2.8 lenses
Mar 31, 2016 09:40:44 #
tbone1130
Loc: Pittsburgh Pa
I'm looking at upgrading my lenses to 2.8 lenses but lately have seen some comments that with todays cameras and the increased iso settings that 2.8 lenses are less necessary if that makes sense. Whats the opinions on spending the extra costs for the more expensive lenses. Is there that big of a difference? Thanks
Mar 31, 2016 09:46:06 #
a lot of f/4 lenses with image stabilization will work as well or better than a non stabilized f/2.8 but the f/4 will not give you the bokeh a f/2.8 will.
Mar 31, 2016 09:50:17 #
tbone1130 wrote:
I'm looking at upgrading my lenses to 2.8 lenses but lately have seen some comments that with todays cameras and the increased iso settings that 2.8 lenses are less necessary if that makes sense. Whats the opinions on spending the extra costs for the more expensive lenses. Is there that big of a difference? Thanks
I have no problem purchasing/using a 3.5 or even a 4.5 lens. I can easily compensate for the f-stop by using a higher ISO.
This does not work across the board and is not a blanket statement covering all cameras. Mine has a particularly low noise level at higher ISO values. Additionally, my exposure technique also compensates for noise issues at higher ISO.
Some crop sensor models are not too suitable for these f-stops due to the inherent higher noise factor.
--Bob
Mar 31, 2016 09:51:26 #
rmorrison1116 wrote:
a lot of f/4 lenses with image stabilization will work as well or better than a non stabilized f/2.8 but the f/4 will not give you the bokeh a f/2.8 will.
Exactly, maximum aperture is not just about exposure/ISO.
Mar 31, 2016 09:51:33 #
tbone1130 wrote:
I'm looking at upgrading my lenses to 2.8 lenses but lately have seen some comments that with todays cameras and the increased iso settings that 2.8 lenses are less necessary if that makes sense. Whats the opinions on spending the extra costs for the more expensive lenses. Is there that big of a difference? Thanks
It depends on how they are used, but they do have advantages in a broad range of conditions.
Are they necessary? Mostly no but if money is not an issue they are good to have.
The big difference is better focusing in low light, faster focus in some conditions, wider shutter and aperture range. Also they facilitate the use of lower ISO which may result in better IQ.
Besides being more costly they are usually heavier which many people consider a disadvantage.
I buy them when I can afford it.
Mar 31, 2016 10:05:16 #
Mar 31, 2016 10:08:48 #
tbone1130 wrote:
I'm looking at upgrading my lenses to 2.8 lenses but lately have seen some comments that with todays cameras and the increased iso settings that 2.8 lenses are less necessary if that makes sense. Whats the opinions on spending the extra costs for the more expensive lenses. Is there that big of a difference? Thanks
the two main reasons to go with lower f stops on lenses are speed and bokah. if you do not need either, then there is no reason for the extra expense.
Mar 31, 2016 10:25:57 #
The faster lenses allow more light into the camera facilitating faster AF, or in the case of manually focusing, easier to see to focus. They do have a more shallow depth of field, especially closer in. If you want to isolate your subject from a distracting background, it's easier to do with a faster lens. I shoot a lot of older prime lenses with F stops of 1.8 or 1.4... Yes, they cost more & with zooms especially (although there are few zooms faster than F2.8), they will add weight & bulk. Whether or not to get one really depends on your wants, subject matter & needs as well as your finances.
Mar 31, 2016 10:26:31 #
amfoto1
Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA
It's true that higher ISO capable cameras and Image Stabilization are making fast lenses less important for low light shooting. Or, another way of looking at it... making possible even lower light shooting with them.
To me, an often more important reason to use larger aperture lenses is to be able to render stronger background blur effects... which can be useful to better isolate subjects in a scene or and for other reasons.
You have to weigh this against the fact that larger aperture lenses are necessarily bigger, heavier and more expensive. Larger aperture zooms, especially, also often compromise optically in one or more ways. They often aren't as sharp from edge-to-edge or have a more limited range of focal lengths or have more chromatic aberrations or less resistance to flare problems etc...compared to less extreme zooms.
Besides, f2.8 isn't necessarily all that fast. Instead of an f2.8 zoom... a smaller, lighter, more affordable prime might be f2, f1.8 or f1.4.
And, it depends a lot on focal length. Wide and ultrawide lenses simply can't render very much background blur. They instead give greater depth of field. Plus shorter focal lengths are more easily handheld, less difficult to hold steady at slower shutter speeds. So for most people there's less reason to need large apertures on wide and ultrawide lenses... Possible exceptions may be astrophotographers or photojournalists shooting in very low light conditions and needing the brighter viewfinder a larger aperture lens offers. But I'd wager that the vast majority of users don't need much more than f4 or f5.6 with an ultrawide... in fact they're more likely to be stopping those lenses down most of the time.
It's different with "walk-around" or midrange zooms and primes closer to the standard focal length range, as well as telephotos up to a point. From around 28mm to around 200mm, larger aperture lenses can prove most useful to most people. A 28/1.8 or 50/1.4 prime is a whole lot smaller and lighter, less expensive AND a stop or more faster than a 24-70/2.8 zoom.
But, I'm the first to say that there also are times when a zoom is an essential tool... such as when shooting fast, photographing erratically moving subjects, and/or unable to move around to reframe the image with a prime lens.
Telephotos longer than 200mm with f2.8 become very large and heavy... not to mention quite expensive. Also an f4 or even f5.6 aperture is able to render very strong background blur effects with more powerful telephotos.
So, weigh all the factors and consider the alternatives... you may or may not end up buying different lenses... or might end up looking at something different than what you originally thought.
EDIT: Scott's specialization... macro photography... has a different set of challenges. A large aperture is less needed for the image itself... because most of the time we're struggling to find adequate depth of field for high magnification shots, and stopping the lens down. However, a bright viewfinder thanks to a larger aperture lens is often helpful.... so f2.8 might be desirable.
Also, many people use a macro lens for dual purpose, because the lenses often are focal lengths that are ideal for people portraiture, too. That's a type of photography where large apertures are often wanted, to blur down backgrounds. (Personally I think macro lenses often are almost too sharp for a lot of portraiture and prefer other lenses for that purpose... but I do use a Tamron 60/2.0 macro lens at times for both macro and portraiture. It's one of very few macro that have larger than f2.8.)
To me, an often more important reason to use larger aperture lenses is to be able to render stronger background blur effects... which can be useful to better isolate subjects in a scene or and for other reasons.
You have to weigh this against the fact that larger aperture lenses are necessarily bigger, heavier and more expensive. Larger aperture zooms, especially, also often compromise optically in one or more ways. They often aren't as sharp from edge-to-edge or have a more limited range of focal lengths or have more chromatic aberrations or less resistance to flare problems etc...compared to less extreme zooms.
Besides, f2.8 isn't necessarily all that fast. Instead of an f2.8 zoom... a smaller, lighter, more affordable prime might be f2, f1.8 or f1.4.
And, it depends a lot on focal length. Wide and ultrawide lenses simply can't render very much background blur. They instead give greater depth of field. Plus shorter focal lengths are more easily handheld, less difficult to hold steady at slower shutter speeds. So for most people there's less reason to need large apertures on wide and ultrawide lenses... Possible exceptions may be astrophotographers or photojournalists shooting in very low light conditions and needing the brighter viewfinder a larger aperture lens offers. But I'd wager that the vast majority of users don't need much more than f4 or f5.6 with an ultrawide... in fact they're more likely to be stopping those lenses down most of the time.
It's different with "walk-around" or midrange zooms and primes closer to the standard focal length range, as well as telephotos up to a point. From around 28mm to around 200mm, larger aperture lenses can prove most useful to most people. A 28/1.8 or 50/1.4 prime is a whole lot smaller and lighter, less expensive AND a stop or more faster than a 24-70/2.8 zoom.
But, I'm the first to say that there also are times when a zoom is an essential tool... such as when shooting fast, photographing erratically moving subjects, and/or unable to move around to reframe the image with a prime lens.
Telephotos longer than 200mm with f2.8 become very large and heavy... not to mention quite expensive. Also an f4 or even f5.6 aperture is able to render very strong background blur effects with more powerful telephotos.
So, weigh all the factors and consider the alternatives... you may or may not end up buying different lenses... or might end up looking at something different than what you originally thought.
EDIT: Scott's specialization... macro photography... has a different set of challenges. A large aperture is less needed for the image itself... because most of the time we're struggling to find adequate depth of field for high magnification shots, and stopping the lens down. However, a bright viewfinder thanks to a larger aperture lens is often helpful.... so f2.8 might be desirable.
Also, many people use a macro lens for dual purpose, because the lenses often are focal lengths that are ideal for people portraiture, too. That's a type of photography where large apertures are often wanted, to blur down backgrounds. (Personally I think macro lenses often are almost too sharp for a lot of portraiture and prefer other lenses for that purpose... but I do use a Tamron 60/2.0 macro lens at times for both macro and portraiture. It's one of very few macro that have larger than f2.8.)
Mar 31, 2016 10:48:14 #
RRS
Loc: Not sure
tbone1130 wrote:
I'm looking at upgrading my lenses to 2.8 lenses but lately have seen some comments that with todays cameras and the increased iso settings that 2.8 lenses are less necessary if that makes sense. Whats the opinions on spending the extra costs for the more expensive lenses. Is there that big of a difference? Thanks
It should depend on if you have the need for a 2.8 lens. I shoot wildlife in early morning and late in the day also. I know I'll get some negative reply's on this but if you buy say a 300mm f/2.8 prime and you can't afford a 600mm f/4.0 you can use a 2X with that lens and still have the view of a 600mm but it will be at f/5.6 and most cameras will AF at that aperture. That combination may not produce "wall hangers" but if done right you can get some pretty good images. The faster lenses are heavier but the IC is hard to beat. Just to buy an f/2.8 lens without a need is a waste of money. The Canon 70-200mm f/4.0 is every bit as good as their 2.8 version if you don't need the speed and I'd much rather carry the 4.0 all day over the 2.8.
Mar 31, 2016 10:50:12 #
tbone1130 wrote:
I'm looking at upgrading my lenses to 2.8 lenses but lately have seen some comments that with todays cameras and the increased iso settings that 2.8 lenses are less necessary if that makes sense. Whats the opinions on spending the extra costs for the more expensive lenses. Is there that big of a difference? Thanks
f/2.8 will allow you to achieve a more shallow Depth of Field than f/4. If you don't need a more shallow DoF, a slower lens would be no problem.
Mar 31, 2016 10:55:03 #
Stick a 2X TC on an F4 lens & the effective aperture becomes F8... Few cameras will AF at that aperture.... As I said earlier, whether or not to get the faster aperture depends on the factors I laid out in my last post.
Mar 31, 2016 11:08:05 #
I brought along my camera to our Easter dinner and caught the family playing a game with the kids. I was at the far end of the open room, about 20 feet, and didn't want them to know I was taking pictures. I used a D810, 28-70 2.8 set at 1/80, f8, 70mm, and ISO 5600. Because I shot through a bunch of people I cropped it to 4.2mb out of a shot of 75.5mb to focus in on the kids. The picture is grainy but will serve as a 4x6 or maybe a 5x7. Yes modern cameras do a lot better today for shooting in low light without having to use 2.8 settings. Leon
Mar 31, 2016 11:09:02 #
rmalarz wrote:
Additionally, my exposure technique also compensates for noise issues at higher ISO.
--Bob
--Bob
I'm interested in knowing what exposure techniques will compensate for noise issues.
Apr 1, 2016 07:06:06 #
tbone1130 wrote:
I'm looking at upgrading my lenses to 2.8 lenses but lately have seen some comments that with todays cameras and the increased iso settings that 2.8 lenses are less necessary if that makes sense. Whats the opinions on spending the extra costs for the more expensive lenses. Is there that big of a difference? Thanks
There's a lot to it, but aside from the technology available to take pictures in low light, a larger aperture offers other advantages. I watched a couple of tutorials by Joel Sartori (Nat Geo), and loves to shoot at f/2.8.
Lots of info here. -
http://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=advantages%20of%20f%2F2.8
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.