Bret Loc: Dayton Ohio

Lower ISO and very good focus....other than that its off to the software....and de-noise or noise reduction and so on.

Jim Bob

No one can answer that question knowing nothing about your subject preferences or exactly what lenses you are considering. Some 2.8s are exceptional, others suck.

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

If you can afford the 2.8 lenses, buy them, and then don't ever wonder why you settled. Only your priorities---and peace of mind.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

In several cases, I have both a 2.8 version and an F4 version. A good example is the new Nikon 300 F4 PF. That particular lens has become a favorite due to its light weight and overall performance. On a D4s it's plenty fast enough for many things and I can carry it for days. I do use my 300 F2.8, but mostly for action sports. On my list, is a Nikon 70-200 F4, simply because of it's lighter weight. I won't be selling the faster version until I age a little more and switch to a much lighter system altogether. Best of luck.

Crwiwy Loc: Devon UK

A f4 lens with Image Stabilization will give you low light capabilities without changing ISO.
Even at my age I have taken many pictures - hand held - at 1/4 or 1/8 sec and got sharp pictures equivalent to perhaps 1/16sec.
Benefits of a f4 lens:
Much lower weight and size.
Easier to hand hold due to lower size and weight.
Lower cost.

Disadvantage:
not such a good bokah - only useful if you really need it.
Not so good to pose with - an essential for some. 8-)

Reinaldokool Loc: San Rafael, CA

I recently purchased a new a6000 (And have an a6300 shipped just yesterday. :D The two lenses I purchased were an 18-200 f3.5-6.3 for most of my work, AND a 50mm f1.8. I will rarely use the latter, but when I go into a museum, or a cathedral in Mexico, the light is often very low and flash is a no-no. Yes, I could up my ISO to astronomical levels, but at some point the noise goes beyond acceptable.

I went with my old Nikon 400mm last Saturday to shoot children playing with (Antagonizing) the ducks on a pond. But that lens, working through an adapter, doesn't give autofocus or exposure. (Nice thing about the EVF is that I can see the results when I set it.)

Deecee

Not sure which brand your talking about but I used Nikon ED lenses for years. These are what I call medium cost lenses, not a kit lens, but not a 2.8 lens either. I swore I would never by the more expensive 2.8 lenses because of their ridiculous cost.

But...

When I bought my D610 a couple of years ago Nikon was offering a rebate on the 24-70mm so I bit the bullet and bought one. Yeah the 2.8 is better for low light, but the biggest difference is how sharp this lens is. It was amazing! Wayyyyy better than the my medium prices lenses. So much so, I went out and bought three more (14-24mm; 70-200mm, and the 105mm macro) and then sold all my older lenses.

The only drawback besides the cost is the weight. I had to switch to a backpack to carry all the lenses. Good exercise I guess

jcboy3

If you don't shoot 2.8, you're not a real photographer.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

LOVE IT!!!!! But with our age, and today's high resolution & sensitivity bodies, can we say F4 as well??

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

:thumbup:

BebuLamar

If you just need to take pictures in low light then the f/2.8 is not necessary. If you need the large aperture because you hate DOF then there is no other way.

BebuLamar

I never use f/2.8 because I am not a real photographer.

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

Well none of the comments listed are truly helpful. There are more differences that just f/2.8. For the most part fast lenses are quite different than their counter parts in several areas. They are usually professional lenses that have better glass that reduces vignetting, aberration, distortion, have special and more coating to increase saturation, contrast, reduce ghosting and flares, and sharper from edge to edge not just the middle. Usually have weather sealing, more metal than plastic, and have 9 or more rounded aperture blades for better bokeh (blades are essential to bokeh), etc. Did I mention higher resale value? Better lenses also have internal zoom, if they are zooms.

Are they worth the extra dollars, technically speaking, yes. But no professional lens will give you good results if you do not adhere to the principles of good light, composition, subject matter and story. As much as beginners think that gear is the most critical factor, it is not. I have seen award winning images that are not the sharpest and not shot with a fastest lens.

You really need to include other criteria in evaluating value, not just f/2.8 or faster.

jgitomer Loc: Skippack Pennsylvania

I think you erred. Rather than 2.8 you should have said f/2.0 or faster manual focus primes. :) :-)

Of course it depends on your subject matter. If you want to shoot indoor sports a fast autofocus zoom lens should be your weapon of choice, when shooting static subjects in decent light slow zooms, be they manual or autofocus, are more than adequate, but when shooting under poor lighting a fast prime is the best solution.

I think primes work well even when shooting indoor sports, but it does mean that the photographer must be more familiar with the sport and be able to pre-focus on the area where the action is expected to take place, e.g. in basketball under the basket.

I don't shoot indoor events, but I prefer primes because I can concentrate on my subject without worrying about any changes in image quality due to whether my lens is at the wide-angle or telephoto setting or isn't in its "sweet spot"

MW

For some the 2.8 aperture is more about isolating the subject from the background that about shutter speed of low light.