Reading mode: Light Dark

Do I really need f2.8 ????

Go to last post
D

Doug Healy

Well-known member
Messages
185
Reaction score
0
Location
US
I am looking at adding a lens to my D70 setup. I really like
the kit lens but I want to add a little more range. I have an older
Tamrom 70-300 3.5 LD lens and like the range but it is
really slow and hunts alot.
I think a lens in that FL range is what I want , but I always
wanted a f2.8 lens. I am not able to drop for the 70-200vr
Most of what I shot is family/outdoors some sports and
alot of nature type stuff. I think a fast AF system is more
valuable to me now than f2.8 but I would like to combine the
2.
Mainly I have looked at the sigma lens's :
70-200 f2.8 APO HSM as well as the Nikkon 80-200 f2.8 AF and AF-S
135-400 f4.5 APO
170-500 f5 APO

I have read lots of posts regarding many of these and other lens
in this FL range and price. I really want to get something
fast with good focus through the range. I guess I am feeling that
I might be unecessarily hung up on having an f2.8 lens :-)

Thanks
Doug
 
I can't suggest to you what lens to buy. That's a decision you'll have to come to grips with on your own. Once you get your first 2.8 or faster lens you'll never want to go back to anything slower, that's just my feeling. I have the Nikon 24-120VR which I hardly every use anymore, unless I know I'll be in the daylight all day and don't want to carry anything else and I have the Nikon 12-24 f4 which is just great for what I need it to do.

Since getting it, I mostly use my 28-70, or if I know I don't want to carry the weight, I'll take my little primes. Every situation is different but I hardly ever have to worry about speed of my lenses or low light because I know I'm sitting on average at 2.8.

--

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Darrick of EMG STUDIOS

1) Nikon D2H
2) Nikon 12-24
3) Nikon 28-70 2.8
4) Nikon 24-120VR
5) Nikon 28mm 2.8
6) Nikon 50mm 1.8
7) Nikon 70-200VR
8) SB-800
...... and a lot of other fun stuff to play with!!!
 
Are you planning on doing any indoor or other low light shooting? This is really the only time you NEED the 2.8, unless you are going for great BOKEH.

I bought the 70-200VR for inside use, but it is also a great outside lens. If I did not need it for inside, I would definitely have picked up something more reasonably priced.

--
Pat

http://www.iceshots.smugmug.com
 
Guys
Thanks for the replies ....
thats a great question. I will most likely have some indoor shooting
but I think I am really looking for an outside lens. I want the reach.
I was thinking of a fast prime for indoor use like an 85 f1.8
and the zoom for outside nature type shots.
Doug
PFR said:
Are you planning on doing any indoor or other low light shooting?
This is really the only time you NEED the 2.8, unless you are going
for great BOKEH.

I bought the 70-200VR for inside use, but it is also a great
outside lens. If I did not need it for inside, I would definitely
have picked up something more reasonably priced.

--
Pat

http://www.iceshots.smugmug.com
Click to expand...
 
AFS and all that other stuff is fine, but at the bottom of it all is that a contrast-based focusing system needs all the light it can get. A fast aperture non-afs lens will beat a slow AFS lens every time, or at least it does in the lenses I have.

I seldom shoot at 2.8, since my own style is very depth of field driven. But I always make sure I have a 2.8 or faster on when I'm worried about how much time I'll have to acquire focus.
Doug Healy said:
I am looking at adding a lens to my D70 setup. I really like
the kit lens but I want to add a little more range. I have an older
Tamrom 70-300 3.5 LD lens and like the range but it is
really slow and hunts alot.
I think a lens in that FL range is what I want , but I always
wanted a f2.8 lens. I am not able to drop for the 70-200vr
Most of what I shot is family/outdoors some sports and
alot of nature type stuff. I think a fast AF system is more
valuable to me now than f2.8 but I would like to combine the
2.
Mainly I have looked at the sigma lens's :
70-200 f2.8 APO HSM as well as the Nikkon 80-200 f2.8 AF and AF-S
135-400 f4.5 APO
170-500 f5 APO

I have read lots of posts regarding many of these and other lens
in this FL range and price. I really want to get something
fast with good focus through the range. I guess I am feeling that
I might be unecessarily hung up on having an f2.8 lens :-)

Thanks
Doug
Click to expand...
--
'No, the OTHER left.'
http://www.onemountainphoto.com
 
I have both f2.8 lenses and slower f3.5/4.5 or f4/5.6 lenses covering the same FL ranges. I end up using both depending on either the lighting conditions or how much weight that I want to carry.
 
At telephoto lengths, you need a higher shutter speed than mid-range focal lengths in order to reduce the effects of camera shake and/or subject movement. A faster 2.8 lens is optimized to be used wide open while a slower lens like the Nikon 70-300 4-5.6 needs f8 to be acceptably sharp because it is not optomized to produce best results wide open. f2.8 to f8 is 3 stops -- the difference between 1/125 and 1/1000 sec! As the others mentioned, you would need the 2.8 for lower light situations such as early morning, evening or overcast.
Doug Healy said:
I am looking at adding a lens to my D70 setup. I really like
the kit lens but I want to add a little more range. I have an older
Tamrom 70-300 3.5 LD lens and like the range but it is
really slow and hunts alot.
I think a lens in that FL range is what I want , but I always
wanted a f2.8 lens. I am not able to drop for the 70-200vr
Most of what I shot is family/outdoors some sports and
alot of nature type stuff. I think a fast AF system is more
valuable to me now than f2.8 but I would like to combine the
2.
Mainly I have looked at the sigma lens's :
70-200 f2.8 APO HSM as well as the Nikkon 80-200 f2.8 AF and AF-S
135-400 f4.5 APO
170-500 f5 APO

I have read lots of posts regarding many of these and other lens
in this FL range and price. I really want to get something
fast with good focus through the range. I guess I am feeling that
I might be unecessarily hung up on having an f2.8 lens :-)

Thanks
Doug
Click to expand...
 
Hi,

I prefer to have very shallow DOF most of the time to isolate my subjects from their surroundings. That means shooting with an aperture of f2 or larger. So, in this case, f2.8 is actually too slow many times. Having such large apertures for such shallow DOF opens up the primes vs zooms can of worms as well, though. ;)

But, think about the DOF you get from what you have and then approach the f2.8 zoom question from that perspective - pun intended and I'm not sorry in the least ;) - and see what your answer might be...

Stan
--
Amateur Photographer
Professional Electronics Development Engineer

Once you start down the DSLR path, forever will it dominate your destiny! Consume your bank account, it will! Like mine, it did! :)
 
Darrick said:
(...)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Darrick of EMG STUDIOS

1) Nikon D2H
2) Nikon 12-24
3) Nikon 28-70 2.8
4) Nikon 24-120VR
5) Nikon 28mm 2.8
6) Nikon 50mm 1.8
7) Nikon 70-200VR
8) SB-800
...... and a lot of other fun stuff to play with!!!
Click to expand...
Sorry Darrick, but did you read the forum rules? if so, you should know that gear listed in your signature, is not allowed, because it messes up with the search function of the forum.

Thank you

--
Miguel Barroso
PORTUGAL
 
Check ebay for one of your lenses--you may find a great used one...

Oh--and I want to add, I do not know the owner and it is not nor ever was mine. I just happened to be 'browsing' lenses...

Linda
Doug Healy said:
I am looking at adding a lens to my D70 setup. I really like
the kit lens but I want to add a little more range. I have an older
Tamrom 70-300 3.5 LD lens and like the range but it is
really slow and hunts alot.
I think a lens in that FL range is what I want , but I always
wanted a f2.8 lens. I am not able to drop for the 70-200vr
Most of what I shot is family/outdoors some sports and
alot of nature type stuff. I think a fast AF system is more
valuable to me now than f2.8 but I would like to combine the
2.
Mainly I have looked at the sigma lens's :
70-200 f2.8 APO HSM as well as the Nikkon 80-200 f2.8 AF and AF-S
135-400 f4.5 APO
170-500 f5 APO

I have read lots of posts regarding many of these and other lens
in this FL range and price. I really want to get something
fast with good focus through the range. I guess I am feeling that
I might be unecessarily hung up on having an f2.8 lens :-)

Thanks
Doug
Click to expand...
 
I have 300mm/2.8 and 80-200/2.8 Nikkors, I found that at 2.8 I don't get anough DOF so I have to step the lens down to f4.0 or evan 8.0, however the 2.8 lenses have a great appeal to me. For example for the birds photography, I shoot usually my 400mm @ f8.0, for the fashion, I also use f8.0 on my 80-200/2.8 and even then I find sometimes that DOF is quite limited. Still like those 2.8 lenses, size does matter.

I also like staying with Nikon equipment, I like the color balance that it gives to me. I've seen many arguments about the optical quality of Nikkor vs another brands, but almost everyone admits that pro-line of Nikkors are better build and offer a better resale value.

Just my $0.02 cents worth.

Cheers,
Wes
Doug Healy said:
I am looking at adding a lens to my D70 setup. I really like
the kit lens but I want to add a little more range. I have an older
Tamrom 70-300 3.5 LD lens and like the range but it is
really slow and hunts alot.
I think a lens in that FL range is what I want , but I always
wanted a f2.8 lens. I am not able to drop for the 70-200vr
Most of what I shot is family/outdoors some sports and
alot of nature type stuff. I think a fast AF system is more
valuable to me now than f2.8 but I would like to combine the
2.
Mainly I have looked at the sigma lens's :
70-200 f2.8 APO HSM as well as the Nikkon 80-200 f2.8 AF and AF-S
135-400 f4.5 APO
170-500 f5 APO

I have read lots of posts regarding many of these and other lens
in this FL range and price. I really want to get something
fast with good focus through the range. I guess I am feeling that
I might be unecessarily hung up on having an f2.8 lens :-)

Thanks
Doug
Click to expand...
 
2.8 lenses is the maximum acceptable aperture for any serious lens.

I hate f:4-5.6 zooms I can't tell you how much! What is this, having to start shooting at 5.6?

When I go outdoors at 6PM, my camera set at ISO 200, shooting at f5.6 is the limit and every minute passing-by pushes me to use ISO 400 and 800... Clearly: I hate those 5.6 zooms and I find them useless (I'm not always shooting at noon in perfect conditions, fortunatelyfor me!)

F2.8 means a lot of things:

1st: Much more shooting possibilities!!!
2nd: much clearer viewfinder, thus much better Autofocus performance
3rd: Much more versatile
4th: Usually, 2.8 lenses are much more performant optically.

5th: When you need that f2.8 aperture, believe me, it is priceless! (I bet you knew that).
6th: Because you will lose so many shots with a dumb f:4-5.6 zoom.

7th (This is my personal opinion as opposed to the above which are generally accepted as true): Usually, lenses perform BEST when they're stopped down 2 or 3 stops. This basically means any f2.8 lens will be excellent at 5.6. Not bad at all.

An f:4-5.6 lens will best perform at f8 and F11. At these stops you MUST be in ideal conditions or otherwise you'll need to push your ISO and so the picture Quality will be degraded (don't forget that the starting point is a lesser optic, anyways...)

All in all, for me, an f:2.8 lens is nothing else then the minimum starting point if you're serious about your photography.
 
Go outside with your camera towards the end of the day when the lighting is as-bad-as will need to shoot in, crank the ISO to the highest level you feel is acceptable for normal shooting and take a reading at f/5.6. Look at your shutter speed. Now multiply it by four and that is what shutter speed you would be able to achieve at f/2.8. Do this for all the lighting situations you desire to shoot in without a flash.

Every stop you add you can multiply the shutter speed by two. f/5.6 to f/2.8 is two stops (hence x4). So a three stop difference would be 8x. The stops starting from f/1.0 are:

1.0, 1.4, 2.0, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, 22, 32, 44, etc...

The relationship from between stops is the square root of 2. I personally think f/2.8 is not wide (it's wide for a zoom). My dream lens is the Leica 50mm f/1.0 Noctilux... Too bad, I'm not made of money.
--
It's All Relative,
Baracus
 
I am in the middle of shooting birds with my 70-300 4-5.6 ED. To get max sharpness, I have to stop down to f8-f11. That's much more DOF than I want because the bokeh on this lens is not very good.

The 80-200 and 70-200 2.8 Nikkors not only have better bokeh, but their 2.8 max aperture allows you to get sharp results at f4. That's the kind of DOF I like for bird portraits. Of course, it takes a lot of careful pre-focusing.
Pantanal1 said:
Just my $0.02 cents worth.

Cheers,
Wes
Doug Healy said:
I am looking at adding a lens to my D70 setup. I really like
the kit lens but I want to add a little more range. I have an older
Tamrom 70-300 3.5 LD lens and like the range but it is
really slow and hunts alot.
I think a lens in that FL range is what I want , but I always
wanted a f2.8 lens. I am not able to drop for the 70-200vr
Most of what I shot is family/outdoors some sports and
alot of nature type stuff. I think a fast AF system is more
valuable to me now than f2.8 but I would like to combine the
2.
Mainly I have looked at the sigma lens's :
70-200 f2.8 APO HSM as well as the Nikkon 80-200 f2.8 AF and AF-S
135-400 f4.5 APO
170-500 f5 APO

I have read lots of posts regarding many of these and other lens
in this FL range and price. I really want to get something
fast with good focus through the range. I guess I am feeling that
I might be unecessarily hung up on having an f2.8 lens :-)

Thanks
Doug
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
It's so bad that I have to use MF in low light. I've lost many shots because of the slow AF and hunting problems.
nejic said:
2.8 lenses is the maximum acceptable aperture for any serious lens.

I hate f:4-5.6 zooms I can't tell you how much! What is this,
having to start shooting at 5.6?

When I go outdoors at 6PM, my camera set at ISO 200, shooting at
f5.6 is the limit and every minute passing-by pushes me to use ISO
400 and 800... Clearly: I hate those 5.6 zooms and I find them
useless (I'm not always shooting at noon in perfect conditions,
fortunatelyfor me!)

F2.8 means a lot of things:

1st: Much more shooting possibilities!!!
2nd: much clearer viewfinder, thus much better Autofocus performance
3rd: Much more versatile
4th: Usually, 2.8 lenses are much more performant optically.
5th: When you need that f2.8 aperture, believe me, it is priceless!
(I bet you knew that).
6th: Because you will lose so many shots with a dumb f:4-5.6 zoom.
7th (This is my personal opinion as opposed to the above which are
generally accepted as true): Usually, lenses perform BEST when
they're stopped down 2 or 3 stops. This basically means any f2.8
lens will be excellent at 5.6. Not bad at all.
An f:4-5.6 lens will best perform at f8 and F11. At these stops you
MUST be in ideal conditions or otherwise you'll need to push your
ISO and so the picture Quality will be degraded (don't forget that
the starting point is a lesser optic, anyways...)

All in all, for me, an f:2.8 lens is nothing else then the minimum
starting point if you're serious about your photography.
Click to expand...
 
So, the difference between f2.8 and f5.6 is not 3x the speed? i.e. if the shutter speed was 1/125 at f8 it would not be 1/1000 at f2.8 ?
Baracus said:
Go outside with your camera towards the end of the day when the
lighting is as-bad-as will need to shoot in, crank the ISO to the
highest level you feel is acceptable for normal shooting and take a
reading at f/5.6. Look at your shutter speed. Now multiply it by
four and that is what shutter speed you would be able to achieve at
f/2.8. Do this for all the lighting situations you desire to shoot
in without a flash.

Every stop you add you can multiply the shutter speed by two.
f/5.6 to f/2.8 is two stops (hence x4). So a three stop difference
would be 8x. The stops starting from f/1.0 are:

1.0, 1.4, 2.0, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, 22, 32, 44, etc...

The relationship from between stops is the square root of 2. I
personally think f/2.8 is not wide (it's wide for a zoom). My
dream lens is the Leica 50mm f/1.0 Noctilux... Too bad, I'm not
made of money.
--
It's All Relative,
Baracus
Click to expand...
 
I meant to say "the difference between f2.8 and f8 is not 3X the speed?"
MNE said:
Baracus said:
Go outside with your camera towards the end of the day when the
lighting is as-bad-as will need to shoot in, crank the ISO to the
highest level you feel is acceptable for normal shooting and take a
reading at f/5.6. Look at your shutter speed. Now multiply it by
four and that is what shutter speed you would be able to achieve at
f/2.8. Do this for all the lighting situations you desire to shoot
in without a flash.

Every stop you add you can multiply the shutter speed by two.
f/5.6 to f/2.8 is two stops (hence x4). So a three stop difference
would be 8x. The stops starting from f/1.0 are:

1.0, 1.4, 2.0, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, 22, 32, 44, etc...

The relationship from between stops is the square root of 2. I
personally think f/2.8 is not wide (it's wide for a zoom). My
dream lens is the Leica 50mm f/1.0 Noctilux... Too bad, I'm not
made of money.
--
It's All Relative,
Baracus
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
f/8 is three stops (8x or 2x2x2) slower than f/2.8... f/5.6 is two stops (4x or 2x2) slower than f/2.8.

I'm not sure what you are saying (asking?), but I know that what I am saying is 100% correct. I think you are confusing a stop with the multiplication factor in my sentance.
--
It's All Relative,
Baracus
MNE said:
MNE said:
Baracus said:
Go outside with your camera towards the end of the day when the
lighting is as-bad-as will need to shoot in, crank the ISO to the
highest level you feel is acceptable for normal shooting and take a
reading at f/5.6. Look at your shutter speed. Now multiply it by
four and that is what shutter speed you would be able to achieve at
f/2.8. Do this for all the lighting situations you desire to shoot
in without a flash.

Every stop you add you can multiply the shutter speed by two.
f/5.6 to f/2.8 is two stops (hence x4). So a three stop difference
would be 8x. The stops starting from f/1.0 are:

1.0, 1.4, 2.0, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, 22, 32, 44, etc...

The relationship from between stops is the square root of 2. I
personally think f/2.8 is not wide (it's wide for a zoom). My
dream lens is the Leica 50mm f/1.0 Noctilux... Too bad, I'm not
made of money.
--
It's All Relative,
Baracus
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Guys ,
thanks for all the info. I just ordered the Nikkon 80-200 f2.8
lens. Should have it next week.
Thanks Again
Doug
Baracus said:
I'm not sure what you are saying (asking?), but I know that what I
am saying is 100% correct. I think you are confusing a stop with
the multiplication factor in my sentance.
--
It's All Relative,
Baracus
MNE said:
MNE said:
Baracus said:
Go outside with your camera towards the end of the day when the
lighting is as-bad-as will need to shoot in, crank the ISO to the
highest level you feel is acceptable for normal shooting and take a
reading at f/5.6. Look at your shutter speed. Now multiply it by
four and that is what shutter speed you would be able to achieve at
f/2.8. Do this for all the lighting situations you desire to shoot
in without a flash.

Every stop you add you can multiply the shutter speed by two.
f/5.6 to f/2.8 is two stops (hence x4). So a three stop difference
would be 8x. The stops starting from f/1.0 are:

1.0, 1.4, 2.0, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, 22, 32, 44, etc...

The relationship from between stops is the square root of 2. I
personally think f/2.8 is not wide (it's wide for a zoom). My
dream lens is the Leica 50mm f/1.0 Noctilux... Too bad, I'm not
made of money.
--
It's All Relative,
Baracus
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I have always believed that a 1-stop change in aperture requires a 1-stop change in shutter speed (in the opposite direction.)

So, yes -- f8 is 3 stops slower than f2.8 which means instead of 1/125 sec with f8, you can use 1/1000 with f2.8. If I am correct, then why bring up the square-root mumbo-jumbo? to confuse the enemy?
Baracus said:
I'm not sure what you are saying (asking?), but I know that what I
am saying is 100% correct. I think you are confusing a stop with
the multiplication factor in my sentance.
--
It's All Relative,
Baracus
MNE said:
MNE said:
Baracus said:
Go outside with your camera towards the end of the day when the
lighting is as-bad-as will need to shoot in, crank the ISO to the
highest level you feel is acceptable for normal shooting and take a
reading at f/5.6. Look at your shutter speed. Now multiply it by
four and that is what shutter speed you would be able to achieve at
f/2.8. Do this for all the lighting situations you desire to shoot
in without a flash.

Every stop you add you can multiply the shutter speed by two.
f/5.6 to f/2.8 is two stops (hence x4). So a three stop difference
would be 8x. The stops starting from f/1.0 are:

1.0, 1.4, 2.0, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, 22, 32, 44, etc...

The relationship from between stops is the square root of 2. I
personally think f/2.8 is not wide (it's wide for a zoom). My
dream lens is the Leica 50mm f/1.0 Noctilux... Too bad, I'm not
made of money.
--
It's All Relative,
Baracus
Click to expand...
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