Why do YOU use fast primes?

Started 11 months ago | Discussions thread
Regular MemberPosts: 278
Re: 16-200mm?
In reply to joger, 11 months ago

joger wrote:

You can't compare 35 mm with 200 mm and expect the same view - but what you can calculate and measure is the DOF.

The focal length should be wisely chosen to support your idea of the image. There is no better or worse - that's my point

-- hide signature --

isn’t it funny, a ship that leaks from the top
ISO 9000 definition of quality: 'Degree to which a set of inherent characteristic fulfills requirements'
I am the classic “Windows by Day, Mac by Night user'
“The horizon of many people is a circle with zero radius which they call their point of view.” Albert Einstein
don't feed trolls - ignore them

The reason why I said what I said was because OP believes f2.8 is 'enough', and there isn't much difference @ 200mm in his opinion which I can understand.

I was merely stating that there is indeed a huge difference at shorter focal length.  That is the shorter it is, the faster aperture is required to achieve reasonable blur, whereas even 200mm f4 gives you plenty.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow