is f:2.8 the way to go?

salsa-king

salsa-king

Suspended / Banned
Messages
354
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
Yes
thinking about my next lens... maybe a zoom

70-200 L series.

but if I want to use it in low light situation... concerts in a church environment with little light, am I better opting for a f:2.8 lens over the 'cheaper' f4's?


would aslo be wanting to do some track photos (cars/bikes etc)


seem some 100-400L lens' at a fair price, but is that a bit over kill on the 400mm, then not much use indoor in low light not being 2.8?
also seen a 28-300L f:3.5, but think that might be a bit of a waste too ;)
 
Jayst84 said:
Bear in mind you can probably get a couple of decent, faster primes for the same money - which may or may not be better for what you want to do with them.
Click to expand...

This. Do you need the zoom range?

The two major, real world differences between F4 and F2.8 are price and weight, both in significant quantities. You have to ask yourself whether one more stop of light gathering is worth the difference in weight and price for your work.
 
What about F4 IS?
 
Depending on budget, if you're not limited, then a 70-200 f2.8 and 2x converter would give you the low light ability for indoors and the reach for the tracks. It won't be a cheap setup but it works brilliantly for me.
 
id probably go for the tamron 70-200 if i was getting a 70-200, maybe sigma as they have been cheapest
 
KIPAX said:
IS is pretty useless for moving subjects...thus 2.8 will still beat f4 :)
Click to expand...

Since when does a concert move?
And motorsport is usually during the day so it will be light. 99% of my motorsport pictures are at or even greater than f4 as well.
 
salsa-king said:
seem some 100-400L lens' at a fair price, but is that a bit over kill on the 400mm, then not much use indoor in low light not being 2.8?
Click to expand...

It depends what camera you're using it on. I've shot Britcar 24 Hour Race on it - at night. I also regularly shoot events well into the night with it. On a 5DMkII.
 
Don't give it another moments thought. 2.8 every time.
 
I feel if I don't go 2.8, I'd always wish I'd gone 2.8.

:(

shots like this...
988427_596740693732395_95592921_n.jpg

1525041_596741717065626_46203459_n.jpg


shot on the efs 55-250 IS, but the increase on the ISO and being at the back of the church I'm concious of the gain coming into it.... I was on a Tripod too
 
on track, these were taken only with a Tamron 70-300... no image stabilisation either
9241297865_4b6a0797e9_c.jpg



9244077128_1ffc459ed9_c.jpg

1/125 @300mm F:11
 
robj20 said:
Since when does a concert move?
And motorsport is usually during the day so it will be light. 99% of my motorsport pictures are at or even greater than f4 as well.
Click to expand...

I know the OP said 'track' but not all motorsport is during the day, and some of it is in dark forests. (only the best kind though)
 
KIPAX said:
IS is pretty useless for moving subjects...thus 2.8 will still beat f4 :)
Click to expand...

....My Canon 70-200mm f4-5.6L IS has several stages of IS including for panning moving subjects.

The f2.8L version is considerably heavier and bulkier. Neither lens is 'better' than the other except regarding which suits you individually better.

The f4 version works well with the Canon 1.4x III Extender making it 98-280mm and the 2x Extender works well on the f2.8 lens. Neither Autofocus nor image quality suffer with the Canon Extenders.
 
Jayst84 said:
Of course it does. Maybe not enough to matter a lot of the time, but it has to suffer, basic physics.
Click to expand...

....Okay, I'll rephrase that:

Neither Autofocus nor image quality suffer enough to be significant or noticeable with Canon Extenders in practical use. This of course depends on which combination of lens and extender is used - In other words, as I previously said, the 1.4x works well on the f4L lens and the 2x on the f2.8L (both 70-200mm lenses). And my point in mentioning this at all was to be helpful to the OP in his choice of which lens version.

Look at the wildlife photography of professional Arthur Morris, for example, who often uses Canon Extenders and tell me it matters.
 
Sorry James, I was replying more to KIPAX although I quoted you (you both said similar things) and it's late and I need some sleep.

Point taken: "Maybe not enough to matter a lot of the time" as you said. :)
 
It appears to me that adding extenders loses you stops so with regards to the OP's original question re getting a 2.8, why would he consider sticking an extender on it if he wants a wide aperture facility ie 2.8 only to lose it.
 
BRASH said:
It appears to me that adding extenders loses you stops so with regards to the OP's original question re getting a 2.8, why would he consider sticking an extender on it if he wants a wide aperture facility ie 2.8 only to lose it.
Click to expand...

For shooting motorsport alongside the concerts - which is where he needs the 2.8. Also it's cheaper than buying a 400mm 2.8.
 
so, I'd be better looking at a 2.8 then?

whats my other options on lens' then? sigma, tamron etc.. or keep to Canon L series?
 
BRASH said:
It appears to me that adding extenders loses you stops so with regards to the OP's original question re getting a 2.8, why would he consider sticking an extender on it if he wants a wide aperture facility ie 2.8 only to lose it.
Click to expand...

....Popping on a Canon Extender is only an option which increases the useability of the 70-200mm lens. There may be occasions when you want the f2.8 setting and other occasions when you want the extra 98-280mm or 140-400mm reach - It's a useful and relatively cost-efficient option to have.

This is why it's always up to the individual photographer to decide for themselves which lens they need to suit what kind of photography they want to do. Currently I don't have any DSLR lens shorter than my 70-200mm f4-5.6L for example.
 
Surely fast lenses are only better for low light photography if you want to use them wide open. If what you are photographing requires more depth of field then you will have to stop down and then the fast lens becomes the same as a slower lens? Someone please correct me if I'm talking bull!
 
Last edited:
Jackwow said:
Surely fast lenses are only good for low light photography if you want to use them wide open. If what you are photographing requires more depth of field then you will have to stop down and then the fast lens becomes the same as a slower lens? Someone please correct me if I'm talking bull!
Click to expand...

....That's more or less how I understand it too. I think the main point is whether you want or need the option which a wider aperture lens offers you.

It's all a trade-off with cost, weight, and bulk too. Up to you personally.
 
Jackwow said:
Surely fast lenses are only good for low light photography if you want to use them wide open. If what you are photographing requires more depth of field then you will have to stop down and then the fast lens becomes the same as a slower lens? Someone please correct me if I'm talking bull!
Click to expand...
As I learned and practice, you do whatever is necessary to get the appropriate exposure. That is usually aperture followed by ISO and finally as a last resort, lower the shutter speed.

On that basis, fast lenses are great.
 
Just thinking outside the box a little, wouldn't it be better to be nearer the front for the church concerts with a wider/faster lens and maybe a smaller camera that handles high ISO's & noise well?
I can't help but think X-Pro1 with a 23mm f1.4 or 35mm f1.4
 
Last edited:
maybe, I have a 17-50 f:2.8 I could try out at that distance, but didn't want to get that close to distract the other ppl watching the concert.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top