50mm f/1.4 fastest AF lens for a Nikon digital?

In article ,
Rita Ä Berkowitz ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote:

DeanB wrote:

Hello all, I am looking for the fasted possible AF lens on a nikon
D2Hs, and I think its the 50mm f/1.4. Its for available light shots
indoors, of kids that never sit still! I know there's a 1.2 but its no
AF. Maybe someone else makes a lens that would work?

You might want to scrap the 50 all together and pick up an old 58mm f/1.2
Noct Nikkor. The 50/1.4 does OK, but you'll really love the low light
performance and bokeh of the Noct. The Noct isn't AF, but who really wants
AF in those low light situations?

And you better want the focus to be about a hair breadth thickness.

All this exchange about ultra fast lenses seem to forget that with these
lenses wide open the DOF becomes smaller and smaller until you do not
have a useful end result.

Hell, turn on a light or two in the room and get a decent picture. Or,
god forbid use a fill flash off the ceiling or a white piece of paper.

Are you taking pictures of the event, person, desert, etc or are you
just screwing around with a camera and lens to see who can get the
lowest light shot of something that becomes more and more unrecognizable.

--
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross."
Sinclair Lewis

Ockham's Razor writes:
Are you taking pictures of the event, person, desert, etc or are you

I used to shoot chess tournaments with a 50/1.4, 135/1.8, and 28/2.0
(later got a 35/1.4). That was with TMZ 3200 film. Nothing was ever
fast enough. Fooling with the lights or using flash would have gotten
me thrown out of the building. If the camera cannot see what the eye
can see, there's a technical limit to overcome, through more lens
speed, more ISO, or some combination.

On Feb 23, 6:00 pm, Paul Rubin wrote:
"DeanB" writes:
Hello all, I am looking for the fasted possible AF lens on a nikon
D2Hs, and I think its the 50mm f/1.4. Its for available light shots
indoors, of kids that never sit still! I know there's a 1.2 but its no
AF. Maybe someone else makes a lens that would work?

If you really want to pull out all the stops, get a Canon 5D and 50/1.0 EF.

He he I would if I have limitless $$$! That lens is amazing. There was
also a 0.9 at some point, either leica or canon I forget now.

In article ,
Paul Rubin wrote:

Ockham's Razor writes:
Are you taking pictures of the event, person, desert, etc or are you

I used to shoot chess tournaments with a 50/1.4, 135/1.8, and 28/2.0
(later got a 35/1.4). That was with TMZ 3200 film. Nothing was ever
fast enough. Fooling with the lights or using flash would have gotten
me thrown out of the building. If the camera cannot see what the eye
can see, there's a technical limit to overcome, through more lens
speed, more ISO, or some combination.

But always compromised. Perhaps a camera that can shoot at ISO 12600
may allow such shots, but ever more low f stops is not the answer
because of the DoF problem.



Face it, there is a limit (currently) where the abilities of a camera do
not match the abilities of the human eye. If it is "technical", fine,
but that is where the effort must be made. Currently we do not know how
the camera differs from the human eye, so perhaps the efforts needs to
be made in that area.


To fool around with that difference is just going to frustrate you.

Good luck!!!!

--
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross."
Sinclair Lewis

Ockham's Razor writes:
But always compromised. Perhaps a camera that can shoot at ISO 12600
may allow such shots, but ever more low f stops is not the answer
because of the DoF problem.

Really, there's not a DOF problem, or at least not an insurmountable
one, or else people would not use these lenses.

Face it, there is a limit (currently) where the abilities of a camera do
not match the abilities of the human eye. If it is "technical", fine,
but that is where the effort must be made. Currently we do not know how
the camera differs from the human eye, so perhaps the efforts needs to
be made in that area.

The differences are pretty well understood.

DeanB wrote:

On Feb 23, 6:00 pm, Paul Rubin wrote:

"DeanB" writes:

Hello all, I am looking for the fasted possible AF lens on a nikon
D2Hs, and I think its the 50mm f/1.4. Its for available light shots
indoors, of kids that never sit still! I know there's a 1.2 but its no
AF. Maybe someone else makes a lens that would work?

If you really want to pull out all the stops, get a Canon 5D and 50/1.0 EF.


He he I would if I have limitless $$$! That lens is amazing. There was
also a 0.9 at some point, either leica or canon I forget now.

Canon made a 50mm f1:0.95 M39 rangefinder lens.
There was a second version that used a bayonet because of how thin the
metal was on the mounting thread, the bayonet on the camera was outside
the normal m39 lensmount.
These are the cameras the lens was designed for (or perhaps the camera
for the lens?):
http://cameraquest.com/canon7sz.htm
Cameraquest has an article about a converted Fed camera, which shows the
unusual lensmount:
http://cameraquest.com/ruskie_fed_95.htm

Ockham's Razor wrote:

All this exchange about ultra fast lenses seem to forget that with these
lenses wide open the DOF becomes smaller and smaller until you do not
have a useful end result.

I find the 58mm f/1.2 NOCT quite useful on 1.5x crop factor cameras. Or
even on film, I bought it when I was using film.

Hell, turn on a light or two in the room and get a decent picture. Or,
god forbid use a fill flash off the ceiling or a white piece of paper.

Are you taking pictures of the event, person, desert, etc or are you
just screwing around with a camera and lens to see who can get the
lowest light shot of something that becomes more and more unrecognizable.

You exaggerate.

Here's an example at ISO 800, f/1.4:
http://dd-b.net/cgi-bin/picpage.pl/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/2006/10270-jmf-memorial?pic=ddb%2020061027%20010-178

And here's one at f/1.2:
http://dd-b.net/cgi-bin/picpage.pl/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/2006/10270-jmf-memorial?pic=ddb%2020061027%20010-169

As you can see, the DOF is not in fact so shallow as to be useless.

Paul Rubin wrote:
Ockham's Razor writes:
Are you taking pictures of the event, person, desert, etc or are you

I used to shoot chess tournaments with a 50/1.4, 135/1.8, and 28/2.0
(later got a 35/1.4). That was with TMZ 3200 film. Nothing was ever
fast enough. Fooling with the lights or using flash would have gotten
me thrown out of the building. If the camera cannot see what the eye
can see, there's a technical limit to overcome, through more lens
speed, more ISO, or some combination.

Yep, exactly. The examples I just posted were from a wake for a very
good friend of lots of us. The late-night music session was not a time
for dragging out the flash.

I use a 58/1.2, 135/2, and 24/2 when the lights are down (on 1.5x digital).

Ockham's Razor wrote:
In article ,
Paul Rubin wrote:

Ockham's Razor writes:
Are you taking pictures of the event, person, desert, etc or are you
I used to shoot chess tournaments with a 50/1.4, 135/1.8, and 28/2.0
(later got a 35/1.4). That was with TMZ 3200 film. Nothing was ever
fast enough. Fooling with the lights or using flash would have gotten
me thrown out of the building. If the camera cannot see what the eye
can see, there's a technical limit to overcome, through more lens
speed, more ISO, or some combination.

But always compromised. Perhaps a camera that can shoot at ISO 12600
may allow such shots, but ever more low f stops is not the answer
because of the DoF problem.



Face it, there is a limit (currently) where the abilities of a camera do
not match the abilities of the human eye. If it is "technical", fine,
but that is where the effort must be made. Currently we do not know how
the camera differs from the human eye, so perhaps the efforts needs to
be made in that area.

Actually, I think we've reached the point where, if you're a good
photographer and a good printer and have good equipment, you pretty much
*can* photograph anything you can see. *I* can't perfectly achieve it
yet, but some of the backstage Flying Karamazov photos Ctein showed me
were getting *right* down to that limit (those were on 6x4.5 film
originally I believe; exposed with the intention of scanning and heavy
digital processing).

To fool around with that difference is just going to frustrate you.

That's what makes it interesting! I've been fighting this issue since
highschool, and I've made *huge* strides in the last 4 years largely due
to tech improvements.

I would have centred the top plate on the lower plate before taking
the photo.

--
Joan
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly

"Adrian Boliston" wrote in message
...
: A lot of appeal of an ultra fast lens is the very narrow depth of
focus. I
: took a shot of the desert at our works christmas party at f1.4 and
there
: must only be less than half an inch that's in focus!
:
: http://www.pbase.com/boliston/image/71426979
:
: