A lens question... mid vs high quality/price
Apr 9, 2015 15:22:07 #
Ranjan
Loc: Currently Cyber-Nation!
jerryc41 wrote:
Reviews published about the f/2.8 and f/4 lenses o... (show quote)
Your point is understood, Jerry, but given modern technology, other than extremely low Ev situations, a halving of light can be more than acceptably compensated for by sensor sensitivity (~ ISO). Unless Dof becomes a make or break criterion in some pictures that simply demands a 2.8 or larger.
What I meant and which some folks entirely missed was essentially using a design that mimics the optical quality of a 2.8 lens in a f4 package. I realize that the design would not be identical between the 2.8 vs 4 lens, but it would be (or should) be better than current f4 lenses.
But as you say that current f4 and f2.8 lenses are comparable image-qualitywise, then basically 2.8 would benefit only those folks who work in low(er) light situations and like to carry a heavier lens!
The category of folks who buy expensive lenses just for the sake of potentially better resale value or for emotional reasons or simply because they have the money, etc, then they would be thinking differently and so on. Beauty in diversity! :-)
Apr 9, 2015 16:10:52 #
Didereaux wrote:
There is a misunderstanding of 'quality' in these ... (show quote)
Maybe-maybe not. Asise from snob appeal and/or bragging rights, the 2.8 may just be the difference in gotting the right shot or not. If you are shooting landscapes or studio portraits, the f4 will do just as well, but if you are shooting sports or an indoor event that does not allow flash the 2.8 can make all the difference. as allways one has to weigh the cost/benefit in making the choice. The same arguement can be made with regard to the need for a more expensive 1.4 50mm prime or a 2.8 version.
Apr 9, 2015 16:27:20 #
boberic wrote:
Maybe-maybe not. Asise from snob appeal and/or br... (show quote)
Can't disagree with any of that. ;)
Apr 9, 2015 17:03:26 #
Ranjan wrote:
What I meant and which some folks entirely missed was essentially using a design that mimics the optical quality of a 2.8 lens in a f4 package.
As the reviews indicate, there is no optical superiority - resulting in better images - of the f/2.8 over the f/4. The main advantage is superior light-gathering. All things being equal, the F/2.8 will gather twice as much light as the f/4. If a shooter is willing to increase ISO or decrease shutter speed to get more light, that's his choice. A fast lens makes that unnecessary.
Apr 9, 2015 20:44:55 #
Apr 9, 2015 22:39:58 #
Didereaux wrote:
No that does not confuse me. But your childish attempt at sarcasm flies right under my feet.
Standing on your head again!
Apr 10, 2015 04:53:25 #
Ranjan wrote:
It is generally seen that zooms (tele in particula... (show quote)
Unless there are lens designers and marketing managers for lens companies in the forum, you are definitely asking the wrong people - and you are going to get lots of opinions, most of which will be pure conjecture and this thread could evolve into a full-blown street fight.
I suggest that you contact Nikon, Canon, Tamron, Sigma, Tokina, etc etc etc - you may or may not get an answer to your question, though. Most companies consider their marketing strategy highly confidential.
Bramboy is 100% correct - it is not that simple - you should leave it at that - no reason to insult anyone.
Apr 10, 2015 05:08:20 #
Leitz
Loc: Solms
Didereaux wrote:
There is a misunderstanding of 'quality' in these posts (or most of them at least). As mentioned in other posts F2.8 is ONLY a HALF stop from f4.
There is also a misunderstanding of f/stops. F/2.8 is ONE FULL stop faster than f/4.0.
Apr 10, 2015 07:00:25 #
When you say "just one stop" you are minimizing the fact that f/2.8 will allow 50% more light into the lens vs f/4. That's why my lenses are f/2.8 or better. To deal with the cost issue, I buy older glass and excellent condition used glass. To deal with the weight issue, I work out and eat a healthy diet. 😃
Apr 10, 2015 07:08:15 #
jerryc41 wrote:
Reviews published about the f/2.8 and f/4 lenses o... (show quote)
:thumbup: :thumbup:
Apr 10, 2015 07:54:19 #
merrittbtuhh
Loc: Dallas, Tx
I have the original ef300 f2.8 and the f4. Both are marvelous lenses. The 2.8 weighs 4+ pounds more than the f4. Merritt, Dallas TX
Apr 10, 2015 07:59:38 #
Fotomacher wrote:
When you say "just one stop" you are minimizing the fact that f/2.8 will allow 50% more light into the lens vs f/4. That's why my lenses are f/2.8 or better. To deal with the cost issue, I buy older glass and excellent condition used glass. To deal with the weight issue, I work out and eat a healthy diet. ��
Actually it is more than that! Increasing exposure by one stop doubles the amount of light coming to the sensor; decreasing by one stop halves it. Going from 2.8 to 4 lets in 50% less light. Going from 4 to 2.8 actually lets in twice as much light (or 100% more.)
So your general point is correct, but even more important in the specifics.
Apr 10, 2015 08:24:12 #
I like the response Fotomacher gave as I do the same...Of course your subject matter will have a bearing as to what you wind up using...
Apr 10, 2015 08:26:04 #
zigipha
Loc: north nj
Didereaux wrote:
There is a misunderstanding of 'quality' in these ... (show quote)
be wary of those claiming 2.8 to 4 id only hslf stop....bring lots of grains of salt
Apr 10, 2015 08:37:36 #
One thing I haven't seen mentioned here is that most lenses have better image quality at an f stop lower than their max. Hence a 2.8 lens might be better at f4 which means an f4 lens would be better at f5.6. The point is that image quality requirements can also drive the usable f stop range.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.