Question about light gathering potential in larger diameter lenses (Page 10): Humor me, you were using spot metering also. If it doesn't work then you still have the 1.8.

LWW Loc: Banana Republic of America

tomcat wrote:

The f/2.8 lens definitely will not work. I tried earlier with a 70-200 and it was sooooo noisy as to be unusable. The gyms that I shoot in are right at the minimum amount of light that is required for a public occupancy in the state of NC. The shutter needs to be at 1/500 minimum--I did several trials at lower speeds and the players and gymnasts were blurry in the hands. If I could get my hands on an f/1.4, 300 mm , I'd be in hog's heaven......

Humor me, you were using spot metering also.

If it doesn't work then you still have the 1.8.

tomcat

LWW wrote:

Humor me, you were using spot metering also.

If it doesn't work then you still have the 1.8.

Yep, you're right. I was using spot metering......

doNewell

BebuLamar said..
"You don't understand or you want to test us? The 105 transmits more light to the sensor because it transmit light from a larger area of the subject."

I agree with your statement, and also believe that the Wikipedia-copied info. is sufficient to answering the question asked...

On rereading the Wikipedia copy-and-quote, I find ::

........."But compared to the 100 mm lens, the 200 mm lens projects an image of each object
twice as high and twice as wide, covering four times the area, ...."

....I think your statement is far less likely to lead to confusion,!
Though they arise in response to the same issue,
they come from different perspectives.

==================

EDIT: As a newbie, i've not yet learned to seek beyond the lowest boundary of "page 1",
which I just noted and will not probably repeat..

LWW Loc: Banana Republic of America

tomcat wrote:

Yep, you're right. I was using spot metering......

from 1.8 to 2.81.33 stops.

If 1/500 works at 1.8 then 1/250 should work at 2.8 all things being equal.

Without being there for a witness on the light, I think switching to matrix fixes all your issues no matter which lens you use.

tomcat

LWW wrote:

from 1.8 to 2.81.33 stops.

If 1/500 works at 1.8 then 1/250 should work at 2.8 all things being equal.

Without being there for a witness on the light, I think switching to matrix fixes all your issues no matter which lens you use.

the settings for the 2.8 would get the same amount of light, but the motion blur will be worse because it's just not fast enough to freeze the hands.

I will definitely try matrix at the next event in 2 weeks and let you know.

LWW Loc: Banana Republic of America

tomcat wrote:

the settings for the 2.8 would get the same amount of light, but the motion blur will be worse because it's just not fast enough to freeze the hands.

I will definitely try matrix at the next event in 2 weeks and let you know.

It might not stop the hands, but sometimes you need to imply a bit of motion.

An example would be s propeller driven plane.

Caught in a turn a slower shutter will stop the plane and allow a bit of propeller blur which implies motion.

That will look better to most people thatca higher speed shutter with a frozen prop.

Play with some different speeds and have some fun.

tomcat

LWW wrote:

It might not stop the hands, but sometimes you need to imply a bit of motion.

An example would be s propeller driven plane.

Caught in a turn a slower shutter will stop the plane and allow a bit of propeller blur which implies motion.

That will look better to most people thatca higher speed shutter with a frozen prop.

Play with some different speeds and have some fun.

That's true for propellers, but I detest seeing that silky water on rivers and waterfalls. I hate it when folks slow down the shutter to create that fake look because that's not real and not what your eye sees. I much prefer the real flow effects.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

tomcat wrote:

That's true for propellers, but I detest seeing that silky water on rivers and waterfalls. I hate it when folks slow down the shutter to create that fake look because that's not real and not what your eye sees. I much prefer the real flow effects.

What’s wrong with a stream looking like the outflow from a waste treatment plant?

LWW Loc: Banana Republic of America

The thing about art is there is no
One right interpretation.

tomcat

RWR wrote:

What’s wrong with a stream looking like the outflow from a waste treatment plant?

I made hundreds of trips to the mountains of NC and I've never seen water flowing that looks silky. Also seen water falls in Yosemite and Hawaii and they looked just like our NC falls--real water.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

tomcat wrote:

I made hundreds of trips to the mountains of NC and I've never seen water flowing that looks silky. Also seen water falls in Yosemite and Hawaii and they looked just like our NC falls--real water.

That was my point!

tomcat

RWR wrote:

That was my point!

I know, I was agreeing with you. Thanks for the support.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

f8lee wrote:

That may well be (and even then, only tangentially), but it still has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the f-stop calculation. Nothing. Nothing at all.

I never said that and that was not the question anyway, the only question was if a large diameter lens lets in more light compared to a smaller diameter lens. I never said the diameter of lens in the mount has anything to do with f-stop calculation, but it and a shorter flange distance allows for larger apertures in the lens!