200mm zoom @ f/2.8 - can't nail focus

Forums › Digital Imaging › 200mm zoom @ f/2.8 - can't nail focus - shutter speed?

1 | 2

Batman

Mad Scientist
29763 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1311189 25-May-2015 11:33

how do you get past airport carry on limit?

Batman

Mad Scientist
29763 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1311192 25-May-2015 11:36

mind you i'm not a professional making money shooting with an assistant or two to lug ;p
got 3 kids and their toys when i travel ;p

timmmay

20580 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1311204 25-May-2015 11:54

joker97: how do you get past airport carry on limit?

I don't shoot professionally outside of Wellington area. When I travel I just take the Sony RX100, which is tiny.

nzbsgfan

146 posts

Master Geek
Inactive user

#1311523 25-May-2015 19:19

I've got a 300mm f2.8

At 2.8 the depth of field is less than 25 mm

Just because you have a really fast lens, doesn't mean you need to operate it wide open all the time. Obviously if you want minimal depth of field or you are shooting in low light - then ok.

1/500sec should stop children in their tracks. Use shutter priority, and that will allow more depth of field to eliminate some focus error.

Thinking out loud - but with CCD's getting so much better in low light conditions, are low f stop lenses really required these days?

Batman

Mad Scientist
29763 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1311525 25-May-2015 19:23

2.8 is nothing. half of my lenses are at full frame 1.4 ...

nzbsgfan

146 posts

Master Geek
Inactive user

#1311527 25-May-2015 19:25

Not your long lenses tho - right?

Batman

Mad Scientist
29763 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1311528 25-May-2015 19:27

yeah only the wide angles... why can't sigma come up with a 24-85 1.8 ;p

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1311868 26-May-2015 10:39

nzbsgfan: I've got a 300mm f2.8

Thinking out loud - but with CCD's getting so much better in low light conditions, are low f stop lenses really required these days?

Most digital cameras these days use CMOS image sensors - not CCD.

There are so many different arguments about the advantage/disadvantages of "fast" lenses. Rational discussion is hardly possible, as people who'll spend vast sums of money on expensive uber-fast glass don't like to hear of the disadvantages (effects of aberrations on PDAF performance, flare/ghosting, weight) but in many cases the lens makers offset this by pulling out all the stops, the faster lenses had better faster AF, better build quality, and more expensive and elaborate optical design.
For the "200mm f2.8 zoom", I'd gladly ditch mine for a Nikkor 70-200 f4.

timmmay

20580 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1311886 26-May-2015 11:03

In the past F2.8 (or faster) was often necessary for wedding photographers, given the dark churches and such we work in. With modern cameras high ISO and better AF systems they're less necessary, but I'll take the extra stop of light and narrower DOF. My wide lens is F4 but it has VR.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1311914 26-May-2015 11:39

timmmay: In the past F2.8 (or faster) was often necessary for wedding photographers, given the dark churches and such we work in. With modern cameras high ISO and better AF systems they're less necessary, but I'll take the extra stop of light and narrower DOF. My wide lens is F4 but it has VR.

Presumably the 16-35 f4 VR?
The Nikkor 14-24 f2.8 is IMO a good example of people's "lens lust" getting the better of practical reality. Optical performance of the 14-24 is superb, but they can keep the weight, the huge exposed front element which makes it very prone to flare, the impossibility of practical use of a protective filter meaning you will end up damaging it unless you baby it around all the time (and unlike longer focal length lenses, a small blemish on the front glass might very well be visible in photos), and the shorter zoom range. I get the feeling that many people think they need what it offers, but for a specialised expensive lens, an awful lot of them end up being offered for sale used on TradeMe.

timmmay

20580 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1311918 26-May-2015 11:41

Yep, 16-35 F4 VR. Works great, and I photograph people not brick walls so I don't see any distortion. I never thought the 14-24 was good for me, expensive, easy to damage, and 2mm while significant at the wide end I can live without.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1311941 26-May-2015 12:23

timmmay: Yep, 16-35 F4 VR. Works great, and I photograph people not brick walls so I don't see any distortion. I never thought the 14-24 was good for me, expensive, easy to damage, and 2mm while significant at the wide end I can live without.

If it's ever field relevant, then newer Nikon camera bodies (if shooting jpeg) or software for raw conversion (understandably not popular for people shooting weddings etc) corrects the distortion automatically (as can other software). As new lenses have been introduced, Nikon update lens data firmware which can be downloaded and installed in the camera.
Brick-wall shooters will also complain about field-curvature and edge-softness of wide angle lenses, which at those focal lengths is even more seldom field-relevant. But there are exceptions.

timmmay

20580 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1311950 26-May-2015 13:08

ACR can do that to, if you have body/lens profiles. I don't care enough, looks good to me. I like vignettes on lenses too, saves me adding it in post!

Batman

Mad Scientist
29763 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1312026 26-May-2015 14:27

nzbsgfan:

Just because you have a really fast lens, doesn't mean you need to operate it wide open all the time.
.....

you don't buy a f2.8 and shoot at f5.6, the f4 zooms are far superior in IQ, canon's 70-200 f4 IS that is. half the price, half the weight, better sharpness. coming to think of it, I don't need that.

Thinking out loud - but with CCD's getting so much better in low light conditions, are low f stop lenses really required these days?

no, everyone should just use an iPhone, which the majority do. reason I don't need an f4 zoom is at normal print sizes, my tamron 28-300 at f8 shows everything you want to see. and hides everything you don't want to see.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29763 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1315676 1-Jun-2015 19:06

testament to the Tamron lens (which I have returned and swapped for this one) AF speed. I am using a Canon prime USM lens and (ok ok this one is 3 times the age and 3 times faster) the ability to see any kid in the picture is about impossible. no way to focus when these guys are boring down at your camera from about 10-20m away.
EDIT: another one with the same person same speed same everyhing ... same result as the Tamron.

not very scientific but the Tamron was impressive at about half the price of the equivalent canon. just not for me at the moment.

1 | 2