# How will new ultra high ISO bodies impact f/2.8 telephoto zoom lenses?



## GoldenEagle (Jan 23, 2012)

I apologize in advance to the cross-posting gods, as this comment was buried at the end of a 93-comment thread that died last week. I believe it deserves its own thread, as it is an important aspect of the new bodies coming out...

What I haven't seen discussed re: 5DM3 is the *impact of higher useable ISO for lowlight shooters on the entire Canon L-series telephoto lens line*. Currently, using Lightroom 3 noise reduction (@~35% slider), I can use 5000 ISO on my 5DM2 all day long, with very little noise impact on IQ. If the 5DM3 can get me a 2-stop ISO improvement, that equates to around 20,000 useable ISO. What that means, from a lens acquisition/ownership perspective: 

A) I could work with a 70-200mm *f/4L* ($600/$1100 w/IS) instead of a 70-200mm *f/2.8L* ($2200/$2400) and still have sufficient shutter speed (1/200 or better) to freeze most subject movement, low light, no flash.

B) Similar comparison at 300mm for f/2.8L vs f/4.0L: *$7300*/5.2lb vs *$1300*/2.6lb. Savings=$6,000, plus no monopod required!

C) Even better, at 400mm focal length, with a 20,000 ISO, couldn't I get a 400mm *f/5.6L* for *$1,200*, instead of a 400mm *f/2.8L* for *$12,000*? I have neither budget nor the desire to drag an 8- to 11-lb monster around all night. With the 400mm f/5.6L, it's only 2.8 lbs, less than the 70-200 f/2.8L!

*What I'm seeing potentially is the ultra-high ISO available in a 5DM3 (plus 1DX, potentially 7D2) making the incredibly expensive and heavy f/2.8L telephotos only being used by the elite/rich sports/outdoor shooters, allowing a lot of less-financially well-off shooters to produce still-great imagery using far less expensive and lighter f/4.0L-f/5.6L telephoto lenses.*

Spending $1-2K on a 5D body upgrade from M2 to M3, just for the ISO alone, could/would pay for itself and then some, immediately in lens savings, wouldn't it? What am I missing?

Give me ISO! GE


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 23, 2012)

GoldenEagle said:


> A) I could work with a 70-200mm *f/4L* ($600/$1100 w/IS) instead of a 70-200mm *f/2.8L* ($2200/$2400) and still have sufficient shutter speed (1/200 or better) to freeze most subject movement, low light, no flash.
> 
> B) Similar comparison at 300mm for f/2.8L vs f/4.0L: *$7300*/5.2lb vs *$1300*/2.6lb. Savings=$6,000, plus no monopod required!
> 
> ...



Aperture determines more than shutter speed. Most people don't buy an 85mm f/1.2L to use it in very low light (which turns out to be a good thing, because unknown to most people, when you shoot at f/1.2 on a dSLR your camera is actually bumping up the ISO to compensate for the fact that the sensor is less sensitive to light at very high incident angles, and not telling you...meaning over 1/2 a stop more noise in some cases). No, most people buy an 85L for the large amount of OOF blur you can achieve with a fast lens. For example, I can use a 70-200/2.8 quite effectively for portraits, whereas f/4 would not be nearly as effective for those shots. 

Also, the image quality from a 300/2.8 or 400/2.8 is much better than that of the corresponding 'consumer' prime lenses. Even there, the high ISO is a benefit, because a sports shooter, for example, could choose to shoot at f/5.6 instead of f/2.8, yielding more DoF if needed.

But from a shutter speed perspective, you're quite correct - the increasingly better high-ISO performance of today's cameras definitely means you can often use an f/4 or f/5.6 lens in situations that used to require a fast prime or a flash.


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 23, 2012)

GoldenEagle said:


> C) Even better, at 400mm focal length, with a 20,000 ISO, couldn't I get a 400mm *f/5.6L* for *$1,200*, instead of a 400mm *f/2.8L* for *$12,000*? I have neither budget nor the desire to drag an 8- to 11-lb monster around all night. With the 400mm f/5.6L, it's only 2.8 lbs, less than the 70-200 f/2.8L!



I carry around the 400 f/2.8 and the 70-200 f/2.8II 

This is what you might miss


----------



## sheedoe (Jan 23, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Aperture determines more than shutter speed. Most people don't buy an 85mm f/1.2L to use it in very low light (which turns out to be a good thing, because unknown to most people, when you shoot at f/1.2 on a dSLR your camera is actually bumping up the ISO to compensate for the fact that the sensor is less sensitive to light at very high incident angles, and not telling you...meaning over 1/2 a stop more noise in some cases).



Hmmm interesting. I never knew the camera did that. Now, when you say that the camera bumps up the ISO without telling you, does it only apply in settings where the camera meters for exposure, or does it do it for manual exposures as well? In other words, if I choose an ISO of 200 manually, would the camera actually shoot with ISO ~300?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 23, 2012)

sheedoe said:


> Now, when you say that the camera bumps up the ISO without telling you, does it only apply in settings where the camera meters for exposure, or does it do it for manual exposures as well? In other words, if I choose an ISO of 200 manually, would the camera actually shoot with ISO ~300?



Yes, it will do that on manual as well, and would report the setting you chose, e.g. ISO 200, in the EXIF. 

For another example, consider Highlight Tone Priority. When you turn on HTP, you will notice that you can no longer shoot at ISO 100. That's because when you shoot at ISO 200, the camera is really shooting at ISO 100, then bumping the exposure up a stop with selective preservation of the highlights (i.e. a tone curve is applied) before writing the file (RAW and/or JPG), and recording the ISO as 200 in the metadata.


----------



## kubelik (Jan 23, 2012)

GoldenEagle said:


> *What I'm seeing potentially is the ultra-high ISO available in a 5DM3 (plus 1DX, potentially 7D2) making the incredibly expensive and heavy f/2.8L telephotos only being used by the elite/rich sports/outdoor shooters, allowing a lot of less-financially well-off shooters to produce still-great imagery using far less expensive and lighter f/4.0L-f/5.6L telephoto lenses.*



I should think not. as neuro and brian pointed out, the purpose of f/2.8 or wider apertures isn't necessarily to help you shoot in lower light; the point is to achieve shallow DOF. it's why consumer primes like the nifty fifty exist.

also, as neuro points out, having a wider native aperture to a lens allows for more light to hit the autofocus sensor, which means increased accuracy in lower light regardless of your ISO setting.

yet another point is lens sharpness. most lenses aren't at their sharpest at their max aperture setting. many f/4 lenses compare favorably in sharpness to f/2.8 lenses when compared at max aperture, but stop a f/2.8 lens down to f/4 to see apples-to-apples and it's likely to be sharper than the f/4.

lastly, I believe that until there's a significant breakthrough in the materials engineering of the silicon used in sensor production (which is likely to require an entirely different composition or type of silicon), you're unlikely to see continued, massive upward growth of high-ISO capability. the 1DX is proclaimed to have about a stop better performance than the 1DsIII, but they had to shave away 3 megapixels and it's only at the JPG level. whether RAW improvement after 5 years even comes close to 2/3-stop is ... unlikely.


----------



## sheedoe (Jan 23, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> For another example, consider Highlight Tone Priority. When you turn on HTP, you will notice that you can no longer shoot at ISO 100. That's because when you shoot at ISO 200, the camera is really shooting at ISO 100, then bumping the exposure up a stop with selective preservation of the highlights (i.e. a tone curve is applied) before writing the file (RAW and/or JPG), and recording the ISO as 200 in the metadata.



Another fact I didn't know. Great infos, thanks!


----------



## JonJT (Jan 23, 2012)

As has been said previously, a lot of those fast 2.8 zooms offer better image quality than their slower cousins. In addition, the wider aperture offers more than just a full stop lower ISO to the shooter, you have the DOF effects and faster focusing as well.

I, personally, don't even think the ISO capabilities of newer DSLR bodies will be able to make up for the flexibility of having a 2.8 zoom. When shooting in low light with one of these things, that extra stop of aperture can make the difference between getting a shot with lots of noise, or not, and/or getting a shot with a sharp subject, or not.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 23, 2012)

I think our expectations will just increase in parallel. 20 years ago, I expected that I needed to change film rolls when going from bright, sunny outdoors to dim, tungsten-lit indoors. Today, I expect to be able to shoot by moonlight and have the images look like they were shot at high noon. In 5 years, maybe I'll expect to shoot a football game lit only by a spectator at each end zone holding a cigarette lighter. But I'll still need that f/2.8 lens to do it... :


----------



## unfocused (Jan 23, 2012)

This may be one reason why Canon and other manufacturers seem to be placing more and more emphasis on high ISO instead of fast lenses. 

Having grown up on prime lenses (and film) I'm always a little amused that today we think of f2.8 as a "fast" lens. But, it seems manufacturers have determined that they will compromise on lens speed and put more emphasis on ISO. I'm sure it comes down to cost/benefit analysis. 

As the long lenses you mention demonstrate, the marginal cost of adding an extra stop of speed is far greater than the marginal cost of adding added ISO sensitivity to a sensor. 

But, I do wonder if it's always the best choice. The new G1-X is a good example. If you read the interviews and literature, it's clear that Canon is arguing that the bigger sensor and improved ISO compensates for the slower lens. But, isn't the opposite true as well. Does the faster lens of the Fuji X-10 for example compensate for the smaller sensor? I suppose the only way to know will be when both models are available and we can see side by side comparisons. 

Speaking of sensors, there is also another factor at play here that has an even greater impact and that is the crop factor.

For your 5D, you can get a 300 mm f2.8 for $7,300. But, with a 7D you can get an effective 320mm from the 70-200mm f2.8 zoom for $2,100. The 300mm f4 is still a cheaper option for the 5D, but again, on the 7D that's effectively almost a 500 mm f4 (actually 480mm), which is a $6,800 lens. 

Two points really. 

1) Right now, it comes down to what your needs and wants are. Some will prefer having the higher ISO options of a full frame should they need it. Others prefer the longer reach of the APS-C sensor. And, then there are those that need the speed of the fastest available primes, plus either the reach of the crop sensor or the high ISO sensitivity of the newest full frame sensors. And, as others have pointed out, there are also aesthetic considerations in both the speed of the lens and the size of the sensor.

2) This is one more example of the convergence that I think camera manufacturers are struggling with. As technology improves, the differences between camera bodies and lenses are getting smaller and more nuanced. As you point out, it gets harder and harder to justify spending thousands of dollars for relatively small improvements in technology. 

Good news for "average" enthusiasts and even professionals. We are the winners in this because it gives us more choices.

Not so sure about the true specialists. Canon threw the 1.3 crop shooters under the bus. Probably because they determined they just weren't a large enough market and improvements in APS-C and Full Frame sensors were squeezing that market at both ends. I wonder if the same might happen at some point with the big white lenses. Can Canon and Nikon keep making $10,000-plus lenses and keep finding a market for them?


----------



## Maui5150 (Jan 23, 2012)

Of course they can. Just because a crop sensor gives more reach, does not mean you get a better picture. 

For me reach is nice, but reach means nothing if I have to hold the shutter open longer to get a decent picture : i.e. ISO + speedy lens can make a HUGE difference in terms of sharpness and image quality.


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 23, 2012)

unfocused said:


> For your 5D, you can get a 300 mm f2.8 for $7,300. But, with a 7D you can get an effective 320mm from the 70-200mm f2.8 zoom for $2,100. The 300mm f4 is still a cheaper option for the 5D, but again, on the 7D that's effectively almost a 500 mm f4 (actually 480mm), which is a $6,800 lens.



I consider the 70-300L as the ff equivalent of the 70-200 f/2.8L if you start to compare the DOF - and the 70-300L is cheaper by far

This was taken on the 1Ds3 + 70-300L @f/5.6 - this is just to show the shallow dof


----------



## GoldenEagle (Jan 23, 2012)

kubelik said:


> lastly, I believe that until there's a significant breakthrough in the materials engineering of the silicon used in sensor production (which is likely to require an entirely different composition or type of silicon), you're unlikely to see continued, massive upward growth of high-ISO capability. the 1DX is proclaimed to have about a stop better performance than the 1DsIII, but they had to shave away 3 megapixels and it's only at the JPG level. whether RAW improvement after 5 years even comes close to 2/3-stop is ... unlikely.



Great discussion, many good points made!

Re: Megapixel count as a factor in high-ISO/useable noise images, I would encourage low-light shooters to try out the sRAW1 setting. In my 5DM2, I get a 3800x2500 pixel RAW file, which is just fine for up to 20x30 poster-size prints. How many people need to print larger than that? *What I gain is far less noise at 5000 ISO*, (plus my CF cards & disk storage go twice as far!

So I'm a fan of smaller files and less noise captured to begin with. Then let me use post-processing to reduce even that noise even further.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 23, 2012)

GoldenEagle said:


> Re: Megapixel count as a factor in high-ISO/useable noise images, I would encourage low-light shooters to try out the sRAW1 setting. In my 5DM2, I get a 3800x2500 pixel RAW file, which is just fine for up to 20x30 poster-size prints. *What I gain is far less noise at 5000 ISO*, (plus my CF cards & disk storage go twice as far!
> 
> So I'm a fan of smaller files and *less noise captured to begin with*. Then let me use post-processing to reduce even that noise even further.



You aren't capturing less noise. If you capture a full size RAW file, then downsample it to 3861x2574 pixels, you'll achieve the same level of (apparent) noise reduction.


----------



## ferdi (Jan 23, 2012)

unfocused said:


> Speaking of sensors, there is also another factor at play here that has an even greater impact and that is the crop factor.
> 
> For your 5D, you can get a 300 mm f2.8 for $7,300. But, with a 7D you can get an effective 320mm from the 70-200mm f2.8 zoom for $2,100. The 300mm f4 is still a cheaper option for the 5D, but again, on the 7D that's effectively almost a 500 mm f4 (actually 480mm), which is a $6,800 lens.



Don't forget that on the 7D a f/2.8 lens has DOF f/4.5 effectively, and the 300mm f/4 becomes a 480mm with DOF f/6.4.
This is not necessarily bad, I actually love this feature on 1.6x crop bodies.

Back on subject, GoldenEagle has a point. I shoot indoor group sports at ISO 6400 and f/4 just to get a few more eyes in focus. If the AF would be up to it I would even try f/5.6. But I still prefer f/2.8 or faster lenses, not just for shallower DOF, but also because the viewfinder would be a lot darker with an f/5.6 lens.


----------



## Viggo (Jan 23, 2012)

2,8 lenses are usually more accurate to AF over the entire frame, whilst 5,6 lenses misses out on cross- and dual cross type af-sensors.

And a point, for me at least, is that there's no problem in getting conditions too dark for a 2,8 lens even with 4 times the iso of the 1d X. And a 5,6 lens in those dim conditions doesn't work, af or shutterspeed-wise


----------



## pharp (Jan 23, 2012)

Should think It would have more affect on the need for fast wide angle primes! Really any need for a 24mm 1.4 anymore?


----------



## tt (Jan 23, 2012)

Is focus speed another factor?
The subjective speed of a 1DX focusing an f4 lens seems quicker. Yes, it's got the extra help, but then won't these ultra high ISO bodies also be bringing in some level of improved focusing speed?
Eg - Will the mythical 5D Mark III / 7D Mark II likely have a faster focus speed to their predecessors, using the same lenses?


----------



## Viggo (Jan 23, 2012)

pharp said:


> Should think It would have more affect on the need for fast wide angle primes! Really any need for a 24mm 1.4 anymore?



Have you ever used a 24 f1,4 L II on a fullframe body?? The look of the picture you get at that wide angle and that shallow depth can't be done by anything else.


----------



## JonJT (Jan 23, 2012)

Viggo said:


> pharp said:
> 
> 
> > Should think It would have more affect on the need for fast wide angle primes! Really any need for a 24mm 1.4 anymore?
> ...



Indeed. And, even if you discount the ISO bump needed at the widest apertures, the 24mm 1.4 still has an advantage over a 2.8 zoom for low light, no flash shooting. Sometimes, it will mean the difference between getting the shot and not getting it.


----------



## drummstikk (Jan 24, 2012)

GoldenEagle said:


> In my 5DM2, I get a 3800x2500 pixel RAW file, which is just fine for up to 20x30 poster-size prints. How many people need to print larger than that? *What I gain is far less noise at 5000 ISO*, (plus my CF cards & disk storage go twice as far!



Respectfully disagree on two points:

1) 20x30" print from 3800x2500px image is only about 125 dpi. That's OK for viewing at more than arm's length, but not good enough for close examination, in my opinion. I rethink the size I want to print if dpi dips below about 200. 300dpi is considered ideal for print publishing. A book publisher I worked for a few years back started with 400 dpi with final output downsampled to 300. (I never understood exactly why that was, but the results in cookbooks were undeniably superb.)

2) Especially in demanding light conditions, you want the most information your camera can possibly gather for you. Use the full size Raw capture. Resist cheating the shutter speed upward and give the image all the exposure you possibly can while still adequately overcoming subject action and camera shake. This way, more detail and less noise will be recorded in the shadows. If the light is especially challenging and demands slow shutter speeds, don't be afraid to shoot 30 frames and end up with 25 of them showing motion blur. Most times you only need one image to be sharp, but do what it takes to ensure you get that one. (At a candlelight choral performance I shot last month, I shot over 500 images to have 43 images suitable for delivery to the client.)

The jury is out in my mind whether setting accurate white balance in camera helps with noise levels, but it does speed up post production. And while in post-prodution, use "just enough" sharpening and noise reduction and then output your final image at a lower resolution. For instance, I sometimes output my Canon 7D images at 11.7MP from ACR to reduce apparent noise.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 24, 2012)

The 1D MK IV has a 102400 top ISO, that does not mean its usable. Bumping it by 1 stop isn't going to have a huge effect on lenses. We need to really see what the usable ISO actually is.

When I got my 5D MK II 3+ years ago, using it at ISO 3200 was really pushing it, and I had to use quite a bit of NR. When Lightroom 3 came out, the images looked much better at 3200, and might even be usable at 1/2 stop more. Now with the LR4 beta, ISO 6400 images look remarkably clean even with no NR.

The ever improving software is doing much more for high ISO than the hardware, so I don't expect more than 1/2 to 1 stop better than my 5D MK II. If it actually turns out that the laws of physics have been repealed, and the raw image is 2 stops better, I would be able to use the higher shutter speeds that I want with my primes wide open.


----------



## GoldenEagle (Jan 24, 2012)

I'm not expecting any f/2.8 shooters to sell lenses and downgrade. 

I am expecting that in the next 12-18 months, newer shooters may choose less expensive/less heavy F/4.0L-f/5.6L telephoto lenses to start their entry into sports/outdoor photography. If/when they advance, then they can decide if the marginal cost v marginal benefit of f/2.8 lenses (sharper, better bokeh, focus, etc). 

We should also see more people entering sports/outdoor shooting in the future, since the cost of achieving 400mm focal lengths at acceptable shutter speeds will be dropping significantly.


----------



## Act444 (Jan 24, 2012)

ferdi said:


> Don't forget that on the 7D a f/2.8 lens has DOF f/4.5 effectively, and the 300mm f/4 becomes a 480mm with DOF f/6.4.
> This is not necessarily bad, I actually love this feature on 1.6x crop bodies.



Hmm...wouldn't that be offset (at least somewhat), however, by the extra focal length you gain on a crop sensor? Just curious.


----------



## Hillsilly (Jan 24, 2012)

I'm an avid follower of some of the larger wildlife photo competitions - eg Veolia Wildlife Photographer of the Year. When I first started paying attention, most people were shooting at very low ISO's such as 100. A lot of winning photos were being shot on Velvia 50. But in the last couple of years, its not uncommon to see ISO's in the 400 to 800 range. 

Given that many entrants would have the equipment to shoot great photos at much higher ISOs, this raises two questions. 

Firstly, why do people that do well in these competitions choose to shoot at lower ISOs? (Especially when a faster ISO will allow a faster shutter speed)?

Secondly, why do the judges seem to favour photos shot at lower ISOs?

I would suspect that despite improvements in sensors and software, there is still a noticeable quality improvement by using lower ISOs. Lenses with a wide aperture (f/2.8 or faster) which make it easier to use low ISOs will still have a market for some time.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Jan 24, 2012)

Hillsilly said:


> Firstly, why do people that do well in these competitions choose to shoot at lower ISOs? (Especially when a faster ISO will allow a faster shutter speed)?
> 
> Secondly, why do the judges seem to favour photos shot at lower ISOs?
> 
> I would suspect that despite improvements in sensors and software, there is still a noticeable quality improvement by using lower ISOs. Lenses with a wide aperture (f/2.8 or faster) which make it easier to use low ISOs will still have a market for some time.



I think there are two ways to look at this issue, assuming all photos are taken with DSLRs.

The first is whether today's digital sensors's perform as well at ISO 400 (or 800 or 100) as well as 100 ASA film or Velvia 50. I don't presume to know this one.

The other is whether the judges can tell the difference between a photos taken with today's DSLRs at ISO 400 or 800 and photos taken with today's DSLRs at lower ISO values. I wouldn't be surprised if they can, which would explain their preferences, regardless of the comparison to low ASA films.


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 24, 2012)

Ardea said:


> THe goo thing about f 2.8 and better is that it focuses better in low light. A 7D with a 2.8 lens will focus better than a 5D (which has better high ISO value) will with a 5.6 lens.



... but it wont focus better than the new technology ff sensors


----------



## NotABunny (Jan 24, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> GoldenEagle said:
> 
> 
> > Re: Megapixel count as a factor in high-ISO/useable noise images, I would encourage low-light shooters to try out the sRAW1 setting. In my 5DM2, I get a 3800x2500 pixel RAW file, which is just fine for up to 20x30 poster-size prints. *What I gain is far less noise at 5000 ISO*, (plus my CF cards & disk storage go twice as far!
> ...



With the added benefit that the RAW converter *may* be able to deliver a sharper image (due to the extra detail available in RAW).


----------



## pharp (Jan 24, 2012)

Viggo said:


> pharp said:
> 
> 
> > Should think It would have more affect on the need for fast wide angle primes! Really any need for a 24mm 1.4 anymore?
> ...



Nope, never have, but I would certainly love to see an example of a real world shot using the 24 1.4 wide open [out of 100 shots - how many @ 1.4?] compared to ones shot at f2 or even 2.8 - real difference? care to share? Anyway, I didn't really mean to suggest that nobody would want the faster wide angle lens, but they are pricey, big and the DOF advantages aren't as obvious [compared to telephotos]. I'm simply surmising that many [most?] folks will find less need for them as high ISO performance improves. If Canon made a nice 24mm f2 L - I'd be all over it!

I'll go out on a limb and predict that across the board - high ISO cameras will increasingly cannabalize [not eliminate] the sales of fast [zoom and prime] lenses for ALOT of shooters - how could it not? Size and *price* really do matter!


----------



## JonJT (Jan 24, 2012)

pharp said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > pharp said:
> ...



Doubtful. People who would accept high ISO performance as an "alternate" to a fast lens probably were not interested in having a large, fast lens in the first place. They are not really equivalent things because, high ISO has different and distinct effects upon the final image than a wide aperture. 

Let me also add that the fastest lenses also tend to offer other features that prosumer and professional shooters care about almost exclusively. Things like weather sealing, build quality, focus speed, etc are things that are important for those who are really serious but, not so important for someone who might just want to take nice pictures.

Finally, the only time when high ISO performance and a wide aperture are interchange is during low light shooting, and only when you can tolerate a deep DOF and slower focusing speeds. That's quite particular and, generally speaking, is only encountered when shooting a static subject. There are plenty of more times with a fast lens cannot be supplanted by high ISO, in terms of composition and in terms of focusing speed and accuracy.


But, you are certainly correct that lens and camera size and weight are important. But, then again, I think the mirrorless interchangeable cameras with M43 and smaller sensors do a far better job of reducing lens size and weight than high ISO performance does. I don't see any serious future changes to sales patterns of fast, heavy lenses just because new sensors are better in lower light.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 24, 2012)

pharp said:


> I would certainly love to see an example of a real world shot using the 24 1.4 wide open [out of 100 shots - how many @ 1.4?] compared to ones shot at f2 or even 2.8 - real difference? care to share?



Well, I don't have the 24L, but I do have the 35mm f/1.4L...




EOS 5D Mark II, EF 35mm f/1.4L USM, 1/30 s, f/1.4, ISO 100


----------



## pharp (Jan 24, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> pharp said:
> 
> 
> > I would certainly love to see an example of a real world shot using the 24 1.4 wide open [out of 100 shots - how many @ 1.4?] compared to ones shot at f2 or even 2.8 - real difference? care to share?
> ...



Nice shot; so to my point, two questions for you [very unscientific poll];
1. Do you believe this shot would be any different / better at f/2?
2. Would you have bought a 35mm f/2L instead if available? All else being equal - build quality, etc. Presumably cheaper with smaller filters?
Just curious.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 24, 2012)

pharp said:


> Nice shot; so to my point, two questions for you [very unscientific poll];
> 1. Do you believe this shot be any different/better at f/2?
> 2. Would you have bought a 35mm f/2L instead if available? All else being equal - build quality, etc. Presumably cheaper with smaller filters?
> Just curious.



Thanks!

I'd say worse, because there would be less OOF blur, which is what I was going for. Attached below are a pair of simlar shots, the first at f/1.4, the second at f/3.2 - not a test, just playing around. Both are with the 5DII and 35L. I prefer the wider aperture, personally. Note that you can't make out the face in the background at all with f/1.4, while I find it distracting at f/3.2.

I don't think I'd have bought a 35/2L if available - faster is better, for aperture if not ISO. In the shot above, I was at ISO 100 - clearly, I had a lot of freedom to bump that up (I find ISO 3200 usable on the 5DII, be even conservatively saying ISO 1600, that shot could have been taken at f/5.6 instead of f/1.4 with the same shutter speed. Filter size? I actually prefer the 72mm - it's the same size as the 85/1.2L II and the 135L, meaning the same 3-stop ND filter works on the entire 'holy trinity' and a 3-stop ND is just right for outdoor, wide open portraits and/or overcoming the sun with flash.


----------



## pharp (Jan 24, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> pharp said:
> 
> 
> > Nice shot; so to my point, two questions for you [very unscientific poll];
> ...



OK - good points, thanks for sharing. Guess I'll have to rethink my assumptions.


----------



## kubelik (Jan 24, 2012)

neuro brings up a good point there, it's actually nicer to have a larger filter size if it means it's the standard L-series filter size. having to haul around easily-warped filter step-up rings is a mild pain in the rear.

that being said, I'd still prefer an updated 35mm f/2 over an updated 35mm f/1.4 L ... partly because of cost, largely because of visibility/size. I love the dimensions of the 85 f/1.8 and 50 f/1.4 over their L counterparts, because they're great for casual walkaround shooting where you don't want the 5D to draw any more attention than it already does.


----------



## GoldenEagle (Jan 24, 2012)

*Does this apply to wide lenses?*

It's my position that ultra-high ISO's will have a much less impact on a buying decision for wide lenses. Why?

1. Fewer available substitutes
2. Cost differentials between substitutes are much narrower
3. Price max on very best f/1.4 L glass doesn't exceed $2K (vs. telephotos at $6K-$12K)
3. No significant weight penalty for faster lenses (i.e. none require monopod) so less benefit by going with slower version at that focal length

That's why I framed the original post as impact on telephoto series....


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 24, 2012)

Higher ISO shutter speeds allow faster shutter speeds in many common situations. We still will need wide aperture lenses.

1. For sports and wildlife where fast movement is involved in dim light, or sometimes even in good light. 

2. Wedding, Theatre, and other extreme low light photography where lenses are wide open and ISO is as high as it will go. Even a slight movement at 1/20 or 1/40 second blurs the image.

Here one taken last week with my 5D MK II at ISO 6400, 135mm L @ f/2.0, and 1/125 se








This one was at ISO 3200, f/2, 1/125 sec. I should have set ISO 6400, but did not have time, and I did not know ISO 6400 would come out so well with the LR 4 beta. It ended up being pulled up in processing.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Jan 24, 2012)

kubelik said:


> as neuro and brian pointed out, the purpose of f/2.8 or wider apertures isn't necessarily to help you shoot in lower light


I don't want to get too metaphysical here, but I think this is not a case of "purpose" so much as a case of "camera manufacturers dealing with the realities of camera tech vastly different from film."

If we could get the additional sensitivity of lenses faster than f/2 (or whatever that limit is) back, you'd better bet it'd appear. It's not an intentional limitation of the lenses.

That being said it's still pretty important for people to know about this. Lens manufacturers don't have much incentive to tell people about it, which is regrettable, but apparently it's not caused any lawsuits yet, so...It's interesting that the third party lens manufacturers don't bother with f/1.2 lenses, though, isn't it?


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 25, 2012)

Edwin Herdman said:


> kubelik said:
> 
> 
> > as neuro and brian pointed out, the purpose of f/2.8 or wider apertures isn't necessarily to help you shoot in lower light
> ...



Sorry Edwin - I just dont understand where you are coming from or going to ??? ???

F/2.8 in the current world is an important number in that:

- you get better AF from the current sensors
- you get a decent blurred background from ff
- you get resaonably fine DOF
- you get a decent amount of light for low light shooting whilst keeping the iso up for better IQ

Yes I do undersand that you can move from f/2.8 to f/4 by going, say from iso 12800 to iso25600 however sensors without exception give worse IQ the higher it goes

Hopefully that will clarify my position on this.


----------



## zim (Jan 25, 2012)

Apologies for being a bit off topic but I’d love to know what you all consider the best luminance and chrominance Noise Reduction options out there to be?
I’d like to assume that Canon know what’s best for their own camera’s therefore DPP should be real good, especially at the price  but the comments here about Lightroom make me wonder?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 25, 2012)

@Brian - I believe Edwin is referring to my comment early in the thread, about how ultrafast lenses (f/1.4, f/1.2) don't provide the light-gathering advantage on a dSLR that most people think. Film was a different story, but digital sensors aren't able to efficiently capture photons at high angles of incidence. So, with an f/1.2 or f/1.4 lens on a dSLR, the camera acutually clandestinely increases the ISO by up to half a stop or more (greater effect with wider apertures and smaller pixels). For example, say you're shooting in Av mode with a 50/1.4 at 1/100 s, f/2, ISO 1600. You change the aperture to f/1.4 without changing the ISO, and you expect the shutter speed to go to 1/200 s - and it does. But, the sensor can't actually capture the full additional stop of light at f/1.4, so instead it adjusts the ISO to 2000. You don't know that from the settings - the EXIF shows the ISO 1600 you set. However, you have an extra 1/3 stop of noise in your shot.


----------



## Hillsilly (Jan 25, 2012)

Is this what they call "automatic vignetting correction"?


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 25, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> @Brian - I believe Edwin is referring to my comment early in the thread, about how ultrafast lenses (f/1.4, f/1.2) don't provide the light-gathering advantage on a dSLR that most people think. Film was a different story, but digital sensors aren't able to efficiently capture photons at high angles of incidence. So, with an f/1.2 or f/1.4 lens on a dSLR, the camera acutually clandestinely increases the ISO by up to half a stop or more (greater effect with wider apertures and smaller pixels). For example, say you're shooting in Av mode with a 50/1.4 at 1/100 s, f/2, ISO 1600. You change the aperture to f/1.4 without changing the ISO, and you expect the shutter speed to go to 1/200 s - and it does. But, the sensor can't actually capture the full additional stop of light at f/1.4, so instead it adjusts the ISO to 2000. You don't know that from the settings - the EXIF shows the ISO 1600 you set. However, you have an extra 1/3 stop of noise in your shot.



8) 8) 8)


----------



## Viggo (Jan 25, 2012)

pharp said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > pharp said:
> ...



Here's how my son looks when I tell him something he doesn't think is true, the skeptic look

http://photobyviggo.com/random/mail31.jpg

Shot with the 50L on a 5d @1,2


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 25, 2012)

Hillsilly said:


> Is this what they call "automatic vignetting correction"?



Nope.


----------



## pharp (Jan 25, 2012)

Viggo said:


> pharp said:
> 
> 
> > Viggo said:
> ...



Like it, nice shallow DOF, but with a 50, not the 24mm. I currently use the Zeiss 35mm f/2 the most and have personally never felt the need for anything faster, but it appears a good case can be made for the 1.4 wide angles even with the high ISO bodies. I've been looking at something in the mid 20s range and will probably get the new Zeiss 25mm f/2. I'd consider a Canon, but I don't they don't make a 24 f/2L.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 25, 2012)

pharp said:


> I've been looking at something in the mid 20s range and will probably get the new Zeiss 25mm f/2. I'd consider a Canon, but I don't they don't make a 24 f/2L.



I don't understand this...Canon makes a 24mm f/1.4L II, and it can be used at f/2, of course. Since that's a stop narrower than wide open, at f/2 you'd get the optical benefit of not using a lens at it's widest aperture. The Zeiss lens is not much larger or heavier than the Canon, and the Canon lens is weather-sealed and has autofocus.


----------



## pharp (Jan 25, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> pharp said:
> 
> 
> > I've been looking at something in the mid 20s range and will probably get the new Zeiss 25mm f/2. I'd consider a Canon, but I don't they don't make a 24 f/2L.
> ...



I was joking - sort of, but I really do like the look of the pictures from my Zeiss 35mm - can't put my finger on it. I personally don't care that much about autofocus or weathersealing. You're right though - the new Zeiss is a beast and pricier than the Canon. I'm actually still weighing my options.


----------

