Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 30 Apr 2009 (Thursday) 13:03
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

isn't the battle over 2.8 and 4.0 a little ridiculous?

 
nicksan
Man I Like to Fart
Avatar
24,738 posts
Likes: 52
Joined Oct 2006
Location: NYC
     
May 01, 2009 10:05 |  #31

What kind of low light situations are YOU talking about?

If it involves stopping motion on the subject, then it's pretty simple. The faster the better. End of story.

So for indoor concert photography, where let's say my 200L f2 would be at 200mm f2 1/160 ISO3200, the shooter next to me with his 70-200 f2.8 would be at 200mm f2.8 1/80 ISO3200 or f2.8 1/160 ISO6400, and the shooter with the f4 version would be at 200mm f4 1/40 ISO3200 or f4 1/80 ISO6400.

Further, with an IS lens, you can get away with hand holding at 200mm 1/160 and still be able to reasonable stop moderate action and keep the images sharp. Not so simple without IS.

Your 40D doesn't have ISO6400 does it? Good luck with that f4 lens.

Jerobean wrote in post #7836007 (external link)
Thanks for all the great replies. I totally understand that you get a faster shutter speed with 2.8. It seems that a lot of you can get by with 2.8. It just seemed to me that when I'm using my lenses, 1 stop of light wouldn't be enough for what I want to capture in the low light situations I'm in.

I guess for what I shoot, f4 will work, or I need something f/2 or faster. I never seem to be on the fringe where f4 is barely not enough.

I guess the camera body plays into this as well. As a 5dmk11 with a 2.8 is going to be much better with its high iso capabilities over my 40d.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
In2Photos
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
19,813 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Dec 2005
Location: Near Charlotte, NC.
     
May 01, 2009 10:18 as a reply to  @ nicksan's post |  #32

nureality wrote in post #7836003 (external link)
yeah along with more noise than you'll ever be able to eliminate.

Better than a blurry shot! And typically when resized for web or print you can't see the noise anyway.


Mike, The Keeper of the Archive

Current Gear and Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cdifoto
Don't get pissy with me
Avatar
34,090 posts
Likes: 43
Joined Dec 2005
     
May 01, 2009 10:22 |  #33

isn't the battle over 2.8 and 4.0 a little ridiculous?

No worse than avoiding ISO1600 like it has swine influenza.


Did you lose Digital Photo Professional (DPP)? Get it here (external link). Cursing at your worse-than-a-map reflector? Check out this vid! (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tharmsen
Goldmember
Avatar
1,737 posts
Joined Dec 2008
Location: NW Indiana
     
May 01, 2009 10:23 |  #34

f/2.8 is a "God send" if you shoot in low light. Take a band I shot recently, if all I had was f/4 lenses I wouldn't have gotten any usable shots without a flash. Since flashes were not an option, I would have gotten... nothing.

The singer moved around a lot, so I had to keep my shutter speed up.

IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!


So yes, it's critical for many applications.



Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tharmsen
Goldmember
Avatar
1,737 posts
Joined Dec 2008
Location: NW Indiana
     
May 01, 2009 10:33 |  #35

Jerobean wrote in post #7836007 (external link)
Thanks for all the great replies. I totally understand that you get a faster shutter speed with 2.8. It seems that a lot of you can get by with 2.8. It just seemed to me that when I'm using my lenses, 1 stop of light wouldn't be enough for what I want to capture in the low light situations I'm in.

1 stop of light is a huge difference, it's twice as much light.

You don't think there's a huge difference between 1/50 and 1/100? You're going to find that twice as much light and double the shutter speed is in fact critical in many applications.

As previously mentioned, good luck with the f/4 lens.




Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
oaktree
Goldmember
1,835 posts
Joined Mar 2007
     
May 01, 2009 11:06 as a reply to  @ post 7833085 |  #36

All my 5 primes and 1 of 3 zooms are f/2.8 or wider. Yes, I don't "need" f/2.8 or lower most of the time, but when I need it>>I wouldn't be able to use it, if I ain't got it.

Since I don't mind using high ISO (grain is OK!), I can see the point about just using f/4.0 and upping the ISO. But, being able to use ISO greater than 1600 will only make many of us shoot in darker and darker situations; so we will still use f/2.8 or wider.


Too much stuff, not enough shooting time.

Canon T4i (2 lenses), Fuji X100s, Olympus OM-D EM-1 (3 lenses)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Pasukun
Goldmember
Avatar
1,388 posts
Joined Feb 2007
Location: US
     
May 01, 2009 11:16 |  #37

It is no rocket science. Faster is faster.
And f/2.8 is faster than f/4 in terms of shutter speed.


"the things we touch have no permanence.. as there is nothing we can hold onto in this world.. only by letting it go can we truly possess what is real.."

My Gears

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Sibil
Cream of the Crop
10,415 posts
Likes: 54363
Joined Jan 2009
Location: SoCal
     
May 01, 2009 11:25 |  #38

Jerobean wrote in post #7832716 (external link)
I constantly see people talking about 2.8 like it's a godsend. In real world shooting, if you can't get an image with f4, how likely is it that it will be a great shot at f2.8?

I agree with you, for the most part. That was my thinking until my 'real world photography' took a turn into shooting my kids' sports, partivularly basketball. I tried, tried, and tried to make do with a f/4.0 lens and kept walking away disappointed. Until I broke down and started buying lenses that are f/2.8 and faster and realized what a difference that made in capturing the shots I wanted. So in parts of my real world photography, going from 4.0 to 2.8 made a huge difference.

Everybody's real world photography demands its own unique gear




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Jannie
Goldmember
4,936 posts
Joined Jan 2008
     
May 01, 2009 11:28 |  #39

No it's not, often 2.8 is too slow and the reason I carry a couple of primes and use them a lot.


Ms.Jannie
"When you come to a fork in the road, take it"!
1DMKIII, 85LII, 24-70L, 100-400L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
yogibear
Member
36 posts
Joined Jan 2009
     
May 01, 2009 11:34 |  #40

I've noticed that most of the time if there's not enough light to use f/4 then there's probably not enough light available for f/2.8. At some of the events I've shot at f/2.8 was not enough. Fast primes were the only option in those dark settings.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Jannie
Goldmember
4,936 posts
Joined Jan 2008
     
May 01, 2009 11:38 |  #41

Once I had lenses that shot at a 2.8 or below, I let go of my 24-105 f4 and got a 24-70 2.8 and haven't looked back.

If I was shooting outdoors during the daytime then I'd be fine with an f4 lens.


Ms.Jannie
"When you come to a fork in the road, take it"!
1DMKIII, 85LII, 24-70L, 100-400L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tharmsen
Goldmember
Avatar
1,737 posts
Joined Dec 2008
Location: NW Indiana
     
May 01, 2009 11:57 |  #42

Jannie wrote in post #7838479 (external link)
Once I had lenses that shot at a 2.8 or below, I let go of my 24-105 f4 and got a 24-70 2.8 and haven't looked back.

If I was shooting outdoors during the daytime then I'd be fine with an f4 lens.

The 24-105 is a great lens and many people enjoy them. But most of the pro's I've chatted with go with the 24-70 as it is far more versatile.

I personally have no use for the IS feature, I would gladly trade a faster lens for IS.

I hear rumors of Canon working on a 24-70 f/2.8 IS - now THAT is a cool lens!!! I hope they do it.




Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Pasukun
Goldmember
Avatar
1,388 posts
Joined Feb 2007
Location: US
     
May 01, 2009 12:23 |  #43

Also, f/2.8 delivers better subject isolation, and provide more accurate autofocus.
On top of that, it allows you to use 2x extender with non-1D series body.


"the things we touch have no permanence.. as there is nothing we can hold onto in this world.. only by letting it go can we truly possess what is real.."

My Gears

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jhom
Goldmember
Avatar
1,320 posts
Joined Apr 2007
Location: Dallas, TX
     
May 01, 2009 12:37 |  #44

Once you expand your horizons to include action and low light situations, you will realize the difference and need for the 2.8 and faster lenses.


Jim

My Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CanonHowitzer
Senior Member
Avatar
304 posts
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Texas
     
May 01, 2009 12:41 as a reply to  @ Pasukun's post |  #45

If you plan to shoot non-sports shots outdoors, and also take the weight of the lens into consideration, wouldn't it be OK to get the f4 IS instead of the 2.8 IS?

It seems like, from comments about actual results, that the 2.8 is needed when shooting indoors like concerts and basketball, or possibly outdoors at a low light sporting event.

Tks.
:)


EOS 50D, 17-55/2.8, 85mm/1.8, 70-200mm/f4 IS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

6,550 views & 0 likes for this thread
isn't the battle over 2.8 and 4.0 a little ridiculous?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is m.nobles
944 guests, 266 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.