Let's play "Guess the Aperture!"
Feb 2, 2014 10:44:56 #
Feb 2, 2014 10:56:25 #
Thanks for the reminder. I always watch for your posts and comments. UHH is made up of a wide variety of shooters. Some are experts, some have just learned to spell camera. Some like me need to be reminded of when to be home for dinner. I think my avatar was shot with the 17-35 at 35mm. Thanks.
Feb 2, 2014 11:02:24 #
Feb 2, 2014 11:03:53 #
I am actually glad this post was made. I recently (3 days ago) decided to buy a new lens. The choice was between a f2.8 and a f4 maximum aperture. These were both Canon L lenses. The f2.8 was $1000 more. I thought about the need to be able to blur the background and almost bought the f2.8. Then I thought about how I could blur the background by using distance and also doing it in PP. I was not concerned so much with needing the additional light throughput that f2.8 would give me and the f4 lens actually had more zoom capability. I chose the f4 and saved $1000. Thanks for your original post.
Feb 2, 2014 11:15:55 #
chaprick wrote:
I am actually glad this post was made. I recently... (show quote)
Well..that's good then!
Feb 2, 2014 11:41:38 #
Leon S wrote:
Thanks for the reminder. I always watch for your posts and comments. UHH is made up of a wide variety of shooters. Some are experts, some have just learned to spell camera. Some like me need to be reminded of when to be home for dinner. I think my avatar was shot with the 17-35 at 35mm. Thanks.
I can spell camera but not fotography yet. So how does the ISO play into this? Can I also get better bokeh by playing with the ISO?
Feb 2, 2014 11:49:37 #
skiman wrote:
I can spell camera but not fotography yet. So how does the ISO play into this? Can I also get better bokeh by playing with the ISO?
No...ISO has no effect.
Feb 2, 2014 12:02:09 #
rpavich wrote:
No...ISO has no effect.
Ok, thanks. Is that becase if changes the exposure but not the focusing properties of the lense?
Feb 2, 2014 12:05:31 #
Feb 2, 2014 12:10:37 #
skiman wrote:
Ok, thanks. Is that becase if changes the exposure but not the focusing properties of the lense?
Right. ISO only affects the exposure. Aperture and the relative distances to subject and background affect dof
Feb 2, 2014 12:17:56 #
rpavich wrote:
So the next time you are hankering for that f/1.2L lens....think about the role that distance plays in your quest for shallow DOF portraits...and see if your f/3.5-5.6 55-200 kit lens will do the trick....
Thanks, rpavich. I was just thinking about a shoot I want to do today that needs a very shallow depth of field and small aperture to darken the background and longer lens to flatten the subject. That should do the trick!
Feb 2, 2014 12:22:58 #
Let's be civil and discuss photography. I swear that we a lot of little children hanging out at this site.
Feb 2, 2014 12:30:06 #
Feb 2, 2014 12:31:19 #
Feb 2, 2014 12:37:55 #
Great post. Heaven forbid me from splitting hairs, but could you have underestimated your distance to target just a wee bit? At 1.5 ft that 100mm @f8 on the X-pro should only have about 1/4" or less DOF. Not that huge 1.5" you claim. Could it possibly have been as far away as 3.7 ft? :D :D
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.