Wide Aperture Lenses

I can't work out who has said they use all their lenses wide open all the time, John!

Looking at Smeggy's shots for example, I see a lot of shallow DOF in evidence, except for the UWA/Fisheye shots where going for shallow DOF is just not possible (even wide open, although that's only f4) unless your subject is very close.

I would love to find a lens that performs really well at f1.2. The smc A 50mm F1.4 I have is too soft wide open but it gets sharper stopped down a bit so f2 is almost usable. For thirty quid though I can't complain! The Sigma 24mm f2.8 Super-wide II on the other hand is very good at maximum aperture, which came in handy tonight shooting thunderstorms in the dark, where I had to use ISO 6400 with the lens wide open. A 24 or 28mm f1.2 I would find very useful for low light but a lens that performs well at that aperture would cost too much. Not even sure such a beast exists?

There have been f1 and f0.95 lenses, and you can still buy f1 lenses. You probably need £8000 and you end up with something that very few people actually need.

Art takes many forms though and we can't generalise like that, can we? There are plenty of artistic images with sharpness throughout, just as there are those with limited DOF that will sell.

DOF, controlled by the aperture, is just another photographic tool, another brush that we paint our images with. Like Gareth, I would use DOF in whatever way I felt suited the subject, although I don't consciously try to use the widest aperture possible.

RioRico is right from a commercial point of view you
will receive complaints about pictures being fuzzy and the
sharp ones will just sell

As they used to say the secret of success in photography
is f/8 and be there

I regularly used to use a 6x6 Minolta Autocord with a big flash attached
guessing the distance and looking through the sportsfinder
at f/22..... lovely and sharp and SOLD!

Can't understand these togs who complain of venues being too dark
to focus! Simple solution don't bother to focus

I think everyone in the thread has said something similar John, so there isn't actually an argument here. When people say they shoot wide open, it's because they consciously want subject isolation. On APSC (with a normal-wide lens) you are often forced to shoot wide open on a fast lens to achieve that. This is one of the reasons people pine for faster lenses and bigger sensors. On 135mm you could achieve a similar effect but stop down couple of clicks.

But with portraits don't people like a slightly shallow dof, which makes the subject 'pop,' and differentiates the shot from a 'snap' taken on a compact camera? Claudefrog's shot is a good example - what parent wouldn't be thrilled with this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidbladon/5836492801/meta/in/photostream/

Interesting, normally if I was looking to isolate a subject I would be reaching for a telephoto lens. With wide angles, the way I use them at least, I would rarely be trying to use a wide aperture.

With a tele lens you reduce the field of view and sense of depth considerably. I'm talking about replicating the effect of a fast 50 on 135mm but on APSC - the environmental portrait with the context discernible but blurred enough to make the subject pop out from the surroundings. This isn't my primary shooting mode by any means but it's nice to have that option as it gives a look more akin to film / full frame, and creates a sense of depth.


Obviously if you are using a true wide lens for landscapes etc you will generally be stopping down.

As you say, you'll end up with more DOF for the same field of view as the nearest lenses are the 31mm-35mm range. In fact, unless you were lucky enough to have the mysterious SMC Pentax-M 35mm f1.4 lens, the best choice seems to narrow down to the SMC Pentax-FA 31mm AL Limited.

The Sigma 30mm f1.4 would be another contender.

The Sigma does seem to be the only option, although I'd prefer the FA31 of course!

I often wonder about that fabled M 35mm f1.4

Surely if you had one you'd get some decent photos and send them to the Dimitrov site (under condition of anonymity, to avoid security risks)? Just to prove whether it really existed or not?

If you look around the top portrait photographers sites, you won't see many using wide apertures.

Look at the Photo Gold Awards on this site link mostly sharp images.

Most top portrait photographers don't even stand behind the camera. It will be pre-focused on a certain point and they will direct the sitter(s) around and fire the camera with a remote.

This type of wedding shot link can be taken quickly with flash on camera, so can shots of the flowers rings etc.

Not exactly my cup of tea but this pro seems to use flash on camera link

Do you think it would have been as large as the Samyang one (which looks an amazing lens)!

Late to the thread, but I would say f/2 is essential almost all the time. And not just for black cats in coal cellars. Today is a nice bright day (for Ireland) and I just metered my black cat in the living room (lots of diffuse light). I need f/2 at ISO800 to have a hope of freezing even small movements, though really I need to go to 1600 or higher. For me, any lens slower than f/2 is rather lame. (Though I make an exception for certain zooms, not that I use them much.)

I have two f/1.2 lenses and would only shoot wide open for special effect, given how strong the aberrations are. I don't find it that appealing and can get much nicer effects in PP.

I thought for one brief moment you were going to write that you'd metered your black cat in your coal cellar....

I think it just goes to show how different our requirements as individual photographers can be.

The wide aperture lens though is not that common, so you're not very well served, and certainly not at a reasonable price. At one time things were different, but now an f2.8 optic is often considered to be fast. I would have called a fast lens at least f2, and preferably faster than that.

At the moment then, we have the three Limited lenses, the 50mm f1.4 and the 55mm f1.4 in the Pentax portfolio, plus whatever can be found second hand.