shouldn't need

this, unless it's on a sandy beach. A bird on water could probably use

some exposure compensation--experiment to see.

John R December 7, 2012 02:02 am

I see a lot of talk about cannon and Nikon. I have been very happy with

my NEX 3. I have what I think are some awsome photos. I'm still learning

a lot. I have 16mm, 18-55 mm and a 75-200 mm lenses. I just got my

wide angle to try. I'm mostly into nature photos so far. Usually involving

water at sunset or sunrise. At this time I'm only out to please me.

I've heard others say the NEX 3 is good for walking around. It is hard to

catch birds in flight though. The pelicans have to stand still.

shaheen December 14, 2011 06:58 pm

hi larry. your comment seems to be incomplete.

Larry Miller December 14, 2011 08:53

am

What Shaheen said....

shaheen September 9, 2010 05:36 pm

Hi Sherry,

Whether you buy a Canon, Nikon, Tamron, Sigma or any other brand

lens, make sure that it is at-least a f/1.8 50mm, or a f/1.4 50mm or a

f/1.2 50mm lens. If the lens offers image stabilization, the better. the

f/1.2 50mm is the fastest lens and the f/1.4 50mm is the second fastest

and will allow blur-free hand held photography in as low light conditions

as found in a room lit by a single candle! whereas the a f/1.8 50mm lens,

will require a slightly more lit conditions. a 50 mm lens is perfect for

urban and street scenes shooting as well as a perfect portrait lens. it will

offer a lot of versatility. :-)

Sherry September 3, 2010 01:00 pm

Does anyone have an advice for the type of lens needed for low-light,

urban shooting, i.e. street scenes, neon, etc?

Rowland April 25, 2010 07:21 am

A little tardy replying, and I didn't mean to start a flame war over lenses.

I did eventually join an astronomy forum and quote "astrophotography

is a slippery slope of escalating costs." Some beautiful shots taken by

one of the members with an L-Series Canon lens - but the camera was

modified - removal of the factory IR filter - and the use of Hydrogen

alpha and Oxygen III filters. I was hoping to avoid the costs, but that's

just not possible.

After weeks of research, and this may be of interest, there are several

ways to artificially improve images taken in high contrast. A Minus Violet

filter for camera lenses and the "Fringe Killer" filter for achromatic

refractor telescopes, or just get a purpose built telescope.

I have since ordered an 80mm apochromatic refractor - f/6.3, FL 480mm,

Hoya glass FPL-51 flourite triplet, with very good focus in the RGB

wavelengths to eliminate fringe colour. The other option was to buy a

Canon L-Series lens for around 750, but I went with the refractor - its

sole purpose is to focus stars at infinity.

I also purchased a OIII filter for eliminating sodium and mercury

wavelengths - street lighting - and increasing contrast when

photographing nebula, and a field flattener to have nice circular stars

throughout the FOV and a T-ring adapter and ..... you get the picture - so

maybe the Leica lens was not such a bad idea after all!

The next purchase will be a good equatorial mount for precision

tracking, the Leica lens is looking even better - this will be a huge

improvement on my home made barn door tracker.

Many thanks for your advice.

george slusher April 7, 2010 08:50 am

Rowland;

Chromatic aberration is often a problem with high contrast subjects.

(They don't get much more contrasty than pure black to pure white in a

pixel or two.) Chromatic aberration is even more of a problem if the lens

is not precisely focussed. (You cannot just set the lens to "infinity" and

expect it to be in focus for starry skies. Different lenses will behave

differently; some can be set to BEYOND infinity, for example.)

You really need to find a good astrophotography forum and ask there.

You would probably do best with a real telescope and an adapter to

mount the camera. Astrophotography is much more complex than this

site would even dream of.

From a pure optics standpoint, I expect that the best Canon lens for you

might be the 85mm f/1.2L. Unfortunately, it's also expensive and heavy--

$1970 at B&H and 2.25 lb. You can read reviews of the lens by Ken

Rockwell and Bryan Carnathan for more information. Do check on

astrophotography forums, though.

The Canon 50mm f/1.2L is probably not as good for your use as the

85mm f/1.2L, though you should think about both.

You'll also need a rock-solid tripod. Carbon fiber is better than aluminum

at absorbing vibration and is lighter, but you should care more about

stability than weight. I have a Feisol FT3372 that is quite stable but isn't

all that heavy (under 4 lbs) and "only" $500. (If you check out comparable

Gitzo tripods, you'll see why I said only. The Feisol is, IMO, better-made

than Gitzo tripods and costs a lot less.) Mine has 3 leg sections, rather

than 4, for more stability (and a bit less weight) and does NOT have a

center column, again for better stability and less weight. (You can get a

column, but the tripod goes to almost 5 ft. With a ballhead, it's more

than tall enough for me at 5'9".) Check out other tripods, including

aluminum and other metals.

You'll also want to hang a weight (e.g., your camera bag) on the tripod's

hook.

Be sure to put a very good head on the tripod. A geared head like the

Manfrotto 405 would probably be easiest to adjust precisely. Next down

might be a 3-way head (each axis has a separate control and lock) like

the Manfrotto 229. A very good ballhead would be more versatile, if you

do other kinds of photography, but could be harder to line up precisely.

You'd want a top-rated ballhead, not some cheap thing. The Really Right

Stuff BH-55 or maybe their BH-40, Markins M-20 (or maybe M-10, the

one I have), and similar heads could be worth checking out.

Sime April 7, 2010 05:29 am

Sure, but it's just not even worth mentioning really... Have you ever tried

focussing at f/.95 or even 1.2 / 1.4 much fun :-) -- if someone needs to

ask "what is a fast lens" they're not going to be in the Market for a

Noctilux, are they... 15k for a lens when you don't know what aperture is

could be a bit over kill perhaps... ;-)

shaheen April 7, 2010 05:14 am

my friend, don't look at "LEICA", look at "f/0.95" printed on the lens. I

hope then you realize that how fast the lens is.

To quote from

"http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08091505leica_50mm_f0_95.asp",

it is the world's fastest aspherical lens. The wide maximum aperture

gives extremely shallow depth of field and very low light capability. The

wide maximum aperture gives extremely shallow depth of field and very

low light capability. Hand assembled in Solms Germany, this lens is

designed to retain its value and usability for decades.

Sime April 6, 2010 10:22 pm

Having "LEICA" printed on it doesn't make it "The Best" it just makes it

very expensive... ;-)

shaheen April 6, 2010 09:48 pm

Well I did not mention it because i did not realize that dollars would be a

problem here. You asked for a really good fast lens and this is what I

knew about so informed you. Best things in life ain't cheap buddy :-) rest

is upto you.

Sime April 6, 2010 05:52 am

Yeah, Shaheen - you missed "and costs $10,450 USD" from the end of

your comment ;-)

shaheen April 6, 2010 05:27 am

Hi Rowland, if you are looking for a fast lens then look no further than

the LEICA NOCTILUX-M 50 mm f/0.95 ASPH. When used in available light

photography, the lens exceeds the perception of the human eye. Even

the light from one candle can be sufficient for handheld photography.

http://en.leica-camera.com/photography/m_system/lenses/5915.html

Hope this solves your problem.

Rowland April 5, 2010 09:07 am

I'm looking for a fast lens for astrophotography. It doesn't need to be

telephoto, but it does need to have excellent internal characteristics; i.e.,

as little ghosting and chromatic aberration as possible. At the moment

I'm using a standard canon 18-55, and a cheap 55mm - 250mm

telephoto on a 1000D. I love the low noise characteristics of the CMOS,

but the lens lets me down every time. I have been told that a prime lens -

fixed focal length - would be preferable for my task. Depth of field is not

important, because a starry sky is at infinity.

I use bulb for exposures of up to 10 mins - the fasest arpeture is f4 - f5.6

depending on the lens.

This image is noisy because of colour adjustment without a dark frame -

chromatic aberration is apparent - focus is also difficult with these cheap

lenses.

[eimg url='http://www.synergous.com/wp-

content/uploads/2009/10/EtaCarinae2.jpeg' title='EtaCarinae2.jpeg']

This image of Jupiter and its moons highlights the ghosting problem.

[eimg url=' http://www.synergous.com/wp-

content/uploads/2009/10/JupiterMoonsTreeTops2.jpeg'

title='JupiterMoonsTreeTops2.jpeg']

In short I'm looking a lens that will provide a clean crisp image.

vilas October 25, 2009 09:48 pm

we talk about the speed of the film e.g. 100asa, 200asa, 400asa and so

on. as the number increases, the film is called faster. similarly in case of

lenses, I suppose, more light passes through the lense, that lens

becomes faster. Am I correct? If not please correct me. Thanks!

George Slusher July 3, 2009 06:58 am

The "other George" makes a good point. Autofocus can be difficult with

fast lenses, though I have no problem choosing where the lens focuses

on my Canon 30D. I can choose any of 9 focus points. I can also let the

camera do the job, but, as George says, that can mean that the camera

focuses on something other than the main subject. It may pick up the

most contrast, or the closest point, etc. The most current Canon

autofocus systems have "face detection," but they can sometimes

"detect" something that's not a face. (My Canon G9 has this and usually

works well with groups of people.)

The problem of manual focus with very fast lenses is real and can be a

major pain. Some DSLRs with interchangeable focus screens have a

special screen for fast lenses. That would be a great idea for wedding

photographers, for example, probably one of the primary groups who

use very fast lenses like the Canon 50mm f/1.2 and 85mm f/1.2.

What is "very fast" also depends upon the focal length. Short focal length

lenses can be "faster" than longer lenses because of size limitations--not

to mention cost! The fastest long telephoto for Canon cameras today is

the Canon 200mm f/2L IS. It weighs 5.6 lb and costs $5,300. (In contrast,

the 35mm f/2 lens weighs 0.46 lb and costs $300.) Go beyond 200mm

and the fastest lens for Canon DSLRs is f/2.8 (300mm & 400mm), then

f/4 (500mm & 600mm), then f/5.6 (800mm). Even with "slower"

apertures, supertelephoto lenses are huge and incredibly expensive.

300mm f/2.8L IS: 6 lb, $4,100

400mm f/2.8L IS: 11.7 lb, $6,800 (the favorite lens for many sports

photographers)

500mm f/4L IS: 8.53 lb, $5,300 (probably the #1 favorite lens for pro bird

& wildlife photographers)

600mm f/4L IS: 11.8 lb, $7,600

800mm f/5.6L IS: 9.9 lb, $10,999

One has to wonder if the 400mm & 600mm lenses come with their own

forklifts. They make my "behemoth" zooms--70-200mm f/2.8L IS @ 3.5 lb

with collar, 3.2 lb without and 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS @ 3 lb--seem

dinky. Those zooms are at about the upper limit for handholding, even

with IS. Anything heavier should be used on a tripod or monopod.

Pointing my 100-400mm up to try to catch birds in flight (e.g., soaring

hawks) shows me that I need to hit the gym! Even worse would be the

Sigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3 at 4.1 lbs (no wonder it's called "Bigma"), which

doesn't have image stabilization.

George E. Norkus July 3, 2009 05:03 am

My turn for an error. Here is the link to the photo of my mother.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/87659272@N00/3517519696/

George E. Norkus July 3, 2009 05:01 am

So far no one has mentioned that many really fast lenses are not for

beginners and "faint at heart". It doesn't matter what brand camera you

have they all work the same.

Many of the fast lenses used in portrait work, are manual or set to

manual focus. Automatic focusing lens are nice and seemingly easy to

use but think about what really is going on. You might find the camera

focusing on another portion of the subject. The end result could be that

your camera chose another main subject and that may not be your initial

intentions.

For example, the Pentax SMC-A, 50mm f/1.2 that I used on my Pentax

K20D. It’s not the easiest to use properly at the “faster end”. Should you

desire allot of boken, (shallow depth of field), to bring out a subject, that

also means you will need to be very exact when you focus. That can be

difficult for many people, especially for the older foke out there with

aging eyesight! (I’m included in that bunch! LoL)

One example is a photo of my mother.

In this picture, notice how shallow the depth of field really. This was a

quickly taken shot that I thought was properly focused. Many portrait

photos will have the eyes in focus, my original intention. The end result

here was great looking teeth and nose but not the eyes. I’m lucky this

was not a paying customer but if it was, I would have had more time to

properly set things up. It’s not often I get to take her photo so I’ll have to

live it.

Remember the difficulty focusing before running out to purchase a really

fast lens for big bucks. Leave that to the advanced amatures and

professional.

George Slusher February 1, 2009 11:39 pm

OOPS! I can't edit the above, but I made an error in the boldface. The

first boldface lens (the ones that I have) should be the 70-200mm f/4 L. I

wish that I had the others before that, but, alas, do not.

George Slusher February 1, 2009 11:36 pm

Re: Mike Lao, "Canon 17-40 f4 L" Most people wouldn't consider an f/4

lens in that range to be "fast." The "fast" Canon lenses in that range are

the 16-35mm f/2.8 L II and the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS (useable only on

the 20D/30D/40D/50D and the Digital Rebel series). In the "L" series,

Canon has two 'families," f/4 and f/2.8. The numbers in brackets are the

prices at B&H. (Lenses in bold,/b> I have.)

16-35mm f/2.8 L II [$1450]

24-70mm f/2.8 L [$1190]

70-200mm f/2.8 L (IS and non-IS) [$1699 & $1190]

and

17-40mm f/4 L [$700]

24-105mm f/4 L IS (the "kit" lens for the 5D, for example) [$1059]

70-200mm f/4 L (IS and non-IS) [$1100 & $600]

(The 70-200mm f/4 L IS has been called the "best zoom lens, anywhere"

by several reviewers, including some who mostly use Nikon equipment.)

Canon has two other L zooms, with wider ranges and non-constant

maximum apertures, but these are harldy "fast" lenses.

28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 L IS [$2300]

100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS [$1460]

The other "fast" lenses (f/2.8 or larger) by Canon are all primes:

14mm f/2.8 L II [$2020]

15mm f/2.8 Fisheye [$610]

20mm f/2.8 [$445]

24mm f/1.4 L [$1170]

24mm f/1.4 L II [$1699]

24mm f/2.8 [$305]

28mm f/1.8 [$420]

28mm f/2.8 [$180]

35mm f/1.4 L [$1180]

35mm f/2 [$240]

50mm f/1.2 L [$1400]

50mm f/1.4 [$325]

50mm f/1.8 [$90]

50mm f/2.5 Macro [$250]

85mm f/1.2 L [$1870]

85mm f/1.8 [$355]

100mm f/2 [$410]

100mm f/2.8 Macro [$470]

135mm f/2 L [$935]

135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus (actually quite sharp!) [$295]

200mm f/2 L IS [$5300 !]

200mm f/2.8 L [$695]

300mm f/2.8 L IS [$4100]

400mm f/2.8 L IS [$6500]

(N.B.: At 300mm +, many would consider f/4 lenses to be "fast.")

Let's make some comparisons to show the penalties for "ultra-fast"

lenses. The first number is the price at B&H, the second is the weight,

the third is the filter size, which translates into cost, as well:

50mm f/1.2 L $1400 19.2 oz 72mm

50mm f/1.4 $325 10.2 oz 58mm

50mm f/1.8 $90 4.6 oz 52mm

F/1.2 and f/1.8 are a little bit more than 1 stop apart. That stop will really

cost you: 15+ times the price, 4+ times the weight, plus more expensive

filters.

The 50mm comparison is probably the "worst," but other one-stop

differences are also instructive. (I didn't compare IS or Macro lenses to

non-IS):

35mm f/1.4 L $1180 20.5 oz 72mm

35mm f/2 $240 7.4 oz 52mm

85mm f/1.2 L II $1870 36.8 oz 72mm

85mm f/1.8 $355 14.9 oz 58mm

70-200mm f/2.8 L $1190 45 oz 77mm

70-200mm f/4 L $600 25 oz 67mm

and the real shocker:

300mm f/2.8 L IS $4100 5.6 lb rear filter

300mm f/4 L IS $1059 2.6 lb 77mm

So, if you want really fast lenses, be prepared for a major hit on your

wallet and sore arms, to boot.

shaheen January 25, 2009 04:52 am

Hi, can anyone tell me that what does "gain an effective 2-3 f stops"

really means?

eB Photography January 20, 2009 01:38 am

For indoor & low light candids I love the 50mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.8

combo. Once you've shot around with fixed focal length lenses you get

pretty familiar with the working distance and framing. The sharpness

and bokeh, if not just being able to shoot in lower light without a flash,

might just get you hooked.

For wedding & event coverage I find myself in some dim interiors so I

pack up the Nikon glass in these arrangements:

f/1.4 - 50mm

f/1.8 - 85mm

f/2.8 - 10.5mm,17-55mm, 70-200mm

Eric July 19, 2007 04:31 am

I just bought a 20mm f1.8 Sigma lens for my Canon 20D, I already knew

this but Ill say it anyway, I shoot mostly nightlife photography, and with a

3.5-5.6 (zoom) you would probably need to bump your ISO setting to at

least 400-800, or in extreme cases 1600, just to get a shot.

1.8 does a good job of bluring out the background, while letting an

extensive ammount of light in, so you can shoot at a faster shutter

speed, and acheive the same level of brightness, etc, as you would on a

3.5 or 5.6 F. Plus its sharper too because theres less blur, and less grain.

-Hope that helps someone out there.

-Eric

Dave New May 30, 2007 06:20 am

I have a triumphirate of Canon f/1.8 lenses for use on my 1.6x crop-

factor Canon 20D:

28mm f/1.8 (45mm equivalent, or 'normal' view)

50mm f/1.8 (80mm equivalent, or 'portrait' view)

85mm f/1.8 (136mm equivalent, also useful for portrait work)

These are all useful for available light work, and of course, for those

situations where you want a shallow depth of field, but I also find them

useful for flash work, as well.

Consider that you gain an effective 2-3 stops of flash range over the

more typical zoom lenses. This equates to stretching your flash range

out quite a bit, as well as helping to avoid that 'dark cave' look where the

background brightness falls off sharply. Coupled with the Canon DSLR's

ability to take practically noise-free shots at ISO 400, 800, or even 1600

with some of the latest bodies, you have a really flexible setup for

natural light or flash situations.

Try shooting in Manual mode, or at least Av (Aperture preferred) and

experiment with the camera and flash settings to see how you can

balance the background room light with the lighted foreground subject.

When you want to understand exactly how the Canon EOS flash system

interacts with your flash and camera settings, check out:

http://photonotes.org/articles/eos-flash/

Simeâ„¢ May 3, 2007 06:58 am

I use my Canon f1.4 50mm on the 30D pretty much all the time.. lovely

lens, good fun DOF... Thanks, Steve for the point on the weight of the

400mm... i'm really wanting the 100mm-400mm.. will go rent one for a

shoot and see how my bicep is afterwards!

Sime.

Andy Ferra April 26, 2007 03:56 am

Personally, I think 'fast' is a misnomer.

It's a 'bright' lens.

Stanley April 22, 2007 04:04 pm

Wire, the Pentax shooter,

Start at the B&H site, look at the fast ones, then go to the used part of

the B&H site. Check KEH, and your local pro store's site. Look for a while

before you leap.

I do not shoot Pentax, but this is what I do. Research, and research some

more.

deeleea April 21, 2007 10:07 pm

I recently hired a fast telephoto for my Nikon D100 as I was shooting an

indoor conference with a lot of action going on. I already own a 50mm

f1:4 which is awesome but requires me to be a lot closer than I need to

with the tele.

I don't know how I'm going to manage without the tele now... or how I

ever managed to do it before with my old lenses... It made a massive

difference.

I'm shooting a lot of events so the hire place will be seeing a bit more of

me until I've enough dosh to get a fast tele of my own...

bailey April 20, 2007 10:50 pm

I have loved photography for a long and have just recently gotten a little

more serious with it, I think I have a good eye but I am still have a hard

time when it comes to all these different lenses, I have a Canon Rebel

Rebel XTi with the Canon 17-85MM I do a lot of sport photos (my son

races motorcycles) and I would really like a little better lens for this, but I

also like to take nature photos and want to get into some portrait

photography as well.

Are there any good informative sites, etc to find more info on just lens?

Phil April 20, 2007 01:14 am

I just got the Sony/Minolta (Sonolta? Minony?) 50mm f/1.4 prime lens for

my (also new) Sony Alpha 100 (replacing a KM Maxxum 5D). Check back

in a week or two...

Maclean Patrick April 19, 2007 01:26 pm

I own a Canon 50mm f/1.8 and it's my primary lens. This lens almost

never leaves my Canon 10D. It's an all rounder and worth every penny I

invested. I prefer natural lighting over using flash so a fast lens does the

trick. With it's ability to handle DOF, it's really good for potraits, wildlife

and sports photography.

Wire April 19, 2007 07:59 am

I'm lookig for a big aperture, not very expensive, but useful.

Steve April 19, 2007 12:39 am

I highly recommend renting an expensive lens before you buy. I was

seriously considering an investment in the Canon 2.8 400mm and

decided to rent it for a week to try it out. That's a huge chunk of change,

and I was glad I rented it first.

I took it out for a day-hike in the woods for wildlife photography and

found it to be a beautiful lens. The downside (and what changed my

mind about buying it) is that the thing weighs a ton. My arm is still sore.

So by renting it first I saved some money. Maybe one day I'll decide to

buy it after all, but not now.

I'll plug the place I rented it from because they had great service:

http://www.lensrentals.com/

ty April 19, 2007 12:31 am

For those looking for a fast Canon lens that wont break your wallet, I

must recommend the Canon prime 35mm f/2 wide lens. Its under 300$

at most places (I found it for about 250$ on Amazon) and it has been

nothing but excellent. It takes super sharp images and with a f/2 max

aperture I get some really nice DOF and nice looking bokeh. I am pretty

new to photography but this lens has caused me to stick the kit lens in

storage and keep this one on my cam at all times.

clarkee April 19, 2007 12:26 am

i treated my self to the Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 L USM Lens for my 5D a

few weeks ago and its hardly been off the body.

its a great lens to use, and gives fantastic results.

it is an expensive addition to my kit, but well worth the money in my

oppinion.

Matthew Miller April 19, 2007 12:20 am

Wire -- there's lots of great fast lenses for Pentax, and generally of very

high quality. What are you looking for?

Greg Furry April 18, 2007 11:01 pm

If you haven't got a fast lens and shoot indoors or in low light situations

go get a lens now. You will be amazed at the difference. If you want to

dip your toe into the water and have a Nikon camera check out the

Nikkor 50mm f/1.8. You can find them for just over $100 brand new.

Nikkor 50mm f/1.8

Nikkor 85mm f/1.4

Fraser April 18, 2007 08:46 pm

'very fast but also quite expensive'

how about:

very fast but also 'very' expensive . . .

Wire April 18, 2007 02:12 pm

Can you tell me some lenses for Pentax?

Brian Auer April 18, 2007 12:19 pm

Like Puplet said, older fast lenses are plentiful if you look in the right

places. I've got my eye on a few f/1.4's on eBay that might go for around

$50. Once you hit the 1.2 mark, expect to pay the big bucks -- no matter

how old the lens is.

Daniel April 18, 2007 11:23 am

I've always thought the term "fast lens" to be quite a misnomer. I think

this post does a lot to help clear that up.

Mike Lao April 18, 2007 09:59 am

They can be pricey but they are worth it. Once you get used to a fast lens

(i.e. fixed aperture), it's hard to go back to variable aperture lenses.

Lenses I use:

Canon 85mm f1.8

Canon 17-40 f4 L

I noticed that I am taking a lot more portrait shots after I got the 85mm

lens!

Puplet April 18, 2007 08:42 am

Expensive, yes - but don't forget there's a ton of older, manual focus

lenses that offer fast apertures, if you're willing to meter and focus

manually on your dSLR.

These older lenses can be a little soft when it comes to detail - but hold

their own against the latest digital glass when it comes to low light

conditions.

Not a bad trade-off for something a fraction of the cost of new lenses!

Lenses I use:

Nikkor 50mm f1.4 (£45)

Nikkor 105mm f2.5 (£60)

Silverhalide April 18, 2007 06:47 am

"is that it lets light in faster"

Wow. Fast lenses change the laws of physics? How'd they do that?

special glass?

No. Fast lenses let more light in. More light means a shorter (faster)

shutter speed is needed, thus "a fast lens".

Another advantage of fast lenses that isn't mentioned is depth of field.

The larger the aperture, the shallower the depth of field. Shallow depth

of field is useful for isolating a subject from the background (think

portraits, athletes, birds -- the subject is in sharp focus while the

backgound is nicely blurred out of focus and free of distractions).

A distinct disadvantage of fast lenses is their size -- a 50mm f/1.8 needs a

front element of at least 28mm (50/1.8); a 300mm f/1.8 needs a front

element of 167mm (6-1/2"). A 6.5" lens is a big, heavy piece of glass. This

is the reason that fast lenses are so expensive. Lens manufacturers can

use higher (optical) density glass or other tricks (Canon's DO lenses) to

reduce the size of the lens elements behind the first one, but the first

element needs to be that big to capture the light.

Join over 1.4 million Subscribers!

Photography Tips & Tutorials

5 Tips for Getting Started with Wildlife Photography forBeginners

Tips for Taking More Natural Engagement Portraits

How to Enhance Portraits Using Gray Layers to Dodgeand Burn in Photoshop

Why Off-Camera Flash Isn't as Scary as you Think

How to Use Your On-Camera Speedlight to do BounceFlash Effectively

Review - The ThinkTank Photo Airport Roller Derby Bag

Cameras & Equipment

Review: Light Painting Brushes - Tools for Creativity

Side by Side Comparison: The Sony a6300 Versus FujifilmX-Pro2

How to Use Upright Guided Tools in Lightroom's NewTransform Section

Stylized Techniques for Editing Portraits Using Lightroom

How to Enhance Portraits Using Gray Layers to Dodgeand Burn in Photoshop

Post Production

Tips for Processing Landscape Photos - from Basic Editsto Artistic Interpretation

Vote View Results

How much time do you spend post-processing each of yourimages on average?

None I don't do any post-processing

0-1 Minutes

1-3 Minutes

3-5 Minutes

5-10 Minutes

10-20 Minutes

> 20 minutes each

Latest Assignment

Polls

Birds

Join our creative challenge!

© 2006 - 2016 Digital Photography School, All Rights Reserved / Disclaimer