Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

?????

User ID

(Download)

linda lagace

sometimes I shoot close and it seems to make a difference? Still learning. When I have a big heron or egret I don't always get all the parts in focus or as sharp as I want. (and sometimes I don't want it all in focus - I want to concentrate on something specific - like the ground squirrel hanging out of the egret's bill) Even on the smaller birds if he's sticking his bill out in another direction or his leg out sideways etc it may be annoying when its not in focus the way I want it to be. Sometimes I'm just not being fast enough to set the right settings before the particular situation changes. It took me awhile with my old camera to automatically reach for the correct settings and its a much steeper learning curve with my more sensitive new lens and camera. It would be boring if it wasn't a challenge.

User ID

An essential principle of photography is that you can never have too much DoF, but you can never get enough. Likewise for shutter speed. Acoarst shutter speed and DoF are conflicting parameters. So some degree of compromise will always be inevitable.

... meanwhile somewhere in Norway Loc: none

Depth of focus is a better term. There are ways to take advantage of faster lenses...

F 1.2 is fun but not acceptable if I need a subject fully in focus at 50 mm for example, no matter the lighting conditions.

The only way to increase depth of focus for me is to increase the focal length. My 200 mm lens will have a deeper depth of focus at f2 than my 50 mm at the same setting...

I get acceptable depth of focus with f 2 starting at 200mm for automotive work or modeling... and It increases with 300.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

That’s bunk. Shallow DOF is important in many shots. You can certainly have too much.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Depth of focus refers to "the image plane (the film plane in a camera) in relation to the lens." That also applies to the sensor.

Depth of field is the proper term for the result you see relative to the subject.

... meanwhile somewhere in Norway Loc: none

Sure... I only ment it in another term to emphasize focus depth of the subject.

Hoping to get all in focus can be disappointing after the fact if you think about the lens as having a certain depth of field

Perhaps some lust for a fast lens to quantify their mistic bokeh abilities and don't really care if half the subject is out of focus...

petrochemist Loc: UK

That might be what you meant but Depth of focus is a term already used (as explained by selmslie above) for a specific variable - basically how critical is the alignment of the film/sensor.
The subject side of things means it's not in the camera but out in the field...

It's never a good idea to miss use a current term to 'emphasize' a different point.

As for having only half the subject in focus, that sounds BAD, but the photographers subject might be different than what you assume. They may only have the eye of the sitter, or the first flower of a bunch as their subject. Shallow DoF can draw the eye to this portion while excluding other parts of what you see as the subject. Other times though it's just a geek showing off how shallow their DoF can be.

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

Take your 6.3 lens to an indoor basketball game and then tell us how happy you are with it. Slow lenses work just fine in many situations, but if you are shooting action shots, in marginal or even good light, I'll take a fast lens everytime.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

As mentioned, I've shot with f/2.8, 1.8, 1.4, and 1.2 normal lenses. In film days (really manual focus days), all were very common for pretty much all makes of meaningful cameras. The f/1.8 lenses were pretty much considered as "kit" lenses. They were designed and constructed along those lines. The capability to expose at f/1.8 distinguished them from the typical f/2.8 aperture of top-end rangefinder cameras of the day. But their performance was pretty average, and most of them specifically weren't particularly sharp in the corners.

I don't remember any of my acquaintances with SLRs who didn't buy their camera with an f/1.4 standard lens. It was just considered to be the thing to do, and it wasn't that much more money at the time. These lenses were much better designed and constructed. They had a much more solid "feel," and were just all-around better and better performing lenses.

I do clearly remember getting my Zuiko 50mm f/2.8. That lens was a true jewel. Larger and heavier, but sharp all the way out to the corners. It was a truly premium lens, and I regret to this day having traded it away.

Despite the vigorous argument raging here, none of these lenses were ever about shallow depth of field. That is a modern fad that never even came up in conversation then. We knew about it. Even had a scale on the lens indicating it. But the goal was to have interest across the entire frame, not a bunch of blurred out mystery content.

What was considered important was light. There were two main issues. The big aperture produced a beautifully bright image in the viewfinder. But more importantly, it allowed both halves of the split image circle in the focus screen to stay illuminated. A narrow light path, like with many wide angle lenses or some cheap telephotos, or a small aperture normal lens, would cause one or both segments to go dark, taking away quick, easy, and accurate split image focus.

And by the way, believe it or not, as horrifying as it might sound to you, there were times when we shot "wide open." There were a variety of reasons that we might have been so adventurous. Sometimes it was the need to preserve a reasonable shutter speed. Sometimes it was the only option.

So again...the arguments have been fun to read. They are just way off base.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Who cares what film-shooting trilobites did with fast lenses? Those forgotten times were paved over by DSLRinosaurs and their variable ISO digital cameras. Neither of these ancient photography technologies are relevant in these modern 2023 times. Mirrorless digital cameras don't need the lens aperture held wide open to accurately focus. And, they can vary the ISO to higher levels, with less noise, than DSLRinosaurs could only ever hope to achieve. Wide apertures are now an artistic and cost decision, can you afford that lens? Are your images even intelligible with such a small sliver of content in sharp focus?

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Incredible!

User ID

You can NUVVVVVUH have too much DoF (or shutter speed). You have been misled.

SteveInConverse Loc: South Texas

I love the lens and If I was in an indoor situation I would up the ISO to compensate for the slow aperture and remove or reduce the noise in post. I come from film originally, the early 80's, and it's taken me a while to seriously realize that with digital, you CAN shoot slower lenses and with software like Topaz, you can get great results despite upping the ISO. Film you can push/pull and compensate in the darkroom. I still catch myself looking at "fast" lenses for my digital kit.