lenses for low light

[räuber]

I try to find good lenses for low light for quite some time now. So what are your recommendations? And are there any good vintage low light lenses? Or does it has to be the huge heavy modern F1.4 lens if you want clean images in dim light?

A little bit of context from my experience.

If you want to take pictures in dim or low light and keep the ISO value low enough you need a lens with a bigger aperture to achieve this. You need a lens that "sucks" in more light, with a higher light transmission. The lower the F-stop the bigger the aperture but the smaller is the DOF (the depth of focus). And the lower the F-stop the more inferior the sharpness of most lenses become. So it is a double edged sword to take a lens with F1.4 or F1.0 or even F0.95 and expect to get sharp images in dark places.

The other issue is that F-stop is not T-stop. The F-stop only tells you partly the truth about how dark or light a lens is at the maximum aperture. A F1.4 lens can be as bright as an F1.8 or even F2.8 lens. A lot of vintage lenses suffer from this. And even expensive modern lenses will not behave in such a way. The light transmission is measured in T-stops and only cinema lenses offer a scale with T-stops. Most film lenses miss a T-stop rating and even the best review sites do not measure the real T-stop of a given lens.

And it is not easy to measure the T-stop by any means. Modern cameras with integrated lightmeter will adjust ISO and speed on what they see but they seem to do it differently for AF and manual (or dumb) lenses. I give you an example:

Sony A7R iii
Voigtländer Nokton 50mm F1.2 VM @1.2 with dumb adapter => 1/125s Auto ISO 5000
Voigtländer Nokton 50mm F1.2 VM @1.2 with LEA2 Techart adapter => 1/125s Auto ISO 3200
Voigtländer Nokton 40mm F1.2 SE @1.2 (with aperture send to camera) => 1/125s Auto ISO 2500

The same scene, the same target but different auto ISO values. If you use a vintage lens on a camera like the Sony A7R iii the automatic will not use it as it's fullest in low light situations. You need to dial in negative EV values to compensate for this. A lot of modern lenses will give you better low light performance by just sending their aperture value to the camera. The Auto ISO corrects differently for F1.4, F2.0 or F2.8.

On a dumb adapter all lenses I tested do not reach the expected ISO value on modern cameras. Going from F2.8 to F2.0 increases ISO as expected by one full stop. But south from F2.0 things get difficult. A lot of F1.4 lenses only reach ISO of a F1.8 lens. And even F1.2 only gets you F1.6 at best.

So it is a valid question: Do you need any vintage / manual F1.4 or F1.0 lens for low light shooting? A sharp F1.8 lens will give you T1.8 with sharp images in low light. But which F1.4, F1.2, F1.0, F0.95 lenses will get you a further benefit?

To answer my own question.

The Voigtländer Nokton 40mm 1.2 SE is small and is one hell of a low light lens when it comes to Auto ISO. The brightest I have found so far. For sharpness it is good up close in the center wide open but with bad corners.

The Voigtländer Nokton 50mm 1.2 VM is sharp in the center wide open with a little better corners than the 40mm. But the Auto ISO is not its best friend even if it is brighter than most other manual lenses.

It will be interesting how the Nokton 35mm 1.2 iii will fare compared with the 40 and 50...

[calvin83]

There is NIKKOR Z 58mm f/0.95 S Noct which DXO rate it 35 P-Mpix in Sharpness and 1.1 TStop in Transmission on A Nikon Z7... Modern lens will win in both Sharpness and Transmission.

[Gatorengineer64]

Alot of folks love the Chinesium 0.95s from the Mitakon or zongyi. They are less than 1/10 the the price of the noct. i they didn't appeal to me and got returned but ymmv.

At high speed two things seem to matter sharpness and character. I love my Minolta 58 1.2 for its character., I love the voigt 40 1.2 for the qualities you mention.

[kathala]

[quote="Gatorengineer64"]Alot of folks love the Chinesium 0.95s from the Mitakon or zongyi. They are less than 1/10 the the price of the noct.
[/quote]
true, but they are NOT f/.95, but f/1.06: see photonstophotos.net//GeneralTopics/Lenses/OpticalBench/OpticalBench.htm#Data/CN111965793_Example01P.txt,figureOpacity=0.25,AxisO,OffAxis (look at "f#", i.e. the mathematical f/ number, not a measured T value!)

I have yet to see a sharp fast lens from Voigtländer. I had the 35/1.2 I and II, and both were outrageously dismal rubbish wide-open. I even sent the Mk II to the official Voigtländer for adjustment - it came back with a 250 EUR bill (!!), but no sharper!

Might I direct you to my reference table of fastest lenses, specifically chapter 3ff of this one:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WKzZoHmyEaVV18iuB7oP-CcAxf_QLwAYhyL-vjYFIBE/edit?usp=drive_web&ouid=108628632450090560676

The SHARPEST of these might be
35 and 45 .95 Laowa (evil only)
58 .95 Nikon Z Noct-Nikkor (evil only)
85 1.2 Canon RF (evil only)
Decent are
35 1.2 DZOptics Kerlee (SLR)
35, 5o, 85 1.2 Samyang XP (SLR)
5o 1.2 Canon RF (evil only)

[kypfer]

My EBC Fujinon-W 35mm f/1.9 in 42-screw has always provided most of my low-light requirements.
My 8-element Pentax Super Takumar 50mm f/1.4 (also in M42) is also very good
I had EBC-Fujinon 50mm f/1.2 in AX mount for a few years, but it became obsolescent when I "went digital" (long before mirrorless cameras) and it was sold to an "enthusiastic" collector

[RokkorDoctor]

That's really many implicit questions rather than one

To answer the obvious question:

- no, there are there are no good vintage low light lenses if you are expecting perfect corners and zero spherical aberration and CA when shooting wide-open
- yes, there are quite a few good vintage low light lenses if you are after pleasing images when shooting wide-open

I am quite pleased with the rendering of my Minolta MC ROKKOR 35mm/1.8, MC ROKKOR 58mm/1.2, MC ROKKOR 85mm/1.7, AUTO ROKKOR 100mm/2 and MD 135mm/2 lenses...

And sometimes a tripod or other support is simply the more sensible solution...

[eggplant]

Surely f0.95 + digital camera with a few stops of sensor stabilization and 1-2 stops better high ISO performance is going to allow you to shoot in very low light circumstances?

Understandably, this is only in comparison to what we had before with film- if this still isn't enough on its own, then fair. Or if you're doing video.


Calling these lenses "chinesium" is being ignorant and stupid, give it a rest.

[cooltouch]

I suppose "low light" is a somewhat flexible term. If I choose to define "low light" as f/2 or lower (or wider), then I have several lenses I can recommend.

At the top of my recommendations is the Canon FD 85mm f/1.2 Aspherical. It is usually readily available on eBay, but prices are often quite high.

Other f/1.2 lenses I own that I consider to be worthy contenders:

Canon FD 50mm f/1.2 SSC (Canon made an Aspherical model, but it is very pricey)
Canon FL 55mm f/1.2
Canon LTM (39mm thread) 50mm f/1.2

If you're willing to consider f/1.4 as acceptable, there are many lenses to choose from. I own:

Canon FD 50mm f/1.4 SSC
Canon nFD 50mm f/1.4
Minolta MD 50mm f/1.4
Nikon Nikkor Pre-AI, AI and AIs 50mm f/1.4
Asahi Pentax Super Takumar 50mm f/1.4
Pentax M 50mm f/1.4

Some f/1.8 lenses I own:
Canon nFD 85mm f/1.8
Canon FD 50mm f/1.8 SC
Canon LTM (39mm thread) 50mm f/1.8
Minolta MD 50mm f/1.8
Nikon Nikkor AIs 50mm f/1.8

My only f/1.9:
Vivitar 35mm f/1.9

Now, even though the following lenses are slower than f/2, they bear consideration because they are fast telephoto:

Canon nFD 200mm f/2.8
Canon nFD 300mm f/2.8 L
Nikon Nikkor AIs 180mm f/2.8 ED
Nikon Nikkor 300mm f/2.8 ED
Tamron SP 180mm f/2.5 LD
Tamron SP 300mm f/2.8 LD
Tamron SP 80-200mm f/2.8 LD

[räuber]

For low light I do not need sharp corners wide open. But a sharp center to the 1/3d line helps a lot.

Canons 50ies are plenty sharp. My Canon nFD 50mm F1.4 SSC is sharp in close range and infinity. But the F1.4 aperture is not brighter than F1.8 on a Sony 55mm F1.8 ZA. I've got a Canon nFD 50mm F1.2 SSC in the past and it was as sharp enough wide open and rewarded me with some of my most beloved images.

I own a Samyang 35mm F1.4 and wide open it is as good as the Voigtländer Nokton 40mm F1.2 both in sharpness as in transmission. But it is heavy and big. So I do not take it with me very often. Instead I would take the Sony FE 35mm F1.8 with me for AF or the Nokton 40mm 1.2 for the extra stop.

[D1N0]

If you need good corners in a low light situation, the solution is simple. A tripod. You can stop down all you want. If you don't carry one use what is around to put your camera on.

[KEO]

The ZY Optics Speedmaster 35mm 0.95 is very nice, but it's an aps-c lens.

It's big brother, the Speedmaster 85mm 1.2 is an extremely good full-frame lens.

There's also a Speedmaster 50mm 0.95, but I haven't tried that one.

[visualopsins]

Maybe what we really want to know is what is the miniimum acceptable shutter speed to freeze motion of your subjects? Then we can specify a camera with quality high iso, and, a lens speed. Maybe a survey of lenses sorted with high T-stop (low T-stop numbers).

[philslizzy]

my tuppence:

F1.2 is half a stop faster than f1.4. The extra elements probably lose that much anyway.

[Gerald]

In the age of film, fast lenses were important, and even essential, for certain applications, such as photojournalism or sports. However, we are now in other time, when a typical digital sensor is much more sensitive than photographic film.

Today, lens manufacturers continue to design super-fast lenses, but we should look at the matter more technically and less emotionally. Consider, for example, a super fast F1.0 lens. This lens is only one stop faster than an F1.4 lens and 2 stops faster than an F2.0 lens. However, a digital FF sensor is about 6 stops more sensitive than film! That means an F8.0 lens plus a digital sensor is equivalent to an F1.0 lens plus film! So for low light photography, a fast lens is much less needed today than it used to be.

Even a cell phone, which uses a small sensor, therefore less sensitive than an FF or APS-C sensor, can take excellent photos in low light. Modern fast lens designs are justified more for "artistic" reasons (selective focus, nice bokeh, etc.) than for low-light photography. Perhaps astrophotography is an exception, where faster lenses are always welcome.

P.S.: Another extraordinary advancement in digital photography was the development of image stabilization of 4 or 5 stops, or even more. This means an effective sensitivity gain of 10 to 11 stops, at least for photos of static subjects, compared to the state-of-the-art at the time of the film.

[calvin83]

I would consider F1.4/F1.5 is the sweet pot for most fast lenses.

[D1N0]

[caspert79]

In terms of bang for your bucks, the Samyang 85/1.4 is a winner IMO.

[cooltouch]

[RokkorDoctor]

[calvin83]

[Gerald]

[Manichaean]

[KEO]