F4 the new F2.8
Nov 26, 2019 08:00:52 #
rick_n_wv
Loc: Charleston WV
I have read several discussions about f2.8 and f4. Some technical and some not. You can get into the dof or available light rabbit hole but is 2.8 all that useful in every day life and in most cases? In times past when 2.8 meant better glass and ISO 800 was king I think yes. In 2009 the conversation were can ISO 1600 be made acceptable. Today 4000 can be.
As cameras and lenses get smaller and smaller as well as better and better I wonder. The new mirror less cameras are evolving and we are getting older. Weight has become something to think harder about. So maybe it is time. Now I have no thoughts about selling my lens and buying new glass. Just pondering on a pretty day as I watch the sun come up and little birds gather around the feeders.
A beautiful (though chilly) day with hot coffee, the sight of my pretty wife chasing the cat for something and lots of little birds at the feeders. Yes this is a grand time of life.
As cameras and lenses get smaller and smaller as well as better and better I wonder. The new mirror less cameras are evolving and we are getting older. Weight has become something to think harder about. So maybe it is time. Now I have no thoughts about selling my lens and buying new glass. Just pondering on a pretty day as I watch the sun come up and little birds gather around the feeders.
A beautiful (though chilly) day with hot coffee, the sight of my pretty wife chasing the cat for something and lots of little birds at the feeders. Yes this is a grand time of life.
Nov 26, 2019 08:06:19 #
rick_n_wv wrote:
I have read several discussions about f2.8 and f4.... (show quote)
The Canon M series seems to be following this trend.
Keep the camera and lens small and light at the sacrifice of large apertures and heavy lenses. So far at least. If you want big and fast just adapt a big EF or EFs lens to it.
So you seem to be right and a great thought
Thank you for the post.
Nov 26, 2019 08:20:22 #
Thanks for the insight into your morning. This is the Fall season of my life too and I treasure the simple things that matter.
Being a good bird nerd, it is difficult to imagine life without a f2.8 in the forest or dim morning light or cloudy day...unless I pop a little flash on the subject. All that said, BIF just doesn't work with a flash and neither does hefting a big glass to track same. Shorter distances to blinds for target species is an option...on a tripod with a gimbal. It's always a series of trade offs. I think technology will continue to evolve and perhaps f4 will serve quit well. It can't come fast enough for this aging, arthritic body.
Being a good bird nerd, it is difficult to imagine life without a f2.8 in the forest or dim morning light or cloudy day...unless I pop a little flash on the subject. All that said, BIF just doesn't work with a flash and neither does hefting a big glass to track same. Shorter distances to blinds for target species is an option...on a tripod with a gimbal. It's always a series of trade offs. I think technology will continue to evolve and perhaps f4 will serve quit well. It can't come fast enough for this aging, arthritic body.
Nov 26, 2019 08:59:50 #
My experience is that an f/2.8 at f/4 will render a better image than an f/4 lens at f/4.
Nov 26, 2019 09:02:16 #
rick_n_wv
Loc: Charleston WV
In-lightened wrote:
Thanks for the insight into your morning. This is... (show quote)
Yeah I feel the arthritis as well. Shoulder, hands, back etc.. But some how I seem to be enjoying more.
Nov 26, 2019 09:12:50 #
Comparing a Canon 300 mm f 2.8 to a 300 mm f4, you are comparing a $6,000 lens to a $1,300 lens, so not an apples to apples comparison. Yes the weight is more than double, but if I was gifted one I'd find room in my camera bag for it.
Nov 26, 2019 09:57:10 #
mas24
Loc: Southern CA
I once saw a Canon 400mm f2.8L prime lens. Shown to me by a NFL pro photographer. It was one of three mandatory lenses required for the job. It was heavy and expensive. $9500. NFL games are played during the day and at night. And the lighting at NFL stadiums are very good to excellent, for night games. I never asked that photographer, if he always shot wide open at f2.8, with that 400mm lens. An f4 aperture could work just fine. Lighter in weight, and less expensive. But, you never know, if one day, you'll really need f2.8?
Nov 26, 2019 10:28:41 #
rick_n_wv
Loc: Charleston WV
mas24 wrote:
I never asked that photographer, if he always shot wide open at f2.8, with that 400mm lens. An f4 aperture could work just fine. Lighter in weight, and less expensive. But, you never know, if one day, you'll really need f2.8?
Hi, don’t think I would have either. Except for a couple (24-105, 109-400) pretty much all my lens are 2.8. 24-70,70-200 and 100 macro. Yeah because just in case one day.
Just pondering though about all the advances it cameras and lens for most people is it still what the industry considers as market friendly. IE where they spend their R&D dollars. I rarely use 2.8 but growing of age in 2.8 era I still look at it as what I want. My grandson on the other hand is much more practical. And he is much more concerned about weight than I am. Partly maybe because when I leave the house I leave with what I need and don’t take everything. WELL ok I do take the big old heavy tripod. But then, I have a lot of confidence in that tripod.
Nov 26, 2019 10:30:23 #
rick_n_wv
Loc: Charleston WV
Oops, I should have said 2.8 or faster. Got a few fast primes. Love them immensely.
Nov 26, 2019 11:15:26 #
rick_n_wv wrote:
I have read several discussions about f2.8 and f4.... (show quote)
Not too long ago f2.8 was not considered that fast.
But on long lenses that was the best you could do and push your B&W film as far as possible.
Nov 26, 2019 11:30:25 #
RF lenses are still pushing the limits, so there must be a market. f 1.2 here:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1477265-REG/canon_rf_85mm_f_1_2l_usm.html
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1477265-REG/canon_rf_85mm_f_1_2l_usm.html
Nov 26, 2019 12:18:28 #
mas24 wrote:
I once saw a Canon 400mm f2.8L prime lens. Shown t... (show quote)
That price tag brings more than faster glass, it also brings the best optics that the manufacturer produces. I have owned both the Canon 300mm f/4L and the Canon 300mm f/2.8L and believe me, it is not about f/2.8 v 4 it is about the resolving power of the lens. In regard to optical quality the two lenses are not on the same playing field.
Nov 26, 2019 12:48:04 #
rick_n_wv wrote:
I have read several discussions about f2.8 and f4.... (show quote)
If your "every day life and in most cases" involves doing portraits, 2.8 is very important. If your "every day life and in most cases" is birds in flight, maybe not so important. If your "every day life and in most cases" involves events, 2.8 can be very important. If your "every day life and in most cases" is about landscapes from a distance, maybe not so much. If your "every day life and in most cases"......etc......
Nov 27, 2019 00:46:42 #
rick_n_wv wrote:
I have read several discussions about f2.8 and f4.... (show quote)
2.8 really "aint" fast anyway, so f/4 and higher ISO will suffice, but in a pinch it is nice to have
Nov 27, 2019 02:04:48 #
speters wrote:
2.8 really "aint" fast anyway, so f/4 and higher ISO will suffice, but in a pinch it is nice to have
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.