2.8??????

When upgrading my gear over a year ago now I was told get a 2.8 lens by everyone...So i did...The glass of the lens is nicer i'm sure but i almost never use the 2.8 and the times i have i have not been happy with the results. When i shoot a image the surroundings are always a part of that and i want that sharp 9 times out of 10.

So...So far i see 2.8 as usless....I gernerally shoot at F-11 but if i have the light i'll shoot at F-16 or F-22...So in getting the 2.8 lens it appears i got something i will never use.....But then i still have a lot to learn....Am i the only who who has the F-22 shooting preferance? As opposed to shooting at 2.8.....

1.2 1.4 1.8 2.0

Erik - It all depends on what you are shooting. I do events and portraits. At an event, I''d be lost without my wide open apetures. I LOVE shooting at 1.2 - when I can. One of my best selling looks is a photo of my dog at 1.2 with only her nose in focus. There is a time and place for every setting on your camera. I never ever syhoot at f22

ErikJonas said:

When upgrading my gear over a year ago now I was told get a 2.8 lens by everyone...So i did...The glass of the lens is nicer i'm sure but i almost never use the 2.8 and the times i have i have not been happy with the results. When i shoot a image the surroundings are always a part of that and i want that sharp 9 times out of 10.

So...So far i see 2.8 as usless....I gernerally shoot at F-11 but if i have the light i'll shoot at F-16 or F-22...So in getting the 2.8 lens it appears i got something i will never use.....But then i still have a lot to learn....Am i the only who who has the F-22 shooting preferance? As opposed to shooting at 2.8.....

Click to expand...

Hi Erik,

It all depends on what you want to achieve. A wide aperture lens will allow both using it at a narrow aperture to include environment, or using it at a wide aperture to isolate from the environment. Either way it does provide for a brighter viewfinder, and allows more accurate focusing!

In general one may expect the lens to be of a better/modern optical design (because it has to cope with a more challenging light path through the optical elements), so overall quality may be a bit better. How much better, depends on the actual lens design and focal length.

Shooting at very narrow apertures may cause a loss of resolution due to diffraction. That's something you may want to avoid if you need very large output or when material structure (micro contrast/detail) is an important part of the image. For stationary subjects it is also possible to combine multiple images, focused at different distances, in postprocessing. That allows to combine the best lens performance with huge Depth of Field (DOF), even more than physically possible in a single shot.

As always, the choice of the aperture, shutterspeed, and ISO, are part of the creative desicions that all photographers need to make for each shot. Shooting at wider apertures allows to guide the eye of the viewer to what you find important in the image, to make a desicion for the viewer and be sure he/she understands your intent. It also allows to reduce the risk of objects growing from people's heads ;-)

Cheers,
Bart

Frankly, Erik, outside of architecture, interiors and orchestra performances, I generally and working between 1.4 and 2.8. To me, f5.6 with modern glass and small sensels, is stopped down. Really stopped down is f8. At f11 and beyond, you will be getting, diffraction, the imaging by tiny pixels of added detail of the waves formed as the light going through the small apertures. That light is interfered with by the metal edge of the shutter aperture. I use that when I want a speed low shutter speed in bright light and I don't have a neutral density filter. Apertures of f22 and the like are really of questionable value in most ordinary circumstances outside of MF and LF photography.

Asher

Bart_van_der_Wolf said:

Hi Erik,

Either way it does provide for a brighter viewfinder, and allows more accurate focusing!

Click to expand...

Hi Erik, this is the biggest advantage of a fast lens, especially in low light conditions. Also, remember that DOF depends on various variables like subject distance and focal length among others.

...................

Based on my style of shooting 2.8 is not something i'm going to use. This is what i have found.I did factor in that i was getting better optics and thats the main reason i got the lens. Most all of my work posted in the forum here was shot with a $100 lens...

While i dont respone to each posting i read each one and appritiate the thoughts and input.I think the first time i have heard from Kathy and Ruben...Bart would get my vote for being the very most helpful person on the forum....

Hi Erik,

2.8 is not something i'm going to use

Click to expand...

But you do use it. When you do a half-press of the shutter release the lens is set to it's widest aperture. Listen to what others are saying. With a 'fast' lens you get more accurate and faster auto-focus and a brighter viewfinder, no matter what you set the aperture to on the camera.

WRT using anything wider than f4, my opinion is that the 'big hole' will introduce softness. Conversely anything over f8 (certainly f11) will introduce distortion due to diffraction effects. Most lenses are at their sharpest round about f5.6.

I find that with landscapes I rarely need to above f8, maybe f11, if I roughly calculate the hyperfocal distance. See here for an explanation.

Regards,

Stuart

StuartRae said:

But you do use it. When you do a half-press of the shutter release the lens is set to it's widest aperture. Listen to what others are saying. With a 'fast' lens you get more accurate and faster auto-focus and a brighter viewfinder, no matter what you set the aperture to on the camera.

WRT using anything wider than f4, my opinion is that the 'big hole' will introduce softness. Conversely anything over f8 (certainly f11) will introduce distortion due to diffraction effects. Most lenses are at their sharpest round about f5.6.

Click to expand...

Hi Stuart,

I agree.

I find that with landscapes I rarely need to above f8, maybe f11, if I roughly calculate the hyperfocal distance. See here for an explanation.

Click to expand...

The problem with hyperfocal distance is that it, just like DOF, is based on the circle of confusion (COC) criterion. There are many different COC numbers being used on various internet sites, but most are not based on a realistic output size assumption for critical work. I use an upper limit of 1.5x the sensel pitch as the maximum diameter of the diffraction pattern, and the COC, for the most critical work (enlargements). Narrower apertures will gain in DOF but at a lower level of microdetail, even in the plane of focus.

Paul van Walree (an authority on optical matters) suggests calculating a personal COC for his Windows DOF tool called VWDOF, based on one's output needs, as follows:

C= (V) / (1000 x Q x Mp), where:

C is the COC diameter in millimetres,
V is the viewing distance of the output in centimetres,
Mp is the print magnification, i.e. the ratio of the output to the sensor dimensions,
Q is a quality parameter Q=1 is conventional, Q=2 is demanding, and Q=3 is critical.

His 'critical' setting calculates to something similar as my 1.5x sensel pitch rule of thumb when applied to large output sizes viewed from relatively close.

Cheers,
Bart

P.S. Paul van Walree also mentions the risk of sensor dust showing up at narrow apertures. It rarely is a big issue for me, but then I rarely use very narrow apertures ...

Reasons for spending the money on top of the line lenses is not only to be able to shoot F/2.8. In many cases, like you mentioned Erik, the glass is better which makes for better all around image quality.

If you compare a 24-70mm f/2.8 lens to an 18-70mm f/3.5~4.5 both set to 50mm both set to F/11, the 24-70mm will likely prove to show more detail, it may also have better colour saturation and higher contrast, and may have smoother bokeh.

The "pro" lenses will likely resist better to flare, ghosting, chromatic aberration, pincushion/barrel distortion, vignetting, etc. So even if you do not use F/2.8 you are probably seeing an improvement in other areas of image quality when compared to i"kit" type lenses, of course there are always exceptions and many variables.

The nikkor 50mm f1.8 is about as inexpensive as a new lens gets ($120) and it has superb image quality.

Hi Bart,

C= (V) / (1000 x Q x Mp), where:

C is the COC diameter in millimetres,
V is the viewing distance of the output in centimetres,
Mp is the print magnification, i.e. the ratio of the output to the sensor dimensions,
Q is a quality parameter Q=1 is conventional, Q=2 is demanding, and Q=3 is critical.

Click to expand...

As I said, roughly calculate the hyperfocal distance. On a November hillside with hail bouncing off your nose it's difficult to remember exact formulae

Regards,

Stuart

StuartRae said:

As I said, roughly calculate the hyperfocal distance. On a November hillside with hail bouncing off your nose it's difficult to remember exact formulae

Click to expand...

LOL, that's true. I therefore suggest to do it beforehand ..., or feed it into a DOF table generator that can print a field guide sized table/chart.

That's also the reason why I use my rule of thumb, which after some further calculating for a 555 nm wavelength roughly boils down to; sensel pitch in microns x 1.11 = narrowest f-number (without visible diffraction effects at the pixel level). So a 6.4 micron sensel pitch would lead to a narrowest aperture of f/7.1 .

Cheers,
Bart

StuartRae said:

Hi Bart,



As I said, roughly calculate the hyperfocal distance. On a November hillside with hail bouncing off your nose it's difficult to remember exact formulae

Regards,

Stuart

Click to expand...

Indeed, when the hail is heavy the dof is probably relatively unimportant

Erik, I rearely shoot above f5.6 unless I have a particular reason for it. That's just what I like, and lenses become less different as you stop them down. Really it depends on what you want at any time. Both my zooms for the dslrs are f4 IS zooms and do the job I ask of them perfectly well. I don't particularly want or need a fast zoom, but that's me and I know that others do. My primes are all reasonably fast for their focal length (except the 100 macro at 2.8)

Mike

.........

Thanks for the input Charlie....As i said i did all my early stiuff with a cheap lens....The level of detail and sharpness was more then acceptable and this is in a 12 By 18 or 20 By 30 print....

I posted this to see what people would say and possibly some reasons for me to explore more with using 2.8

But so far I dont see that....Its like people telling me i HAVE to get PS 9 or whatever they are on...I use Elements 4 and it does everything i need..

My camera upgrade was the biggest step for me going from a 6 meg to a 14.5 meg camera.Also being able to move my point of focus which i could not do on my other camera.Noise at ISO 400 seems to be about the same as the old camera.The old one the lowest ISO was 200 and my new camera has a ISO setting of 100.

But getting back to the lens. I just dont like the shots i have done at 2.8...Its not even close.I need to be able to post some images but even then i'm uploading files that are so small and low resolution....It all comes down to the actual print and not even what your seeing on your monitor.

A lot of good information here and thanks to everyone....Everyone has a preferance as to how they shoot. And too i'm still learning and my images get better every year and thats just on a technical level. The more i learn about light, about lens and camera settings the better my images get.....

I like the fastest lenses I can get. I've three Nikkor zooms and they are all 2.8 all the way through. The four Nikkor primes I have are 2.8 or faster (50/1.4 and the legendary 85/1.4). The one Leica lens I have is the 50/1.4 Summilux Aspherical.

I need the speed for a variety of reasons- I can shoot in low light, which is useful in the street and photojournalism work that interests me. The 85/1.4 is the Queen of bokeh- absolutely beautiful portrait lens. The 50 'lux is in a class by itself and, some would argue, is the finest lens Leica has ever produced. With longer lenses (I have only one, a 70-200/2.8) I can use a teleconverter without giving up too much. For underwater macro, the 105/2.8 gives a ridiculously shallow depth of field wide open but is necessary to achieve black backgrounds. I've got a 16/2.8 fisheye purchased for underwater wide-angle and I don't have to worry about the depth of field- everything is in focus and the lens gives me at least a stop more to work with; important if shooting over/unders.

The faster lenses tend to be the higher quality ones- coatings and designs are typically superior to their slower cousins. Back in the days of film, camera bodies were really not much more than a shutter, metering system, and a film transport mechanism. In those days, it was all about the glass. I think, while that has changed somewhat with digital technology, the glass is still an integral and important component of the total system. This is particularly so in high-megapixel applications. For instance, Nikon's D3x has 24.5 MP. To take advantage of the resolution the sensor offers, high-quality lenses are required.

I'm a glass freak. I just got back from a few days in Dubai where I could not post, hence the long-winded weigh-in.

And Kurland's has emailed me with the news my M9 is on the way!

Wendy