F2.8
- Thread starter bb40
- Start date
- Messages
- 43,206
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
I was actually kidding when I said I shoot at f0.95-2 and that anything f2.8 shows diffraction
But yes, I do like using wider apertures a lot of the time as I like the look especially when taking close up shots of flowers etc. but also when taking other shots too. I just like the look. At close distances it's easy to get shallow DoF but as the camera to subject distance increases you could need increasingly wide apertures (and/or longer focal lengths) and then there's smaller systems to consider. With MFT lenses tend to be shorter focal length and therefore you need a wider aperture to compensate.
And of course a wider aperture helps to keep the ISO down and the shutter speed up which could both be important when shooting hand held, I very rarely use a tripod.
sk66
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 9,557
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I was actually kidding when I said I shoot at f0.95-2 and that anything f2.8 shows diffraction
Thank goodness you added this...I was thinking you were wacked...
sk66
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 9,557
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- Yes
All of my lenses are f/2.8 or faster and I never use f/2.8 if I don't have to...
The reality is if you have good light, or you can control the light, then fast apertures are rarely needed. In many other cases the "better answer" will be to "control" the BG rather than trying to make it less annoying by using shallow DOF.
But sometimes shallow DOF or wide aperture (more SS) is what you need... it's nice to have it available.
BTW, working distance has much more impact on DOF than aperture selection does.
The reality is if you have good light, or you can control the light, then fast apertures are rarely needed. In many other cases the "better answer" will be to "control" the BG rather than trying to make it less annoying by using shallow DOF.
But sometimes shallow DOF or wide aperture (more SS) is what you need... it's nice to have it available.
BTW, working distance has much more impact on DOF than aperture selection does.
Last edited:
sk66
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 9,557
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Why? Are you 20ft away?
joescrivens
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 15,052
- Name
- Joe
- Edit My Images
- Yes
sk66
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 9,557
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- Yes
no i'm not 20ft away
why would I have to be 20ft away?
Because at 10ft the DOF for a 50mm @ f/1.6 is ~ 1 ft which is rather thin for "usually."
I'm assuming something like the 50mm to get that fast of an aperture...if it's 85mm then the DOF is ~1/3.
joescrivens
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 15,052
- Name
- Joe
- Edit My Images
- Yes
a) most peoples heads are less than 15cm in depth so I don't need anywhere near a foot to get a sharp image
b) group shots I'm often at 1.6 35mm which is a ton of DOF
c) I position my subjects on the same plane so I rarely need more than 10-15cm even for groups
for example:
85mm @ f/1.4 at 9.4 ft
or a larger group I'll be further away to get them in shot
85mm @ f/1.4 at 17 ft
but if it's solo, then 1.6 at 85mm is very generous with DOF for a single subject
85mm f/1.4 6ft
Last edited:
sk66
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 9,557
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- Yes
a) Most people's heads are less than 6" (15cm) nose to back?
c) 10-15cm DOF for groups?
There are many reasons why a lens shouldn't be used wide open..
-a lens is never at it's sharpest wide open
-most lenses loose some contrast/clarity wide open
-a very thin DOF can cause AF "misses"
-a very thin DOF can make subject movement problematic
-w/in the DOF there is only one point of maximum sharpness...stretching that point a little can really help.
Taking a f/1.4 and stopping down 2 stops to 2.8 only doubles the DOF and that increase in dof is divided between front and back. The lens will be sharper with better clarity for possibly no real penalty.
Not using the lens wide open will maximize image quality. Having a bit more DOF will make life easier.
In your fist example the DOF is ~4"' so a little over 1" in front, and a little less than 3" behind. Stopped down to f/2.8 it would only increase to ~8", so ~3" in front and ~5" behind. If for some reason that gain in DOF is problematic you could have moved the subject a little further from the BG.
Better yet would be to use a longer lens from further away...The same aperture would give the same DOF (for FOV captured) but the BG would "appear" to be blurrier and there would be less of the BG in the image. (But I don't think either would have been necessary.)
In your second image your up to ~16" DOF which is reasonable...The lens is still probably not at it's best but how much that matters depends on the particular lens...They're kind of close to a distracting BG so I can understand the wide aperture. But a longer lens from further would probably have been better.
In the last image you're down to ~2" DOF (I'm just "swagging" all of these DOF's). But again, a longer lens from further stopped down a little would give the same "look" with less of the BG. And @ 6ft you're starting to get into "perspective distortion" distances.
FWIW, I like the images....
joescrivens
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 15,052
- Name
- Joe
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Isn't that what I said?
Ok so maybe 20cm then if you want to be pedantic about it
Read above, I said if theres many levels to the group then I'll stop down, but yeah I've shot groups at 1.6 or even 1.4, as I said for a group I'm often on 35mm which at 1.6 gives you oodles of dof front the back. But all the below are shot at either 1.6 or 1.8 on an 85mm, like I said I organise my groups on the same plain so 15cm of DOF is all I need:
PortraitPhotographerStaffordshire001 by JoeBoyMan, on Flickr
PortraitPhotographerStaffordshire003 by JoeBoyMan, on Flickr
PortraitPhotographerStaffordshire004 by JoeBoyMan, on Flickr
I only use primes, primes suffer less of the issues you describe above wide open, especially the three primes I use, the 35mm 1.4L sigma 85mm 1.4 135mm f/2L
If you aren't skilled enough to nail focus or your camera setup doesn't have the greatest focus setup then I can understand why you'd want to "play safer" and have more DOF than you need "just in case". I don't suffer from either of these problems so I only need as much DOF as I need.
Of course there is a penalty. Shutter speed.
Since I shoot children and toddlers so much I need the fastest shutters I can get, shooting at 1.6 over 2.8 gives me more than twice the shutter speed at the same ISO, which means I can freeze action more and not have to up ISO - since I nail the focus and the dof is more than enough then there is no reason for me to stop down with the camera and lens setup I have.
I don't need to make life easier, life is easy enough
But I don't need to do any of that. The DOF is plenty, as you can see in the image :shrug:
No it wouldn't. A longer lens from further would have meant I would be chest high in icy cold water. You can talk all yo want about the theory of the best focal length, but if you've actually shot in the real world then you'll know that you're actually restricted somewhat by the environment and the conditions you are in.
Who needs more than 2 inches of DOF in a portrait like this? Not me :shrug:
Next you'll be telling me that I can't get action shots at f/1.6 either and yet all these swing shots will prove I can
PortraitPhotographerStaffordshire001 by JoeBoyMan, on Flickr
PortraitPhotographerStaffordshire002 by JoeBoyMan, on Flickr
And then if I am using my 135 then I'm either wide open or at 2.2
PortraitPhotographerStaffordshire003 by JoeBoyMan, on Flickr
That lens has the fastest autofocus tracking I've ever known in a lens, I've shot dogs running at full sprint towards me wide open.
I'm glad
Last edited:
sk66
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 9,557
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I don't shoot a lot primes a lot and I don't shoot Canon. I am familiar with the Sig 85 f/1.4 and it IS excellent..technically better than my Zeiss. So there are differences... but in reality they're pretty minor.
If the point is separation from BG, then there are other ways of doing it...I would say "better ways." I'll go from ISO 100-400 without a second though before I trade off on my desired aperture...
You obviously are convinced wide open is the way to go...you love primes and you probably love "bokeh." So I'm probably not going to change your mind.
All I can say is "always" shooting wide open is not great idea.
I don't want to make this "personal" in any way, but I will say that quite a few of your example images don't look particularly sharp from what I can tell...it's hard to say at these small sizes, but generally if they don't seem particularly sharp at small size then they only look worse larger. Not all of them though. And what matters more is capturing personality and "communicating," which you are obviously very good at.
If it makes any difference, I've been a photographer for over 35yrs and once upon a time I made my living from it... I'm not just trying to be difficult.
M.A.Gibson
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 169
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- No
Anything with my 100mm Macro
joescrivens
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 15,052
- Name
- Joe
- Edit My Images
- Yes
sk66
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 9,557
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I believe compression is affecting things...and Flickr does some weird crap as well.
That's not one of the images I was questioning...but it doesn't matter. It is a nice image... They all are really.
Last edited:
farrance
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 987
- Name
- Alex
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I have an old Helios 28mm F/2.8 that I use for studio related stuff. Definitely going to use it alot more than I originally planned, it's a surprisingly versatile focal length and the aperture works perfect for me. Other than that, My Canon 50mm F/1.8 seems to be rather sharp at 2.8..
Saying that, my next lens purchase is looking to be a Canon EF 70-200 F/2.8 IS USM. F/2.8 can be such an expensive aperture
Saying that, my next lens purchase is looking to be a Canon EF 70-200 F/2.8 IS USM. F/2.8 can be such an expensive aperture
Richard King
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,661
- Name
- Richard King
- Edit My Images
- No
tosh
Richard King
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,661
- Name
- Richard King
- Edit My Images
- No
This is a totally irrelevant discussion, if we are not also discussing format, shooting distance and focal length
joescrivens
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 15,052
- Name
- Joe
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I was actually kidding when I said I shoot at f0.95-2 and that anything f2.8 shows diffraction
sk66
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 9,557
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- Yes
If your only concerned with DOF. CA, ghosting/Lens flare, IQ, contrast, etc are all also affected by aperture regardless of the other factors. And regardless of the lens, it's not going to be it's best wide open unless it was specifically designed to be it's best wide open like the Nikon 58mm f/1.2 "nocturnal" lens.
jon ryan
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,845
- Name
- Jon
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Things that need to be shot at f/2.8. Because they need to be shot at f/2.8.
Any other questions?
Richard King
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,661
- Name
- Richard King
- Edit My Images
- No
Looks like we are on the same page then