F2.8

Pics of the kids when indoors - nice depth of field and it works well in the inside low-ish light.
 
Depends on the conditions, what i am shooting and why.

normally to get a good shutter speed indoors or a great depth of field
 
SpikeK6 said:
Depends on the conditions, what i am shooting and why.

normally to get a good shutter speed indoors or a great depth of field
Click to expand...

:thinking:

f2.8 would give you a very small depth of feild
 
Very little! It's useful for low light but even then, mainly to help focus - if I need that wide an aperture, I'll be using a support rather than relying on a wide aperture. Besides, I'm not a fan of ultra shallow DoF.
 
You can keep loads in focus at 2.8 from a distance. I shoot gigs - can keep a whole band in focus at 2.8!, portraits, birds in the garden when the light is dim, indoor shots of the kids when I don't want flash, I shoot loads at 2.8 really. That's why I buy 2.8 lenses.
 
Nothing on my current favourite camera/lens combo....max is f4
 
So not really useful for indoor architecture type pics then?
 
I shoot at what ever it takes to have a "correctly" exposed with no unwanted subject motion image.
If it is F2.8 then so be it however it may be wider.

In some locations a tripod cannot be used.

Some examples.


#1 Hand held at a classical music concert.


Uploaded for a thread by dicktay2000, on Flickr

135mm F2 1/200 @ ISO 3200

#2 I do like shallow DOF for some photogrphs

Bluebell at Bowral by dicktay2000, on Flickr

135mm @ F2

#3 Or even when you don't want a tripod with you.


Opera House by dicktay2000, on Flickr

Hand held 35mm @ F2 1/25 ISO 3200
 
When I've used 2.8 it's more for the back ground blur rather than low light, I find the IS more useful for low light work.
 
Mani Gill said:
When I've used 2.8 it's more for the back ground blur rather than low light, I find the IS more useful for low light work.
Click to expand...

thats only true if you can have a longer exposure - if fast speeds are essential then IS isnt going to help and larger appertures are the way to go
 
Having just recently bought a Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 lens-Im shooting everything I see @ f2.8 :lol:

At least till the novelty wears off

Les :thumbs:
 
Lez325 said:
Having just recently bought a Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 lens-Im shooting everything I see @ f2.8 :lol:

At least till the novelty wears off

Les :thumbs:
Click to expand...

It does wear off eventually. I felt guilty using my 50 at anything other than 1.4 for a while.
 
f2.8?

I rarely use such small apertures. All you're going to get is diffraction and front to back DoF.

I shoot at f0.95-f2 max.



:D
 
bb40 said:
So not really useful for indoor architecture type pics then?
Click to expand...

It may or may not be, depends on your style :shrug:

One thing to remember though is for maximum IQ from your lens, you want to be shooting at a couple of stops down from your max aperture. So f4 on a f2.8 lens will be better than f4 on a f4 lens.

Also the depth of field is dependant on your distance to subject too, f2.8 can potentially give you more than you think.

Personally I tend to shoot everything between 1.4 and 2.8, it rocks!
 
Is the quality of images on pro 2.8 lenses that much better than consumer lenses to warrant the vast difference in price?
 
When i went FF i "had" to get a f/2.8 lens. It was what i was used to with my crop cameras. f/4 just wouldn't cut it.
Funny thing is i now find i stop down quite a bit to f/4 when shooting closer subjects. As much as i love narrow DOF im still getting to grips with how it works with FF.
I do tend to shoot people at f/2.8 more often than not, and use it at f/2.8 when im out at night but during the day most of my general shooting is at f/4 -f/5.6 and below (or is that above?)
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
f2.8?

I rarely use such small apertures. All you're going to get is diffraction and front to back DoF.

I shoot at f0.95-f2 max.



:D
Click to expand...

Notice you always mention that you go for large apertures and was going to ask before out of interest. Why does every shot need to be with a large aperture, it is not needed all the time is it?
 
Hardly ever shoot at 2.8, unless I am shooting a group with lots of depths, usually shoot at f/1.6
 
bb40 said:
Is the quality of images on pro 2.8 lenses that much better than consumer lenses to warrant the vast difference in price?
Click to expand...

What you're paying for:
  • Wider max aperture
  • Constant aperture
  • Optical quality
  • Build quality

The reality with any 'gear' is within diminishing returns, paying 3x the price might give you 5% better images, but it's not all about IQ, I'd pick Canon lenses over 3rd party for their improved low light focussing, for me that's worth almost whatever they want to charge. Because that is often the difference between getting the shot and not, there's no point having the gear at all if you can't get the shot.
 
RichardTaylor said:
At what aperture?

Keep in mind it is more than IQ, it is also mechanical build, with a poor lens you may not even capture a decent image at all.
Click to expand...

Through the range of apertures. I'm thinking of upgrading my lenses and just want to know if it will be worth it. I realise the build quality etc will be better but it's IQ more than anything I'm interested in. What's the point in having a lens that will last x amount of years if it doesn't give a better image than a consumer lens. Maybe that's the wrong way of looking at it.
 
Lez325 said:
Having just recently bought a Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 lens-Im shooting everything I see @ f2.8 :lol:

At least till the novelty wears off

Les :thumbs:
Click to expand...

That's one of a number of lenses I'm thinking if getting. How's is it performing for you?
 
treeman said:
It may or may not be, depends on your style :shrug:

One thing to remember though is for maximum IQ from your lens, you want to be shooting at a couple of stops down from your max aperture. So f4 on a f2.8 lens will be better than f4 on a f4 lens.

Also the depth of field is dependant on your distance to subject too, f2.8 can potentially give you more than you think.

Personally I tend to shoot everything between 1.4 and 2.8, it rocks!
Click to expand...

Thanks mark that helps alot. 👍
 
bb40 said:
Through the range of apertures. I'm thinking of upgrading my lenses and just want to know if it will be worth it. I realise the build quality etc will be better but it's IQ more than anything I'm interested in. What's the point in having a lens that will last x amount of years if it doesn't give a better image than a consumer lens. Maybe that's the wrong way of looking at it.
Click to expand...

Well it possibly is the wrong way, but it depends how important the image is. If when your lens gives up you can happily pack your bags and go for a cuppa, then the build quality isn't important - if your lens packing up means you have to go scrambling for a 2nd choice lens to get the shot, and maybe hire a replacement tomorrow, then build quality becomes an issue. Like I said earlier it's the ability to shoot when other lenses let you down too. If that's not important to you, then it's not important. But for many, that's the cost justification.

For absolute IQ, your best bet is prime lenses, and they're great value for money:thumbs: especially if you don't go for the fastest ones.
 
Phil V said:
Well it possibly is the wrong way, but it depends how important the image is. If when your lens gives up you can happily pack your bags and go for a cuppa, then the build quality isn't important - if your lens packing up means you have to go scrambling for a 2nd choice lens to get the shot, and maybe hire a replacement tomorrow, then build quality becomes an issue. Like I said earlier it's the ability to shoot when other lenses let you down too. If that's not important to you, then it's not important. But for many, that's the cost justification.

For absolute IQ, your best bet is prime lenses, and they're great value for money:thumbs: especially if you don't go for the fastest ones.
Click to expand...

Cheers phil. Appreciate your comments.👍
 
Re the apertures. From personal experience the big differences are at the wide end where even wide open or near wide open the IQ is stll very good on some lenses, and very usable.

#4 With a consumer prime, Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Lens at F2
The opera company was a "client".


Violeta's party (1) by dicktay2000, on Flickr

------------------

It's not just how long good lenses last some of them also focus a lot faster which in some circumstances will get you an image where you won't with poor lens.

Keep in mind that it may not be just you who misses out on an image it may be a "client" as well.

Good lenses do not only mean fast lenses.

I am just a hobyst who sometimes has "clients".
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top