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?

 
Jerobean
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
785 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Mar 2008
     
May 01, 2009 14:28 |  #46

Jannie wrote in post #7838417 (external link)
No it's not, often 2.8 is too slow and the reason I carry a couple of primes and use them a lot.

I guess this is more the sentiment I was expecting.

All the "faster is faster" responses are great...

All the "good luck with that f4" stuff is a little childish is it not?

anyways, I didn't mean to crap on your corn flakes here guys. I just wanted some civil discussion about it. obviously I am asking about it, which inherently means I don't have all the answers, only my limited experience.

It just seems to me that if you need fast, 2.8 is often not going to be fast enough in many cases.


_______________
6d, 24-105L, Tak SMC 50 1.4, 85 1.8, 135L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
toxic
Goldmember
3,498 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Nov 2008
Location: California
     
May 01, 2009 14:35 |  #47

Jerobean wrote in post #7839372 (external link)
I guess this is more the sentiment I was expecting.

All the "faster is faster" responses are great...

All the "good luck with that f4" stuff is a little childish is it not?

anyways, I didn't mean to crap on your corn flakes here guys. I just wanted some civil discussion about it. obviously I am asking about it, which inherently means I don't have all the answers, only my limited experience.

It just seems to me that if you need fast, 2.8 is often not going to be fast enough in many cases.

f/2.8 is as fast as zooms go. And one way or another, one stop is still a huge improvement. Action shots at f/4 1/125 will much have fewer keepers than f/2.8 at 1/250. You'll want f/2 at 1/500, but what do you do if you need or only have a zoom?

Some just use f/4 zooms outdoors and primes indoors. Some need zooms both out and indoors, and f/4 doesn't cut it.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nicksan
Man I Like to Fart
Avatar
24,738 posts
Likes: 52
Joined Oct 2006
Location: NYC
     
May 01, 2009 14:41 |  #48

Childish?

Hardly. Was just making a point, but I apologize if it made you sensitive about it.

Read some of the posts again. It's pretty cut and dry as far as examples where the extra stop would come in handy.
You don't always need the speed, but when you need it...you need it.

But you are right, just as much, you would have situations where f4 is just hopeless, f2.8 is even hopeless, and you need fast primes to get the job done.

Moving on...

Jerobean wrote in post #7839372 (external link)
I guess this is more the sentiment I was expecting.

All the "faster is faster" responses are great...

All the "good luck with that f4" stuff is a little childish is it not?

anyways, I didn't mean to crap on your corn flakes here guys. I just wanted some civil discussion about it. obviously I am asking about it, which inherently means I don't have all the answers, only my limited experience.

It just seems to me that if you need fast, 2.8 is often not going to be fast enough in many cases.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
yogibear
Member
36 posts
Joined Jan 2009
     
May 01, 2009 15:26 |  #49

For informal stuff, like if you went to a museum, the 24-105 f/4 IS would do better than the 24-70. I often find myself having to shoot at 1/15 sec in dimly lit museums. I don't think I could hold a camera steady at such slow speeds without IS. For events, I would prefer the 24-70 but even that often is not enough.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nicksan
Man I Like to Fart
Avatar
24,738 posts
Likes: 52
Joined Oct 2006
Location: NYC
     
May 01, 2009 15:28 |  #50

I agree. For static shooting, my 24-105L will trump my primes as far as hand holding shots. No question!:D

yogibear wrote in post #7839715 (external link)
For informal stuff, like if you went to a museum, the 24-105 f/4 IS would do better than the 24-70. I often find myself having to shoot at 1/15 sec in dimly lit museums. I don't think I could hold a camera steady at such slow speeds without IS. For events, I would prefer the 24-70 but even that often is not enough.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tonylong
...winded
Avatar
54,657 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Likes: 547
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver, WA USA
     
May 01, 2009 15:31 |  #51

The question as to why use an f/2.8 zoom rather than a prime is a qhole other question (the OP has repeated this point, so I'm avoiding repeating the argument for a fast lens).

Many people prefer to use primes as much as possible -- in fact the 85mm f/1.8 lens is a favored sports lens for its wide aperture and fast AF. But, sports and other venuse where you are limited in how close you can get to the action will not always lend themselves well to a fixed focal length. This is why you see sports shooters with multiple bodies, covering different ranges. Sometimes they will have a wider prime and a telephoto prime, but you also see the white zooms.

With medium distances, I don't think there is a good substitute for the 70-200 f/2.8 lens. With or without IS, it is just a great lens for action that can vary in distance within its range. It is a high performance lens for that type of work, and it takes a teleconverter nicely as well. For some stuff it's the only lens I use, but each scenario has different requirements.

All that being said, I enjoy, for instance, the 24-105 as a walk-around lens for the lightness and compactness. Plus, in everyday shooting, the IS really does help. So, there are plenty of times when the Big Guns go unused.


Tony
Two Canon cameras (5DC, 30D), three Canon lenses (24-105, 100-400, 100mm macro)
Tony Long Photos on PBase (external link)
Wildlife project pics here (external link), Biking Photog shoots here (external link), "Suburbia" project here (external link)! Mount St. Helens, Mount Hood pics here (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
zincozinco
-Followers of Fidget-
Avatar
4,420 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Andalucía
     
May 01, 2009 15:43 |  #52

Jerobean wrote in post #7839372 (external link)
It just seems to me that if you need fast, 2.8 is often not going to be fast enough in many cases.

it could be the difference of iso 800 and 400, and if you are shooting an event, concert etc you might not have time to change to primes. 2.8 being the fastest zooms out there which are made for photojournalists many many many years ago.... get the shot move on to next, no fiddeling about. Id say 4 is the new 5.6 in modern lenses, its all going back a few years with the 3.5-5.6 zooms when the first L was 2.8 - 4 (28-80). dont let it get too you but the idea is faster is faster + shallower DOF,

question reminds me a bit about another i just read about the FPS on a 50d vs 5d obviously with time comes progress... same with lenses if they had IS 20 years ago I doubt there would have been so many 2.8 zooms.....


Living the life, overexposing...
Web (external link), Blog (external link) Name: Mike, Maik, Micke or just zinco.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bbeck4x4
Member
207 posts
Joined Mar 2008
Location: Tremonton, Utah
     
May 01, 2009 15:52 |  #53

the phelp wrote in post #7833527 (external link)
Plus, you also absolutely, positively NEED a 2.8 aperture to keep autofocus when using a 2x teleconverter on a 300 mm lens with a 40D body. Seriously - Think of the money saved over getting a 1ds body and a 600 mm lens and 1.4 t-con in order to get autofocus at 900+ mm full-frame equivalent focal length! It's really a very sound financial decision!

Oh wait...sorry everybody. I got sidetracked and started practicing my lines for when I get the 300/2.8 and my wife gives me the :mad:

I used the same line, worked like a charm:lol:


Photography as a hobby.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
eelnoraa
Goldmember
1,798 posts
Likes: 37
Joined May 2007
     
May 01, 2009 16:04 |  #54

It is not a better of the lens or aperture. It is a battle between 1 stop vs $$. Everyone knows F2.8 can do everything F4 can, but not the other way around. If they cost the same, 99% of the people will get F2.8. The rest of the 1% will probably prefer the less weight and size of the F4.


5Di, 5Diii, 28, 50, 85, 16-35II, 24-105, 70-200F2.8 IS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Jerobean
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
785 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Mar 2008
     
May 01, 2009 20:33 |  #55

Nicksan, maybe it was just me misinterpreting you sentiment. Without inflection I know text can often be misleading as the reader puts the inflection in, often where it isn't intended.

I appreciate all the responses. I feel like I grasp the situations where it would make all the difference a little more.


_______________
6d, 24-105L, Tak SMC 50 1.4, 85 1.8, 135L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,540 posts
Gallery: 42 photos
Likes: 614
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
     
May 01, 2009 20:50 |  #56

It is always a mixed bag.

I have slow f/4 zooms from 17mm to 105mm, but I also have fast primes at 35mm, 50mm, 85mm and 135mm. I only use the zooms when I know I will be shooting at slower apertures.


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII and a Sony A7rIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bps
Cream of the Crop
7,607 posts
Likes: 406
Joined Mar 2007
Location: California
     
May 01, 2009 21:09 |  #57

An extra stop can make all the difference in the world...


My Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sharrowm
Senior Member
Avatar
684 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 169
Joined Jun 2005
Location: Mount Vernon, WA
     
May 02, 2009 13:13 as a reply to  @ bps's post |  #58

OK, just for fun I will make an argument for the OP:

When all else is equal you cannot argue that 2.8 isn't better that 4.0. There is no arguing that the 2.8 is twice as fast. But as the ISO performance of bodies gets better and better doesn't the advantage tend to shrink? For example:

Many of you tout the ability to shoot higher shutter speeds (sports) with a 2.8. Even with a 2.8 lens you're probably going to need to use a high ISO setting to get a fast enough shutter speed to stop action, say 3200 ISO. So let’s assume you are shooting with anything but the latest generation body and ISO 3200 is has fast as you can go before the noise becomes unacceptable. Then the 5dII comes along and the acceptable ISO jumps to 6400 (just for the sake of argument. I know many will say that the 5dII noise at 6400 is not acceptable). Now you can shoot everything at 4.0 that you use to shoot at 2.8. I’m sure many of you will argue that the 5dII is not twice as fast as whatever you’re shooting, but that’s not the point. My point is that you cannot argue that the ISO performance in the latest generation bodies is better than the generation preceding it. So as ISO performance gets better and better at least some of the advantages of a 2.8 will become less and less.

Even if we all agree that the ISO performance in the latest generation cameras is not a full stop better (yet), you still must agree that the gap is closing and will continue to do so. You can also argue that “yes, but now I can put my 2.8 lens on that high ISO body and still shoot twice as fast as your 4.0”. This is true, but when is it fast enough? If you could stop action before at 1/500 then who cares if you can now shoot at 1/1000?

No matter how fast bodies get there will always be situations where you will need that extra stop and I’m sure many of you will offer some examples (One example: you need slightly less DOF than 4.0 can give). But as ISO performance improves those situations will become fewer and fewer, thus making it more and more difficult to justify spending and extra $500 per lens for one more f-stop. If you plan to own 3 lenses you save $1,500. And that could justify the extra cost of that better performing ISO camera along with all the other bells & whistles that come with it.

Anyway, what do I know? I only have 20 posts!:) But before you 2.8 loyalists tar & feather me and throw me off of the board I want to say again that I understand the advantages of a 2.8 vs. 4.0. I also understand that no matter how good bodies get 2.8 will always have certain advantages over 4.0. I just question how significant those advantages are (and will be) as digital photo technology progresses.


Marc

5D Mark II | 7D |17-40L | 24-105L IS| 70-200L 4.0 IS | 50 1.8 | 100mm macro|100-400L | 580EX
It never looks the same on the wall as it does in the paint can

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
silvex
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,309 posts
Gallery: 21 photos
Likes: 52
Joined Sep 2006
Location: Southern California, USA
     
May 02, 2009 13:23 |  #59

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.

Rent the 100f/2, 85/f1.8 or 200Lf2 and lets see how your captures turn out for that nite. Also even during daytime and light situation. Any lens under f/2.8 is your friend. Most sports need 1/1250 to start freezing action.


.
-Ed
CPS Platinum Member.
Canon Gear
SilvexPhoto.comexternal link

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tonylong
...winded
Avatar
54,657 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Likes: 547
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver, WA USA
     
May 02, 2009 14:06 |  #60

sharrowm wrote in post #7844694 (external link)
Anyway, what do I know? I only have 20 posts!:) But before you 2.8 loyalists tar & feather me and throw me off of the board I want to say again that I understand the advantages of a 2.8 vs. 4.0. I also understand that no matter how good bodies get 2.8 will always have certain advantages over 4.0. I just question how significant those advantages are (and will be) as digital photo technology progresses.

Two things that you forget (or aren't familiar with): first, an f/2.8 lens triggers an extra "AF assist" sensor in our DSLRs, at least in the prosumer and pro cameras, that makes AF in the center more accurate, which is an advantage for high performance shooting, especially in lower light.

Second, the use of a f/2.8 or wider lens gives more latitude for the use of teleconverters, which are valuable when you need the reach.

For normal day-to-day shooting, an f/4 lens is fine, but when you are shooting in a situation that requires the best performance, there really is not a substitute for the wider lens. Shutter speed is only part of the equation.


Tony
Two Canon cameras (5DC, 30D), three Canon lenses (24-105, 100-400, 100mm macro)
Tony Long Photos on PBase (external link)
Wildlife project pics here (external link), Biking Photog shoots here (external link), "Suburbia" project here (external link)! Mount St. Helens, Mount Hood pics here (external link)

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

6,501 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 jgt6
879 guests, 197 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.