Mac
Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.
SonyA580
Loc: FL in the winter & MN in the summer
Mac wrote:
https://fstoppers.com/landscapes/are-f28-lenses-needed-landscape-photography-647679
For landscapes/seascapes I rarely open up to even f/5.6. Most are taken in the f/8 - f/11 range.
The benefit of an f/2.8, or faster, lens is the brightness in the viewfinder possibly allowing for more critical focus.
Once in the past went to a photo shoot [ desert in CA ] .the host said , that you should shoot 1 or 2 F stops from wide open . So that is why you would spend extra money with a faster lens , you will not shoot there , but 1 or 2 F stops from wide open . Some lenses with LARGE wide open , are soft there , but not 1 or 2 off ????? .
The faster lenses are usually bigger in mm dia., and so lets more light in. Doesn't matter if you shoot wide open
( usually for dof purposes, or trying for bokeh), but can help significantly in lower light settings.
However, though I have some fast lenses in my stable, I choose the lens for the setting, and with tripod, you can successfully capture some very low light images. Successfully.
Keep on shooting. And enjoy it.
SonyA580 wrote:
The benefit of an f/2.8, or faster, lens is the brightness in the viewfinder possibly allowing for more critical focus.
Having it and using it (for images) are two different things.
I believe the discussion is about using it for images.
Landscape photos need depth-of-field, I use f11 or more. Never would see that end of the f stops. Have a white lens starting about f4, I could have had the f2.5 for only a thousand or so more. WHY!
I should have said some of us do use and should use a f2.5 but I don't. Buy what you want and pay what you want.
I don't see the aperture requirement is different for landscape vs other type of photography but I use f/5.6 to f/11 most of the time for all types of photography.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.