[Cerebum]

I have all five DA limited primes and the 50mm f1.8. Now, I would like to be able to shoot my sons band but often the lighting is poor. @BigMacCam got me hooked on the idea of the FA 35mm f2 but it is £300 in the UK (half that in Japan, which is annoying but then there is postage, admin, duty etc.) The thing is, does f2 vs F2.8 make a big difference? The DA* 55mm f1.4 shares top spot on my LBA list but three or four lenses keep swapping places lol. The other lenses in the running are the FA 28mm f2.8 (which slots into a gap in the limiteds) and the 20-40mm limited. I dream of stumbling across a 31mm limited in a charity shop, preferably attached to a K1 lol but then, don't we all. I have plenty of M42s but lately I am just really enjoying AF primes. I know the wider it goes, the more options you have, i also know that doesn't always make for a sharper lens (50mm f1.4 vs 50mm 1.7) I guess what I am asking is, in this day and age, is having a really fast lens a)the primary concern and 2) essential?

Depends on your willingness to deal with the "noise issue". You can use an extremely sensitive ISO setting and accomplish the same effect as using a "fast lens", but the "graininess" will increase. (I'm assuming you will need a relatively fast shutter speed as "bands" tend to move around a bit while performing.)

One thing people seem to forget is that the amount of light that comes in through the aperture increases as the aperture increases (the iris gets wider, lower f-stop number) and that increase is nonlinear. I don't rememer whether it increases logarithmically or what the function is, but the difference between f-stops 2 and 3 is much greater than that between, say, 5 and 6. My point is that squeezing that extra bit of light out from an f/2.0 lens over the f/2.8 is worth it if you've got the cash.

Have you considered using a flash?

[kypfer]

The thing is, does f2 vs F2.8 make a big difference?
I guess what I am asking is, in this day and age, is having a really fast lens a)the primary concern and 2) essential?

The difference between f/2 and f/2.8 is one whole stop, or twice/half the light. That is to say, to retain the same exposure, changing from f/2 to f/2.8 will require a similar change in shutter speed or ISO (or half and half). In a well lit situation, purely artistic license, if you're already down to 1/15 at max ISO it can become important
Probably depends on which body you're using and how critical you are of noise/grain
With my K-70 and later, for me, virtually anything goes. These bodies have such significant low-light sensitivity that the aperture almost reverts to just being a depth-of-field control, irrespective of which lens is fitted!
With my K-5, and more importantly the *ist's, a wide-aperture lens does serve a purpose, both from the noise perspective and the limited high ISO available.
Over the years I've collected quite an "arsenal" of older glass, so I've usually got a combination for most situations, but the newer cameras do make the job a whole lot easier

[Serkevan]

I have the K-1 (unfortunately I keep waking up without seeing a 31 attached. It's terrible ) so I just let'er rip into the ISO 10K range.

Have you had any specific situation where you couldn't get good shots? An aperture of f/2 would have allowed you to either double shutter speed or drop ISO by one stop, compared to f/2.8. Would that have been enough to turn a bad frame around?
I'm asking because from what I've seen, with the KP it's generally alright to let ISO go to 3200 and not have a lot of trouble later.

[pschlute]

I guess what I am asking is, in this day and age, is having a really fast lens a)the primary concern and 2) essential?

For your purposes of shooting your son's band this is a moot point.

You will be able to use a lower ISO and/or higher shutter speed, but your focussing will have to be spot on. Assuming you are 20 feet from your subject with a 50mm lens, the difference between a f1.4 lens and a f2.8 lens is the former has barely 3 feet of DOF compared to 6 feet with the latter.

Cameras today can deal with high ISO very well and any half decent processing software can reduce noise further.

As well as going for a normal shot the other things you should try are :

Use a high ISO to actually encourage noise/grain in your image, which can be effective in these kind of shots.

Choose a slow shutter speed to create subject movement/blur in the band members, which can also be very effective.

If you are able to use fill-flash try that too. Experiment with the flash compensation or use manual flash so that the closest band member will be be well lit and frozen in action while the remainder will be lit with ambient light.

[kypfer]

One thing people seem to forget is that the amount of light that comes in through the aperture increases as the aperture increases (the iris gets wider, lower f-stop number) and that increase is nonlinear. I don't rememer whether it increases logarithmically or what the function is, but the difference between f-stops 2 and 3 is much greater than that between, say, 5 and 6. My point is that squeezing that extra bit of light out from an f/2.0 lens over the f/2.8 is worth it if you've got the cash.

The relationship is an inverse square. 1.4 is (approximately) the square root of 2, so an f/2 lens lets in half the light of an f/1.4 (wide open). Extrapolating from that, 2.8 is twice 1.4 so lets in 1/4 the light and f/4 1/8 of the light etc. etc.

[Rondec]

Fast lenses are helpful to keep iso down in dark situations. The problem is that they are often soft wide open, unless you are getting one of the really expensive lenses. If you are looking for a lens in the 30-ish mm range, another one to keep your eyes open for would be a Sigma 35mm f1.4 or the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 either one might be a little cheaper -- if you can find them used.

[vijaykishan]

I guess what I am asking is, in this day and age, is having a really fast lens a)the primary concern and 2) essential?

Depends on the application really, ususally on a landscape jaunt, I try not to take fast lenses if I'm planning anything that is back lit; Larger aperture rating ususally means larger front element = greater risk of flare (even with the latest greatest HD coating) . OTOH, for some portraits where subject isolation is key, then yes, fast lenses help (irrespective of how advanced the sensor is). IMHO the limiteds are the best compromise, in that, even with a large-ish apertures (F1.8/F1.9) , the front elements tend to be much smaller than say a 24-70 F2.8 (82mm!). Another consideration is, if one plans to use the tripod or if the subject is expected to be moving and needs to be rendered sharp + lighting. For example I use the CZ 100mm F2 Makroplanar for subject isolation despite have a motionless subject + good lighting + Tripod.


Another consideration is, autofocus - large aperture lenes help here immensly



So what I'm try to say here is, once needs to evalaute the tools keeping the end result (large print/web/low-res) in mind and the photograhing conditions. It is rather amusing to see people carring a hunk of glass up a mountain just to click all their for-low-res-only-pictures at F11 in backlit conditions, O well...


In essence - buy all the glass you can and choose between them as needed - How's that excuse for LBA ;-)

[Lowell Goudge]

This issue is as old as photography.

The question you need to ask yourself if noise, grain, etc. adds to the image or not.

I used to shoot Kodak tri-x 400 pushed to 3200 iso, with a 50mmf1.4 at 1/30 of a second. Gave amazing street shots. Grainy sure, but they had a character to them.

Today’s digital cameras far exceed what you can do with film in terms of noise /grain and one stop likely won’t make a big difference in exposure. What it makes a difference in is brightness in the viewfinder and likely a faster lens stopped down one stop should (but may not always) be sharper than a slower lens wide open

[zapp]

Pentax only offers a single large aperture lens for APSC sensors:*55. Pentax stopped right there. Ltds are nice lenses, but also leftovers of full frame days. Focal length spreading is not great for APSC, AF is outdated. Still nice glass, and I love my 77, but only on full frame. DFA* define the large aperture line. FA 35/50 do well, but are not modern glass for digital cameras. Pentax does not offer an f/2 line of lenses dedicated to APSC.
Find out what focal length you need and where to place your funds. Modern cameras do well with high iso, so max out what you have. Large aperture is not everything, I would probably use a DFA* at f/2 and not always wide open.

[house]

It depends on what type of music the band plays! Or further what style of images you/the band think i suitable. For some bands a high iso shot turned black and white might be just the ticket. Others migh requires iso 100 smoothness. Traditionally lots of band photography has been grainy and noisy because the tech put a limit. This has translated into a sort of language that might be desirable even if it's no longer required.

[pepperberry farm]

I have all five DA limited primes and the 50mm f1.8. Now, I would like to be able to shoot my sons band but often the lighting is poor. @BigMacCam got me hooked on the idea of the FA 35mm f2 but it is £300 in the UK (half that in Japan, which is annoying but then there is postage, admin, duty etc.) The thing is, does f2 vs F2.8 make a big difference? The DA* 55mm f1.4 shares top spot on my LBA list but three or four lenses keep swapping places lol. The other lenses in the running are the FA 28mm f2.8 (which slots into a gap in the limiteds) and the 20-40mm limited. I dream of stumbling across a 31mm limited in a charity shop, preferably attached to a K1 lol but then, don't we all. I have plenty of M42s but lately I am just really enjoying AF primes. I know the wider it goes, the more options you have, i also know that doesn't always make for a sharper lens (50mm f1.4 vs 50mm 1.7) I guess what I am asking is, in this day and age, is having a really fast lens a)the primary concern and 2) essential?

I get what you're saying... why do I need that speed if I can make up for it with the dynamic resolution of my camera?

the answer will always be dependent upon several factors, mainly you and your camera's sensor......

I'm seeing more and more higher ISO shots in my photography due to the sensor's ability to function at that level and have an acceptable amount of noise - in my current lineup of camera, it's the Fuji sensors that are more capable, but they are also newer....

I am more interested in older, film-era lenses at this point in my hobby, which means (normally) the f1.4, f1.2 lenses that catch my eye were cream of the crop when they were in current production - so, you would think, they would be the higher-quality lenses that the company produced... I'm finding this is usually so, especially if you aren't using the lenses at the extremes of their capabilities (and sometimes shooting all month in the SIC wide-open)...


then there's the ego....

who doesn't want a bright, noteworthy "F1.2" lens hanging off the front of their camera?

[Cerebum]

Fabulous info as usual. I shoot a KP so have decent high iso control. The one and only time I shot my sons rock/metal band there was no stage lighting whatsoever. The luminance noise gave me an actual post processing headache lol. I was also using my K3 which can be a bit noisy sometimes. The plan is to shoot them as often as I can. My problem is budget. I was very tempted by the FA 28mm f2.8 but i now don't think I will gain anything over the 35mm & 40mm limiteds, both of which are f2.8, so, that leads me back to the 35mm f2, the aforementioned sigma or the DA* 55mm f1.4, and stand further away lol. One option would be to use one of my 50mm tomiokas, just because it would be cool, they are f1.7/8. Goodness knows when I will have the budget, but at least I have more of an order to my LBA

[UncleVanya]

I’ve shot bad with my old k-3 and other less capable cameras. The KP is so much better. The lightning must have been terrible to give you headaches.

I doubt they will be unhappy with B&W shots and there you can push things farther.

As stated the key is what minimum shutter speed and iso you want vs focusing depth of field and cost.

P1220158_DxO by -vanya_42nd-

Made on an m43 at iso 800 (200 with ev -2 is roughly 800) at f2.3 and 1/15th of a sec. This was shot at a well lighted stage.

[photoptimist]

A new body with one additional stop of high-ISO noise control will instantly upgrade ALL of your lenses by one stop. Moreover, better high-ISO often provides better images than do wider-aperture lenses. A wider aperture lens comes with shallow-DoF problems (e.g., only one part of one band member is in focus at a time) and wider aperture lenses tend to have worse edge/corner softness.

In the short run, a better body seems like a budget buster. In the long run, it's cheaper than upgrading a whole bag full of lenses.

The other option is to embrace the noise! Does anyone really expect an image from a dark music venue to be as smooth and flawless as an advertising product shot in a fully-lit studio? Maybe the grain in the image is part of ambiance.