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?

 
OC ­ Photoguy
Member
Avatar
245 posts
Joined Dec 2007
     
Apr 30, 2009 14:20 |  #16

snyderman wrote in post #7833085 (external link)
not everyone shoots landscapes, portraits (with supplemental lighting) and outdoors in good light. f/2.8s are the slowest lenses I own.

You don't have a chance shooting basketball indoors with @ f/4 and 1/160 shutter speed. f/2.8 a big deal over f/4? You BET it is!

dave

TBH I have a hard time @ f/2.8 @ Staples Center. I have to shoot faster than 1 1/160.


Canon 5D Mark II, Canon 40D, Canon G7
Canon 50mm f/1.4, 17-40mm f/4 L
[COLOR=blue]Canon 24-105mm f/4 L IS, 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS,

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
hlcowan
Member
Avatar
228 posts
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Lancaster, CA
     
Apr 30, 2009 14:41 |  #17

I shoot high school football, and the school prefers shots without flash (less distraction to the players). I absolutely need that extra stop down, to be able to capture photos in dimly lit stadiums, and still be able to get photos worth keeping (and selling!).
When I would shoot dance competitions in gymnasiums, f/4 wasn't fast enough-I would have to go to my primes 1.8/2.8 to be able to capture the movements-flash was not permitted, and teams would actually be disqualified or penalized for flash photography!
Outside-I loved my f/4-just once I purchased my faster lenses, they rarely left the camera bodies.


Heather L. Cowan, HLC Photography
Canon EOS 1D Mark II, 5D, 20D, a few lenses - and learning something new every day ;)
http://www.hlcphotogra​phy.smugmug.com (external link)
$5 off when you sign up with smugmug: jTIJe0v34JTyQ

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rdompor
Senior Member
Avatar
671 posts
Joined Nov 2008
Location: New Jersey
     
Apr 30, 2009 14:49 |  #18

I usually don't mind my 70-200 f/4, but this past winter was my first season shooting Rutgers basketball. The arena that we play in is a cave. When I shot with the Targum's 70-200 2.8, I could just get a good exposure at iso1600 2.8 1/500. When I chose to shoot with my f/4 I had to go down to 1/250 at iso1600. Let me tell you that when shooting sports, the difference between 1/250 and 1/500 is HUGE. I had to bump up to iso3200 to get clear images, but they turned out noiser and the DR was reduced. If I didn't nail exposure when shooting toward the darker side of the arena, my image quality suffered quite a bit.


Ramon
ULTRAMONTAGNE (external link)
Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
danpass
Goldmember
Avatar
2,134 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2006
Location: Naples, FL
     
Apr 30, 2009 15:02 |  #19

Jerobean wrote in post #7832716 (external link)
.

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


Yes.


2.8 is clearly superior.


Dan
Gallery (external link) | Gear/Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
the ­ phelp
Senior Member
Avatar
581 posts
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Malvern, PA
     
Apr 30, 2009 15:37 |  #20

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:


->Mike
---------------
Gear List: 7D; 40D; 10-22; 24-70; 50/1.4; 100/2.8; 135/2; 100-400; 580ex; MT-24
my zenfolio (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Double ­ Negative
*sniffles*
Avatar
10,533 posts
Likes: 11
Joined Mar 2006
Location: New York, USA
     
Apr 30, 2009 17:15 |  #21

Depends on what you shoot, really. Personally, I don't think so - and why all my glass is f/2.8 or faster.


La Vida Leica! (external link) LitPixel Galleries (external link) -- 1V-HS, 1D Mark IIn & 5D Mark IV w/BG-E20
15mm f/2.8, 14mm f/2.8L, 24mm f/1.4L II, 35mm f/1.4L, 50mm f/1.2L, 85mm f/1.2L II, 135mm f/2.0L
16-35mm f/2.8L, 24-70mm f/2.8L, 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS, Extender EF 1.4x II & 2x II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
powerslave
Goldmember
1,643 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 15
Joined Feb 2008
     
Apr 30, 2009 17:17 as a reply to  @ post 7833085 |  #22

I shoot sports in low light. f/2.8 is barely enough on the latest-1 generation of bodies. It's hardly ridiculous. I can't imagine f/4.


flickr photostream (external link)
DP2 Merrill | 6D | TS-E24LII | EF24-105L | Fuji X-M1 | XC 16-50

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
toxic
Goldmember
3,498 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Nov 2008
Location: California
     
Apr 30, 2009 17:21 |  #23

One stop can make or break a shot in terms of freezing action or combating camera shake. It also blurs out backgrounds, makes the center AF point extra sensitive, and keeps the viewfinder bright for those of us using super-precision focus screens.

Anyways, there is no battle. Those who need speed buy the lenses that have it.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Vascilli
Goldmember
1,474 posts
Joined Jul 2008
Location: Calgary
     
Apr 30, 2009 17:46 |  #24

I shot Battle of the Bands at my school with a 70-200 f/2.8L and I was at f/2.8 the entire time. Any less and my keeper rate would've been cut in half from it's already low number.


Flickr (external link) | Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gooble
Goldmember
Avatar
3,149 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jul 2006
Location: Mesa,AZ
     
Apr 30, 2009 17:49 |  #25

It can be the difference between a blurry shot (1/250 vs. 1/500) or between a very noisy shot (ISO 1600 vs. 3200 or even higher depending on your body).




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RDKirk
Adorama says I'm "packed."
Avatar
13,782 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 985
Joined May 2004
Location: USA
     
Apr 30, 2009 22:22 as a reply to  @ post 7833085 |  #26

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?

'Way back in the early 70s--when f/2.8 lenses were actually kind of rare in most focal lengths--I discovered something interesting. At the lowest light levels humans tend to be commonly comfortable with (the lowest level before they begin turning on lights), with ASA 400 film (the fastest film before grain became too obtrusive), f/2.8 usually gave me a shutter speed of 1/60 in a great many more situations than f/4 would have.

It was an odd--but common--kind of thing. An f/2.8 lens was significantly more likely to give me a shutter speed that was easier to hand-hold and stop human movement than f/4. Sure, an even faster lens would provide a higher shutter speed, but besides the fact that they were rare above and below 50mm, faster lenses introduced more depth of field limitations.

The f/2.8 lens of any focal length is a sweet spot about as fast as you can get without depth of field issues. It just tends to work out that way.


TANSTAAFL--The Only Unbreakable Rule in Photography

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tkbslc
Cream of the Crop
24,586 posts
Likes: 26
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Utah, USA
     
Apr 30, 2009 22:50 |  #27

RDKirk, I feel the same way. My 28mm f2.8 just gets so many more shots in semi-dark situations as my 18-55 IS kit lens (which is F4 at 28mm)- even with IS. Sure IS lets me go 1/15, but then you get subject blur. On the other side, I just spent an evening shooting at f2 and f1.8, and focus\DOF is much tougher. Lucky to get half the subject in focus much the time, or you focus on the nose/forehead instead of the eyes and they are soft. F2.8 really is a great sweet spot. Must be why the f2.8 zooms are so popular.


Taylor
Galleries: Flickr (external link)
EOS Rp | iPhone 11 Pro Max

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nureality
Goldmember
3,611 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jan 2008
     
Apr 30, 2009 23:17 |  #28

Village_Idiot wrote in post #7832760 (external link)
Shooting at band? If you're shooting at 1/50 @ 6400 ISO with f/4, you're more likely to get blurrier shots than with f/2.8 and a higher shutter speed.

That's just one example.

yeah along with more noise than you'll ever be able to eliminate.


Alan "NuReality" Fronshtein
Gear List | PBase |  (external link)flickr (external link)
Lots of Fun, Lots of Laughs, Happy Trigger Finger!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Jerobean
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
785 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Mar 2008
     
Apr 30, 2009 23:18 |  #29

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.


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nureality
Goldmember
3,611 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jan 2008
     
Apr 30, 2009 23:19 |  #30

Exposure101 wrote in post #7832786 (external link)
It all depends on what you need really. I mean if you shoot moving subjects in low light conditions it's better to have 2.8 or faster. Take the 70-200mm for example: wedding photographers need 2.8 because they shoot weddings. For others that only use the lens outdoors the 4.0 is perfectly fine for them.

correction, wedding/event photogs need f/2.8 + IS. They aren't focused on being able to just stop action, they are focused on getting any kind of shot they can even with the flashbulbs popping.


Alan "NuReality" Fronshtein
Gear List | PBase |  (external link)flickr (external link)
Lots of Fun, Lots of Laughs, Happy Trigger Finger!

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

6,545 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
877 guests, 229 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.