F2.8 lenses

viper_biker

viper_biker

Suspended / Banned
Messages
550
Name
Gareth
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm still relatively new to photography starting back in April with a K100D and then buying a D300 in September. Now, none of my lenses have ever been lower than f4.5 and I couldn't afford an f2.8 lens at the minute. Why would paying out over £1000 on a lens be any better than my 70-300VR lens. I mainly shoot motorsport for personal gains and as a hobby, and would it be better for me to spend the money on other things like a mono-pod, a battery grip (not that I've had and battery life issue) a good head and things like that?

Thanks in advance.
 
Good head is always worth paying for... sorry.

It would be better due to the better bokeh and the ability to shoot at faster shutter speeds in low light. Most of them are much better quality too due to being aimed at professional photographers.
 
I know it's difficult to work out when you are relatively new to photography - I couldn't figure out why the 70-200 VR cost four times as much for less reach as my 70-300 VR. It's only when you start actually using the faster glass that you appreciate the difference in sharpness and colour rendition, not to mention the easier focusing and ability to shoot at faster shutter speeds.

When I look back at shots taken with my D80 I can tell instantly which were taken with the 70-300 and which with the 80-200 f/2.8 that replaced it, the difference is that marked.
 
Similar to what has already been written. A 2.8 lens lets in more light, so even if your still shooting at f4.5 it should focus quicker, and continue to focus at low light where a lens with a higher f/stop will stop or struggle to find focus.
 
Why not look at 3rd party lenses like Tamron and Sigma?
 
dfrear said:
Good head is always worth paying for... sorry.
Click to expand...

Lol dfrear:p

Anyway, I too agree with MJ. I've read that the Sigma 70-200 2.8 is an amazing lens, and I personally own the 120-300 2.8 and it's f*&$ng brilliant!!
And, believe me or not, they are amazingly cheap for what they offer!
 
I have been very impressed with my Tamron 70-200 f2.8 as well. Slightly noisey AF but who cares when your at the track :lol:
 
the only real difference between 3rd party lens manuafacturers and canon L and nikons equivelent is the quality control. basically sigma, tamron and tokina dont have the same quality checks when they leave the factory so they could have minor problems. there are plenty of sites that tell you how to test your glass from 3rd party manufacturers and you can see if it needs to be sent back and calibrated which they should do for free or a nominal price.
 
chris_tim said:
the only real difference between 3rd party lens manuafacturers and canon L and nikons equivelent is the quality control. basically sigma, tamron and tokina dont have the same quality checks when they leave the factory so they could have minor problems. there are plenty of sites that tell you how to test your glass from 3rd party manufacturers and you can see if it needs to be sent back and calibrated which they should do for free or a nominal price.
Click to expand...

Never had a problem with mine and im sure many other people will say the same :)
 
Keep in mind, something most don't admit .. but there is truth to this, the bigger lenses does help boost your ego (especially if you're of the male species), and helps build your muscles, which you will need if the ego-boost works :p
 
If in doubt, hire one for a weekend and give it a try. I've done this on a number of lenses, and have decided what to buy next year (24-105 f4 & 70-200 f2.8)

Only about £1700, I just hope this new job pays as much as I hope ! :lol:

Steve
 
f2.8 every time, especially at the track. Go for the best you can afford. You're still welcome to try my 120-300 Siggy if you like. :)

David.
 
I own a few Nikon 2.8 lens' and would say that they are dramatically better than the lower quality lens' (eg. 70-300) in a number of key ways

- Sharpness of image is in a whole other league
- Colour rendition is considerably better
- Shooting in low light is considerably eaiser
- Focusing, even in exceptionally low light is always very fast silent and spot on (especially in the case of the 70-200 2.8 and 300 2.8)
- Build quality in the case of Nikon 2.8 lens (all i have experienced) is excellent considerably better than cheaper models. My lenses have been dropped on concrete a number of times and they just bounce and carry on going. They are also full weather sealed.

In reply to the third party comments. Yes the third party 2.8 lens' are pretty sweet and i was using a sigma before the Nikon but the Nikon 2.8's really are a whole other ball game. The 70-200 for example of which have owned a good sigma version and now the Nikon 2.8 vr. Is lacking in a number of areas, i felt the sigma to be not as sharp, poor quality control (thought i had a good version) also very slow at focusing espically in low light when compared to the Nikon.
 
i only have one lens now that is slower than f/2.8 although its still a sharp lens, it tends to hunt in low light.
I am planning on getting a 70-200f/2.8 IS USM in january and that should really tisy up my line up. It will be replacing the 70-300 Siggy that i sold not too long ago. I sold it mainly because it was my softest lens although not too bad it was noticable against my othe lenses!
 
So, for the money of a 2.8 I'd expect quicker fousing, sharper images and a lot of money out of my pocket if I got for quality glass over a 3rd party item. I might well look into hiring one out for a weekend and try it back to back with the 70-300. I'd not go for a fixed 300 though as I'd rather have the zoom abilities around the paddock. Thanks for all your help.
 
I have the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and its amazingly sharp! Great lens, but as mentioned sigma do have a little reputation for "bad lenses" ie mine slightly front focuses :(
 
Viper,

I shot motorsports to a pretty high level.

If you're serious about taking it further then you have to seriously consider f2.8 glass.

2 major reasons why.........

Your biggest issue with motorsport action (regardless of if you're accredited behind the armco or public behind the fences) is the unavoidable clutter you get in the background at race circuits. This ranges from fences, tannoy poles, brightly clothed marshalls, ambulances, bright air catch fences, sponsor hoardings, grandstands etc etc.

Motorsport photography is primarily about capturing the moment when action gets exciting and relating that to your viewer, NOT about showing people that the ambulance in the background that you've inadvertantly caught in the frame is an LDV or a VW and has two occupants.

F2.8 apertures enable you to use Depth of Field to your advantage and completely blur out the annoying background clutter to a nice degree, leaving all the emphasis in your shot on the subject which is where it should be (unless you're intending to show the wide angle environment that the competitors are operating within).

The example below shows a little about what I mean.

The yellow in the right-hand background is a builder's hoarding attached to a half-built house with scaffold poles standing vertically. Normally I would want to avoid this type of cr@p from my shots but unfortunately the wheel-up action happens in the same spot all the time at Oulton's Druids and to move to a spot where that clutter wasn't in the background would mean I wouldn't get the shot...."period".

I know this but you don't because the very shallow depth of field used has obscurred the clutter to a degree where it doesn't detract from the main action. That's f2.8 working for you in a way that F4, F5.6 etc wouldn't.

07BSBRnd08_0074.jpg


2nd reason is that the smaller the f-number, the more light you're getting into your camera and more light means you can achieve a higher range of shutter speeds, essential for most motorsport eventualities.

Personally with a 70-300mm lens you don't need a monopod. Save your money. The smaller lenses are not what you'd call hefty - leave that for when you get your 300mm or 400mm f2.8 prime, then you need a monopod!!!!

F2.8 is the way to go, but it's more expensive for a good reason. "No pain, no gain" and "You get what you pay for" at work once again I'm afraid.

If you're not that bothered about the quality of the motorsport shots you produce (which I doubt is the case) then you don't need f2.8 and can save your money. If you are serious, I would save for a f2.8 lens that meets your needs and disregard stuff that you don't really need.

Good luck,


Guy
 
Very interesting and I like your Photo example, Guy.

Could you please explain where f2.8 comes into this when you took the shot at f5.3?
 
as a quick test, try getting yourself a nifty fifty. relatively cheap lens with superb optics and see how it compares to your other lenses. obviously all zooms suffer slightly to primes as they have moving elements, but the top end zooms arent that far behind the primes.
 
When I started this photography money pit I used a Tamron 28-300 f3.5/6.3 after a few years I upgraded to a Sigma 70-200 f2.8.

When I look back at my shots I can't really see a significant difference.....



Other than about 5 times as many keepers with the F2.8 :D
 
Mikesphotaes said:
Very interesting and I like your Photo example, Guy.

Could you please explain where f2.8 comes into this when you took the shot at f5.3?
Click to expand...

It'll have been with a 1.4x converter on Mike on the 400mm f2.8. I just picked an example out of my TP Gallery. I don't have any non f2.8 lens shots as I ditched them all once I realised how superior this glass is. I do know from my results though that the f2.8 is far superior to the f4 I used to own. Depth of field is king in sports. It's not about ego and having the bazooka over your shoulder. I don't go in for that sort of thing. I like clean, perfect shots, I'm a perfectionist. I didn't like the shots the f5.6 and f4 lenses gave me. I wanted more (or less in terms of background clutter). The 400mm gives me reach, the f2.8 gives me superb shots.

Gc
 
So, when your 75-300 is at 200mm, what is the FASTEST stop? F4? F5?

You are a full stop, to a stop and a half off.

Bear in mind, I was told, years back in my film days, the OPTIMUM setting for any lens is 2 stops down from wide open...

So a 2.8 lens is really kicking butt, where your present glass starts.

I have used a 75-300 f4.5-5.6 APO, but I'm in no rush to do it again. I've been spoiled by f2.8 lenses recently.

Oh, and the guy 2 doors away who shoots weddings? He started with a D200 and an 18-200VR. He's now bought THREE f2.8 lenses to cover a similar range, and is a much happier camper. You can stop down, but you cannot go better then wide open.
 
I've been trying to get my back ground to blur, like this photo. My question, is the f number of the zoom that helps?

Any advice welcome, any apologies for the rather basic question:(

Just reread - so lower number better for blurring?


CopeImages said:
Viper,

I shot motorsports to a pretty high level.

If you're serious about taking it further then you have to seriously consider f2.8 glass.

2 major reasons why.........

Your biggest issue with motorsport action (regardless of if you're accredited behind the armco or public behind the fences) is the unavoidable clutter you get in the background at race circuits. This ranges from fences, tannoy poles, brightly clothed marshalls, ambulances, bright air catch fences, sponsor hoardings, grandstands etc etc.

Motorsport photography is primarily about capturing the moment when action gets exciting and relating that to your viewer, NOT about showing people that the ambulance in the background that you've inadvertantly caught in the frame is an LDV or a VW and has two occupants.

F2.8 apertures enable you to use Depth of Field to your advantage and completely blur out the annoying background clutter to a nice degree, leaving all the emphasis in your shot on the subject which is where it should be (unless you're intending to show the wide angle environment that the competitors are operating within).

The example below shows a little about what I mean.

The yellow in the right-hand background is a builder's hoarding attached to a half-built house with scaffold poles standing vertically. Normally I would want to avoid this type of cr@p from my shots but unfortunately the wheel-up action happens in the same spot all the time at Oulton's Druids and to move to a spot where that clutter wasn't in the background would mean I wouldn't get the shot...."period".

I know this but you don't because the very shallow depth of field used has obscurred the clutter to a degree where it doesn't detract from the main action. That's f2.8 working for you in a way that F4, F5.6 etc wouldn't.

07BSBRnd08_0074.jpg


2nd reason is that the smaller the f-number, the more light you're getting into your camera and more light means you can achieve a higher range of shutter speeds, essential for most motorsport eventualities.

Personally with a 70-300mm lens you don't need a monopod. Save your money. The smaller lenses are not what you'd call hefty - leave that for when you get your 300mm or 400mm f2.8 prime, then you need a monopod!!!!

F2.8 is the way to go, but it's more expensive for a good reason. "No pain, no gain" and "You get what you pay for" at work once again I'm afraid.

If you're not that bothered about the quality of the motorsport shots you produce (which I doubt is the case) then you don't need f2.8 and can save your money. If you are serious, I would save for a f2.8 lens that meets your needs and disregard stuff that you don't really need.

Good luck,


Guy
Click to expand...
 
Mav2006 said:
I've been trying to get my back ground to blur, like this photo. My question, is the f number of the zoom that helps?

Any advice welcome, any apologies for the rather basic question:(

Just reread - so lower number better for blurring?
Click to expand...

Yes, The smaller the number the greater the blur in the background ie less depth of field or less in focus (other than the subject) and a wide aperture.

The opposite to this is a high f number which has subject and background in focus or greater depth of field and a small aperture.
 
CopeImages said:
It'll have been with a 1.4x converter on Mike on the 400mm f2.8. I just picked an example out of my TP Gallery. I don't have any non f2.8 lens shots as I ditched them all once I realised how superior this glass is. I do know from my results though that the f2.8 is far superior to the f4 I used to own. Depth of field is king in sports. It's not about ego and having the bazooka over your shoulder. I don't go in for that sort of thing. I like clean, perfect shots, I'm a perfectionist. I didn't like the shots the f5.6 and f4 lenses gave me. I wanted more (or less in terms of background clutter). The 400mm gives me reach, the f2.8 gives me superb shots.

Gc
Click to expand...

:lol::lol::lol:
 
In response to ViperBiker's original question... yes the 70-200 is quite a lot better for all of the reasons described above... the big question is is it worth the extra 1k more than your current 70-300...

4 times better?

That's the law of diminishing returns with technology...
 
desantnik said:
In response to ViperBiker's original question... yes the 70-200 is quite a lot better for all of the reasons described above... the big question is is it worth the extra 1k more than your current 70-300...

4 times better?

That's the law of diminishing returns with technology...
Click to expand...

So, do I look at someone like Sigma then in its stead???
 
Ahhh I meant to say about that... must have forgot to before clicking the button :D

When I tried out the D300 earlier in the year my mate gave me two lenses to try, one of which was the Sigma 70-200. It was not very impressive at all. In fact, I'd probably say for *motorsport* the Nikon 70-300VR is a better bit of kit. My mate who owns the Sigma actually says that he should have sucked it up and bought the Nikon 70-200....

So I did!
 
WOW, it's a lot of money on a lens where photography is just a hobby. The Nikon lens will be more than I paid for the D300, but that's not the point. I guess I'd miss the extra 100mm that the 300 gives and if the Sigma isn't worth the circa £600 price tag, I think I'll go spend that on track time myself and get someone to take pics of me :D
 
its pricey as just a hobby, but just as expenisive as lets say upgrading and engine in a car, set of decent golf clubs.
it all depends on how seriously you take the hobby.
 
So true 33L, been a creature of habit, I have a few bikes that are forever being upgraded, and I'll be looking a new track bike this year so the Nikon lens will have to be passed on and the funds go into the new bike instead. Thank you all for your help, hopefully Santa sees this post and decides to bring me an F2.8 then, or maybe some money to put towards it :D
 
OutLore said:
Guy answered this above - he was using a 1.4x converter with his 400mm f2.8 lens....:thumbs:
Click to expand...

I know that, but he said he didn't like the results (of Bokeh I think) from slower lenses...yet he is using the equivalent of a slower lens in f stop terms to demonstrate that point :thinking:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top