DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> f2.8 vs f4
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 24 of 24, (reverse)
AuthorThread
06/19/2010 12:05:08 AM · #1
There's some f4 "L" lenses that are sub $1000. Can anyone give me a good idea on how problematic these may be when shooting events...even if I'm usually using strobes?

Is f2.8 always better than f4? If so, why make f4 lenses and not just try to get everything to have the widest aperture possible? Are pros running around out there with f4 lenses or do they always spring for the costlier 2.8's and below?

Message edited by author 2010-06-19 00:06:03.
06/19/2010 12:08:49 AM · #2
f4 are a lot lighter, cheaper and if your shooting in good light at @f8, your not giving up much :-) I use primes when I want fast glass.
06/19/2010 01:04:38 AM · #3
Even in a world where 1600 iso is as noiseless as 800, f/2.8 will alway hit the focus point faster than a f/4 in low light situations just because more light is available for the sensor to make decisions on. I know people who swear by lenses like the 70-200 f/4, but I know of no pros who don't pony up for the f/2.8 model. The f/4 version is there for a market niche, and it is a damn good lens, its just not the best in the category. Easier to pack, much lighter, and still white, but whether it is worth it to plunk down the money for the big boy toy is a question of priorities and whether you will make the money back on not missing some shots.
06/19/2010 01:08:07 AM · #4
I like to use this tool.
06/19/2010 01:40:09 AM · #5
Originally posted by coryboehne:

I like to use this tool.


I like that tool, thanks cory. But I wonder if Canon loans them properly calibrated lens to be tested or do they get random lens from the market place. Because from the market place they'ld be benchmarking with some uncalibrated lens.

Anybody know??
06/19/2010 01:50:50 AM · #6
i believe they get them from the market since there was a review (i think on one of the wide angle L glass primes) in which the original lens which was tested was a lemon and a later updated review was published after concluding that the lens had focusing issues and getting a new sharp copy.

06/19/2010 02:17:32 AM · #7
Thanks! I guess its still a good way to review, but I could'nt really trust it. For the OP! If you want to shoot events, would always be better to go with the faster zoom. I sue the 70-200mm F4 for shoots I can control or daylight events only. Using a flash on a telezoom can only throw the light so far.
06/19/2010 07:36:41 AM · #8
If I'm doing MOSTLY portraiture and not events/weddings...shouldn't I go with the cost-effectiveness of the f4? And then if I get into weddings/events more I can sell and upgrade to the faster lens? Would that make sense?

I'm thinking about the 24-105 f4L as the first lens just because it's so versatile.

Message edited by author 2010-06-19 08:17:12.
06/19/2010 09:02:16 AM · #9
If you're doing "mostly" portraiture, you should be working with primes and letting your feet do the zooming. You get much more quality for the buck that way. Seriously...

R.
06/19/2010 09:36:56 AM · #10
Originally posted by kgeary:

If so, why make f4 lenses and not just try to get everything to have the widest aperture possible? Are pros running around out there with f4 lenses or do they always spring for the costlier 2.8's and below?

Mainly cost, plus to a much lesser extent size/weight issues. A 400mm f2.8 will not only set you back six times the price of the f5.6, it also weighs for times as much and is substantially larger in every dimension. Sure, it will give you better speed but you're more restricted in how you use it.

The pros I know have a huge range of lenses and will take what's most likely to be of maximum use and convenience for the job they're on - and yes, that even includes the occasional lowly f4!

As Bear says, primes will give you the best bang for your buck but that depends heavily on both your shooting environment and style. I'm perfectly happy working with a prime, but I know other photographers whose heads would explode if they had to do without a zoom capability!

As a side note; I was considering the 24-105 for a while, but ended up going for the Tamron 28-75 which is f2.8, half the price and pretty much as sharp as any zoom L I've played with.
06/19/2010 12:07:42 PM · #11
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

If you're doing "mostly" portraiture, you should be working with primes and letting your feet do the zooming. You get much more quality for the buck that way. Seriously...

R.


Ditto Robert. For economical lenses that give great results, the 50/1.4, the 85/1.8, and the 100/2, are all great lenses, and all three can be had for under $1200. In an even higher class is the 135/2 L, one of the finest optics Canon builds, and still (just) under $1000.
Since you are shooting with an APS-C (1.6 crop) body, you will need something at 50mm or wider. You could consider the 35/2, but the one dig on it is that it is not USM, so focus is noisy.
06/19/2010 12:09:21 PM · #12
Originally posted by ganders:

...As a side note; I was considering the 24-105 for a while, but ended up going for the Tamron 28-75 which is f2.8, half the price and pretty much as sharp as any zoom L I've played with.


I think this is probably true on a crop body, but not so true on a 35mm body.
06/19/2010 12:23:47 PM · #13
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

If you're doing "mostly" portraiture, you should be working with primes and letting your feet do the zooming. You get much more quality for the buck that way. Seriously...

R.


I know how primes are sharpest, etc. but I really need some flexibility. I'm doing on-location shoots. I was just in my friends basement doing shots of his baby and using a 50mm prime and it was killing me because furniture and other things prohibited where I needed to be because I couldn't zoom.

Plus I like to do some walk-around artistic shots and primes don't work well for that in my experience.

What I basically need to know is if the f4 is going to be problematic when trying to setup shots. I'll be mainly using strobes, but for the times I'm not, am I going to kick myself for having an f4 rather than a 2.8?

I was going to get the EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS but then I read all this stuff about how it has dust issues, IS issues, etc.

Message edited by author 2010-06-19 12:26:27.
06/19/2010 12:39:16 PM · #14
What it comes down to is what kind of depth of field you want to achieve. I love using shallow depth of field so much that I simply don't buy lenses that can't achieve that. If you are working with strobes at f/8 all the time you don't need the 2.8. If you ever want to really isolate your subject from a background you will need it though.
06/19/2010 12:42:13 PM · #15
What I'm thinking for my first three lenses is:

(Buy second) EF-S 10-22mm 2.8
(Buy first) EF 24-105 F4L
(Buy third) EF 70-200 F2.8L

Then I will grab the 50 1.4 and the 85 1.8 primes.

Is the 10-22 sharp enough to do professional work with? I like the 16-35 2.8L but it's like $1600 and that's a pretty small range.

What say you?

Message edited by author 2010-06-19 12:44:15.
06/19/2010 12:51:54 PM · #16
Bear in mind that DOF is a function of the physical size of the aperture, not the f/stop. f/stop is a ratio between the diameter of the aperture and the focal length of the lens. So f/4 at 100mm is about the same DOF as f/2 at 50mm, and f/4 at 200mm is f/1.0 at 50mm, which basically doesn't exist, although there are some rare lenses that accomplish an f/stop in the 1.0 range.

So, what I'm saying is if "isolating your subject" is the issue, f/4 on the 70-200 is just fine in the real world.

Regarding the sharpness of the 10-22mm, it's in the ballpark with the 16-35mm. It's an excellent ultrawide. But it's not f/2.8: it's an f/3.5-4.5 lens.

I own both the 10-22mm and the 70-200mm f/4L, btw. I can't use the 10-22mm on my 5D, so I have the FF equivalent, the 17-40mm f/4L. The 10-22mm is better optically than that lens, incidentally; I'd have gone for the 16-35mm if I could have afforded it.

R.
06/19/2010 03:16:29 PM · #17
Originally posted by kgeary:

...(Buy first) EF 24-105 F4L...

What say you?


Take what follows as what it is, personal opinion. You should really consider the 24-70/2.8 as well. Why? Here are my thoughts:
1.) You don't need the range on the long end. You are already shooting with a crop camera, so you have an effective 112mm-like angle of view at a 70mm FL.
2.) You do not need IS in the 24-70 range. For live subjects, you are always going to be shooting at 1/50s or faster, and you should readily be able to hand hold at that shutter speed. And f/2.8 gives you double the shutter speed as f/4, as a kicker. Above 70mm, you can use the 70-200/4 IS.
3.) The 24-70 has less distortion at the wide end
4.) The f/2.8 aperture means far better AF in low light (cross type sensors are active)
Now, all that said, the 24-70 is a larger, heavier lens than the 24-105, and it tends to be optically better at the wide end, whereas the 24-105 is probably better in the middle of its range. Bottom line is, both lenses are optically very good, and you could use either one confidently for portraiture.
06/19/2010 03:43:05 PM · #18
Thanks. I'm just finding that the 24-70 is just slightly out of reach as far as getting a first lens is concerned being that its' nearly $300 more expensive. I'm waiting for my Canon G10 to sell on Ebay and as soon as that auction is complete I'll have around $1050. Perhaps I just need to suck it up and be more patient.

It would be nice to go:

10-22 > 24-70 > 70-200

and then throw in the 85mm 1.8 and a 15mm fisheye or 100mm Macro.

Message edited by author 2010-06-19 15:45:07.
06/19/2010 03:59:00 PM · #19
Originally posted by kgeary:

Thanks. I'm just finding that the 24-70 is just slightly out of reach as far as getting a first lens is concerned being that its' nearly $300 more expensive...


Ha. I haven't looked at prices lately, but was in fact surprised to see that there is that mucch difference. I keep forgetting that prices have risen in the six years or so since I bought the 24-70.
06/19/2010 04:24:49 PM · #20
Originally posted by kgeary:

What I'm thinking for my first three lenses is:

(Buy second) EF-S 10-22mm 2.8
(Buy first) EF 24-105 F4L
(Buy third) EF 70-200 F2.8L

Then I will grab the 50 1.4 and the 85 1.8 primes.

I'd say that's just about perfect (and close to to my usual kit). I have the f/4 IS version of the 70-200 and just push the ISO up if I need more speed, although I rarely require that much zoom indoors. If I'm dealing with low light, I'll use a Tamron 28-75 instead of the 24-105, but the relatively large range of the latter is great for walkaround. Not sure if you meant the 17-55 2.8 since the 10-22 isn't that fast, but both are great lenses. Depending on your needs, you might consider adding a 1.4X extender and a macro lens to that group later on.
06/21/2010 05:37:03 AM · #21
The reason for buying 2.8 glass is not only depth of field. 2.8 glass is one stop faster then f 4 glass, 2.8 glass is usually made better is stronger, weather sealed, and more durable. Since the lens opening is bigger that allows more light into lens allowing better focusing, because the camera has double the amount of light getting to sensors on a 2.8 lens rather then a f4 lens. If you use TTL this is vital.

There are some very sharp f 4 lenses available but buying 2.8 glass gets you more then just sharpness.

Kevin Russo -Photographer
06/21/2010 07:54:40 AM · #22
Originally posted by iamkmaniam:

The reason for buying 2.8 glass is not only depth of field. 2.8 glass is one stop faster then f 4 glass, 2.8 glass is usually made better is stronger, weather sealed, and more durable. Since the lens opening is bigger that allows more light into lens allowing better focusing, because the camera has double the amount of light getting to sensors on a 2.8 lens rather then a f4 lens. If you use TTL this is vital.

There are some very sharp f 4 lenses available but buying 2.8 glass gets you more then just sharpness.

Kevin Russo -Photographer


I could not have said it better! i completely agree with Kevin, i have upgraded a 300 f/4 with a 300 f/2.8, well, another planet (and i was pleased of my first 300mm)...
06/21/2010 08:53:40 AM · #23
I use the cheap stuff and get endless delight when I beat someones shot taken with L glass.

(Ok, to be fair, I get my share of throwaways, and if I were a pro, I would certainly invest in better lenses.)
06/29/2010 01:09:36 PM · #24
I know everyone gets really excited over L-glass, but I've now rented a couple of L-lenses just to see what the fuss is about. I also have a Tamron 17-50 f2.8. Strangely (considering it's a Tamron) I got it from Sigma4Less for under $400, and I am thrilled with it. IMHO it's as good as L-glass that I've tried out or at least dag-gone close! I took thisat 400ISO in extremely bad light and no flash. A vampire would be comfortable living in my mother's house. It's just extremely dark - even in the day time - and there's something about it that even if you use a flash it just sucks the light right up.

That's my grandmother and my 3 month old niece, btw. My grandmother was giving my son and daughter-in-law grief that day saying she wants them to "get busy" because she wants to see her children to the 4th generation before she dies. Her mother and grandmother both saw their children to the 4th generation, and that is what she wants too. Actuallly, I'd kind of like that for myself as well. :-D
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 08:54:16 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 08:54:16 AM EDT.