Reading mode: Light Dark

Will F2.8 be necessary in years to come?

Go to last post
A

AwesomeIan

Senior Member
Messages
2,218
Reaction score
1,813
Location
Redmond, WA, US
I recently upgraded from the D200 to the D7000. The difference in ISO noise is pretty radical. I remember trying to shoot birds with the D200 at ISO1600 and it was crap. Sometimes the shutter wasn't fast enough and even if it was the noise was out of control. This last weekend I had the pleasure of shooting with the 18-140mm near the ocean. Seagulls all over the place. I cranked the ISO to 3200 and had a nice shutter speed. In PP they looked great! The noise was acceptable.

So my questions is, in years to come the ISO on cameras is going to improve. At what point can we shoot at F5.6 or F6.3 and crank the ISO to get the same shutter speed as 2.8 *and* have little noise in the picture? Is it even worth the investment in a 70-200 2.8? They are pricey!
 
Of course f2.8 will be necessary. How else will you control depth of field?
 
Retzius said:
Of course f2.8 will be necessary. How else will you control depth of field?
Click to expand...
Let me turn the question around. Would you pay $1000+ for a lens that makes a little more bokeh than a $200 lens. To me the important thing is getting a sharp image of whatever I am taking a picture of (i.e. birds). If the background is a little sharper it doesn't really take much away from the picture.
 
AwesomeIan said:
I recently upgraded from the D200 to the D7000. The difference in ISO noise is pretty radical. I remember trying to shoot birds with the D200 at ISO1600 and it was crap. Sometimes the shutter wasn't fast enough and even if it was the noise was out of control. This last weekend I had the pleasure of shooting with the 18-140mm near the ocean. Seagulls all over the place. I cranked the ISO to 3200 and had a nice shutter speed. In PP they looked great! The noise was acceptable.

So my questions is, in years to come the ISO on cameras is going to improve. At what point can we shoot at F5.6 or F6.3 and crank the ISO to get the same shutter speed as 2.8 *and* have little noise in the picture? Is it even worth the investment in a 70-200 2.8? They are pricey!
Click to expand...
Other factors such as sharpness.

There is a substantial difference in sharpness when comparing the 70-200 f/2.8 to, for example, the 18-140. And, that difference becomes more obvious when the sensor moves up in resolution.

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compa...-II-on-Nikon-D5300___1208_680_406_680_406_919
 
Last edited:
AwesomeIan said:
Retzius said:
Of course f2.8 will be necessary. How else will you control depth of field?
Click to expand...
Let me turn the question around. Would you pay $1000+ for a lens that makes a little more bokeh than a $200 lens.
Click to expand...
Yes
AwesomeIan said:
To me the important thing is getting a sharp image of whatever I am taking a picture of (i.e. birds). If the background is a little sharper it doesn't really take much away from the picture.
Click to expand...
I distracting background can ruin an image. If you can't get a sharp picture at f2.8 you are doing something wrong. In truth, its not really that large of an aperture and should be well within the capabilities of a modern autofocus system.
 
Last edited:
AwesomeIan said:
Retzius said:
Of course f2.8 will be necessary. How else will you control depth of field?
Click to expand...
Let me turn the question around. Would you pay $1000+ for a lens that makes a little more bokeh than a $200 lens.
Click to expand...
Of course. And quality of bokeh is just one reason one might like to have fast glass.
AwesomeIan said:
To me the important thing is getting a sharp image of whatever I am taking a picture of (i.e. birds).
Click to expand...
Sharpness is just one image quality aspect and it's not always the primary one.
AwesomeIan said:
If the background is a little sharper it doesn't really take much away from the picture.
Click to expand...
Fast glass isn't always about sharpness.
 
AwesomeIan said:
This last weekend I had the pleasure of shooting with the 18-140mm near the ocean. Seagulls all over the place. I cranked the ISO to 3200 and had a nice shutter speed. In PP they looked great!
Click to expand...
Well, I live by the sea and have a couple of herring gulls that are regular visitors to the garden and so have ample time to observe them. Apart from take off and landing, seagull wings do not flap much and a high shutter speed is not necessary.







seagull_joanna_mug_2_p.jpg


Besides, of a winter's morning one can offer them a hot drink and then there is no flapping at all and no need for high shutter speeds.

I would quite like a 70-200/F2.8 but that is for a different purpose (weddings and such like).

David
 
That's a nice way to treat a seagull :D

Another reason to consider something like 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 instead of 70-200 f/2.8: size and weight. f4.5 is much lighter (700g vs ~1300), so you can easily carry it in your bag and change it. This of course comes from person that doesn't take telephoto most of the time. :)
 
AwesomeIan said:
I recently upgraded from the D200 to the D7000. The difference in ISO noise is pretty radical. I remember trying to shoot birds with the D200 at ISO1600 and it was crap. Sometimes the shutter wasn't fast enough and even if it was the noise was out of control. This last weekend I had the pleasure of shooting with the 18-140mm near the ocean. Seagulls all over the place. I cranked the ISO to 3200 and had a nice shutter speed. In PP they looked great! The noise was acceptable.

So my questions is, in years to come the ISO on cameras is going to improve. At what point can we shoot at F5.6 or F6.3 and crank the ISO to get the same shutter speed as 2.8 *and* have little noise in the picture? Is it even worth the investment in a 70-200 2.8? They are pricey!
Click to expand...
Who wants to shoot at high ISOs all the time? It sucks. The lower the ISO, the better.
 
Yes.

Let's say that today, lower ISO and higher shutter speed contribute to an image that is 10% better than it would have been otherwise.

Let's assume that higher ISO will always be 'worse' than lower ISO--even if the difference is reduced in the future, perhaps even reduced drastically.

Let's say that in the future, lower ISO and higher shutter speed contribute to an image that is 1% better than it would have been otherwise.

People will still pay for that.

(Plus narrow depth of field.)

I think the price premium for a 2.8 lens will come down as well. Quality third party competition is already happening.

And who knows what breakthrough technology might come along, what with the computers and the internet and such. ;)
 
AwesomeIan said:
At what point can we shoot at F5.6 or F6.3 and crank the ISO to get the same shutter speed as 2.8 *and* have little noise in the picture? Is it even worth the investment in a 70-200 2.8? They are pricey!
Click to expand...


Large aperture is not only about getting more light in, it's also about subject isolation.

Here's a shot with a 50mm f/1.2 (Nikon, please, please make an AF-S version of this)



3755b25976e14a89955662152a1b4c43.jpg






--
Check my website for reviews, tips & tutorials:
Amateur Nikon
 
F/2.8, F/1.8, F/1.4 will all retain a use because of the background isolation and bokeh they can offer. Given the difference in DOF between an APS-C and full frame camera you could argue that f/2.8 has a greater role for DX than FX. One of the reasons I have an FX camera is greater subject isolation. (And there's no D400 and I'm not sure if the D7200 will do what I want either).
 
No. Camera bodies will become so good that everyone will be using F8 pancake prime lenses all day every day.
 
AwesomeIan said:
Retzius said:
Of course f2.8 will be necessary. How else will you control depth of field?
Click to expand...
Let me turn the question around. Would you pay $1000+ for a lens that makes a little more bokeh than a $200 lens. To me the important thing is getting a sharp image of whatever I am taking a picture of (i.e. birds). If the background is a little sharper it doesn't really take much away from the picture.
Click to expand...
I fully understand. Why take a great image when a mediocre one will do. :-D
 
Ronan_M said:
AwesomeIan said:
I recently upgraded from the D200 to the D7000. The difference in ISO noise is pretty radical. I remember trying to shoot birds with the D200 at ISO1600 and it was crap. Sometimes the shutter wasn't fast enough and even if it was the noise was out of control. This last weekend I had the pleasure of shooting with the 18-140mm near the ocean. Seagulls all over the place. I cranked the ISO to 3200 and had a nice shutter speed. In PP they looked great! The noise was acceptable.

So my questions is, in years to come the ISO on cameras is going to improve. At what point can we shoot at F5.6 or F6.3 and crank the ISO to get the same shutter speed as 2.8 *and* have little noise in the picture? Is it even worth the investment in a 70-200 2.8? They are pricey!
Click to expand...
Who wants to shoot at high ISOs all the time? It sucks. The lower the ISO, the better.
Click to expand...
 
DigitalPhilosopher said:
AwesomeIan said:
At what point can we shoot at F5.6 or F6.3 and crank the ISO to get the same shutter speed as 2.8 *and* have little noise in the picture? Is it even worth the investment in a 70-200 2.8? They are pricey!
Click to expand...
Large aperture is not only about getting more light in, it's also about subject isolation.

Here's a shot with a 50mm f/1.2 (Nikon, please, please make an AF-S version of this)

3755b25976e14a89955662152a1b4c43.jpg


--
Check my website for reviews, tips & tutorials:
Amateur Nikon
Click to expand...
Honestly I was thinking more along the lines of telephoto and capturing fast movement. I can absolutely see the advantage with a F1.2 on 50mm
 
AwesomeIan said:
Ronan_M said:
AwesomeIan said:
I recently upgraded from the D200 to the D7000. The difference in ISO noise is pretty radical. I remember trying to shoot birds with the D200 at ISO1600 and it was crap. Sometimes the shutter wasn't fast enough and even if it was the noise was out of control. This last weekend I had the pleasure of shooting with the 18-140mm near the ocean. Seagulls all over the place. I cranked the ISO to 3200 and had a nice shutter speed. In PP they looked great! The noise was acceptable.

So my questions is, in years to come the ISO on cameras is going to improve. At what point can we shoot at F5.6 or F6.3 and crank the ISO to get the same shutter speed as 2.8 *and* have little noise in the picture? Is it even worth the investment in a 70-200 2.8? They are pricey!
Click to expand...
Who wants to shoot at high ISOs all the time? It sucks. The lower the ISO, the better.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Mako2011 said:
AwesomeIan said:
Ronan_M said:
AwesomeIan said:
I recently upgraded from the D200 to the D7000. The difference in ISO noise is pretty radical. I remember trying to shoot birds with the D200 at ISO1600 and it was crap. Sometimes the shutter wasn't fast enough and even if it was the noise was out of control. This last weekend I had the pleasure of shooting with the 18-140mm near the ocean. Seagulls all over the place. I cranked the ISO to 3200 and had a nice shutter speed. In PP they looked great! The noise was acceptable.

So my questions is, in years to come the ISO on cameras is going to improve. At what point can we shoot at F5.6 or F6.3 and crank the ISO to get the same shutter speed as 2.8 *and* have little noise in the picture? Is it even worth the investment in a 70-200 2.8? They are pricey!
Click to expand...
Who wants to shoot at high ISOs all the time? It sucks. The lower the ISO, the better.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top