Why is 21st century photography so slow?

Ian started a blog post Why is 21st century photography so slow?
13-07-09, 12:16 PM

Share

Tweet
Why is 21st century photography so slow?

Aye, when I was a nipper *LOL, I used to press my nose up against the camera shop window and gaze at Nikon Fs, Canon FTbs, Minolta SRT101s, Pentax SP1000s, and think, I can't even think of affording one of those. So for me the realistic propositions were the Zenit E, Praktica LTL, or a Miranda Sensomat RE.

The Miranda appealed to me the most; it had a bayonet lens mount instead of a 42mm screw thread mount, and it had an interchangeable viewfinder - Nikon F-esque! But there was a price for this sophistication; the model I could afford only had a 50mm f/2.8 standard lens. Everything else had an f/1.8 lens (apart from the Zenit, which had an f/2 lens, with free bubbles in the glass of the lens elements :eek:).

But look at us today. Standard affordable kit zoom lenses for DSLRs have a heart-racingly fast maximum aperture of f/3.5. By the time you reach the tele end of the said zoom you are down to f/5.6, or darker. Yes, there is often an affordable 50mm f/1.8 available in DSLR lens arsenals, but with cheaper DSLRs you no longer have a 50mm of old, but a 75 or 80mm equivalent because of smaller sensor sizes.

You can get fast prime standard lenses that work in the same way as the old 50mm standard lens; Sigma's 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM is one example, but although it represents great value, it's still almost �300.

If you want a fast standard zoom, the numbers get even more eye-watering. A Canon EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 costs around �800. And that's just for an f/2.8 lens, for example.

Maybe I didn't realise how good value that Miranda Sensomat RE was with its 50mm f/2.8 standard lens...
Tags: None
5 - 7

7 comments
- #5
  
  Patrick commented
  
  14-07-09, 02:56 PM
  
  Editing a comment
  
  Difficult to say, those that remember these old lenses may very well miss them, I never owned anything wider than f2 and found it difficult to get good focus. Being a spectacle wearer (from the age of 17, I'm now 66) I could not get close enough to the viewfinder, particularly the Leica III I owned in my teens, with its silly tiny finder. With large aperture lenses used wide open accurate focus is essential. I still find manual focus difficult even now, with a sceptical adapter on the camera.
  The new young generation of photography are not familiar with wide lenses so definitely won't miss them.
  As a matter of interest the guy I bought my Canon f4 300L had a Canon 200mm f1.2 I think it was, anyway very wide (I don't believe Canon make it any more). The front element was the size of a large saucer, the view finder was very bright, almost seemed brighter than the actual object focused on. The weight was awful, so very very heavy,
  
  Patrick
- #6
  
  Stephen commented
  
  15-07-09, 01:15 PM
  
  Editing a comment
  
  My first 'proper' camera was a Praktica LTL which was bought for me on my 21st b'day. My mother pushed the boat out and got the 50mm f1.8 Pancolor lens. The alternative was the cheaper 2.8 Tessar. At the time I didn't really appreciate the difference in terms of their use, it was enough to know it was a 'better' lens and the front element was much bigger.
  
  I found the 50mm lens frustrating and although I had no experience of other lenses, I found it wasn't wide enough and if I wanted things closer and couldn't walk to it, it was not long enough. I think its for this reason that I have never had a 50mm lens since.
  
  At the time I didn't even realise the benefits of the 1.8 lens, something I do now, even though today I have 2 zoom lenses that are f2.8 throughout the zoom range.
  
  The thing is though that I always felt that prime lenses always felt restrictive and the zoom was so much more versatile. I suppose I've been lucky though, in so far as I've managed to acquire over time good quality lenses, mainly because I could justify the expense. I learnt that if I was to get the best results I could not afford to compromise and so now have all Canon L zoom lenses. Interestingly enough every one of my 4 lenses also has the same size filter thread, another advantage when buying filters etc.
  
  So in answer to your initial question. People don't want to pay a premium for fast zoom or prime lenses, and they are not satisfied with just 50mm primes that are fast
- #7
  
  Ian commented
  
  15-07-09, 04:57 PM
  
  Editing a comment
  
  Of course, back in the days before autofocus, SLR users depended heavily on the brightness of the focusing screen in the viewfinder. And zoom lenses were mostly not very bright and optically they were usually quite poor. I think I agree that the classic 50mm standard lens was in a sort of no mans land for versatility; too short for portraits and too long for landscapes, but they were usually very sharp and very bright. The two next most often purchased prime focal lengths were 28mm and 135mm. The former was fine for landscapes and for tight situations, while the latter was great for portraits and to bring things a little closer where necessary. I wonder if using a prime lens challenges one's photographic instincts and makes one work harder to get the best composition?
Previous template Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Announcement

Why is 21st century photography so slow?