My first DSLR - making a good choice

[dpslbird]

Mike
The canobn 60D is a very good cameraI am a freelance photographer and i own 50D 60D 7D i would tell ya to get the 60D if its your first DSLR or not unless your going to want to go pro i woulent get the 7D dont get me wrong its a very nice camera .But the 60D has just as many pixels as the 7D and belive me you cant tell the deffrenice between photos taken from the 60D & 7D.And the 7D is 100 dollars more it doesent have as many more googies you would be better off put the extra money into buying good lens the 50mm f1.8 is a very good learning lens you could have the best camera in the world without good lens you wont get the photos like you see in mags and on photo sites.What ever camera you end up getting read the camera MANUAL learn as much as you can about your camera from there learn f stops apture deph of feild lighting learn all you can in the long run it well make you much better very important if you want to be a freelance or pro .Find what part of photography you like and what type your good at and stick with it LEARN all you cn and go out and shoot shoot and shoot some more and have fun thats what its all about good luck enjoy Peace Don B.

[dpslbird]

Just a little fyi i went to order from B&H the other day and they wanted my ATM pin number i stoped the order and called master card and was told that was weird not to ever give your ATM pin number to anyone unless you trust the person 100 percent even than think twice because they can clean your account out.I dont know if B&H is being hacked or what be carefull master visa knows now after i called them.Again BE CAREFULL Peace DonB.

[Dizzy]

Mike
The canon 60D is a very good camera. I am a freelance photographer, and I own 50D 60D 7D. I would tell ya to get the 60D if its your first DSLR, or not unless your going to want to go pro I wouldn't get the 7D.

Hi Don,

Appreciate the advice Don, however I purchased the Nikon D90 several weeks ago.

Mike

[lizzy310]

What a beautiful photo. I hope I can get that good one day. Costco has a Nikkon D5100 I believe that comes with the standard lens for $999, What do you think about that? Then I could get another lens and also a macro lens, and some filters. I just looked at it yesterday. It has that view screen that pulls out. to the side. That seems like a pretty good deal, but Costco only has a 3 month return policy on electronics so I may look elsewhere to see if I can get that price for the same thing.

Can you explain stabilization to me? I can have shaky hands at times, and that might be something I need. Thanks for such a detailed response. I really appreciate it.

This is just me, but given your budget, if you're going the Canon route and buying new, I'd look at going down to the 60D (or possibly a used 50D), rather than the 7D, and throw the extra money towards glass. Birding lenses aren't cheap. Among birding photographers, the general advice is that a 400mm lens is going to be the minimum reach you're going to need, and you'll probably want more (or you'll end up adding a teleconverter). Most of the really fantastic birding shots you see are taken with superteles in the 500mm-800mm range. These are EXPENSIVE. A 400mm lens tends to be in the $1000-$2000 price range, and those are the cheapest superteles. When you start looking at 500mm and longer lenses (Sigma aside), or something faster than f/5.6, the prices will leap up into the $3000-$8000 range.

My recommendation would be to get a $1000 camera or below, and go for a 100-400L (EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM, which is around $1600 new. Bodies come and go--they're updated like most other digital electronics every three to five years and they depreciate like crazy (when a 50D was new, it cost around $1200, three years later, you can get one used in the $700 price range). Your lenses are where the bullk of the money you spend is going to stay with you. Their resale values stay high. In three years, you may only lose $100 (or make a small profit, actually, with the price increases going the way they are) on a 100-400L.

On the Nikon side of the fence, a D90 would be similar to get a 50D on the Canon side of the fence, but lenswise, you're probably going to end up looking at Sigma choices (120-400 OS or the 150-500 OS or 50-500 OS), since Nikon's 80-400 VR is not an AF-S lens, and the complaints are generally about autofocus speed--something you really want if you're going to be shooting flitty little passerines, and Nikon's AF-S supertele choices are going to be well past the $1500 price point.

BTW, 400mm is not magic, and it still won't be close enough. I have the $1100 EF 400mm f/5.6L USM prime lens (no stabilization, no zooming) for birds in flight, and I still crop all the time.

Now, you don't have to start with a four-figure 400mm lens. You can work your way up there gradually via a much smaller and more affordable (~$600) EF 70-300 IS USM (the black non-L version). But at a certain point, if you're really into bird photography, the need for the reach and an ultrasonic focus motor is going to consume you. At least, that's been my experience. I went from the el cheapo EF 75-300 III (non-USM, non-IS version) to my L prime, and I've never looked back.


Canon 50D. EF 400mm f/5.6L USM, iso 800, f/5.6, 1/640s. handheld.
White-Tailed Kite, juvenile.

[lizzy310]

Thank you so much for all the good advice. I think I will get a different camera body. Right now I am leaning toward Cannon 60D. I have looked at a tons of reviews, both professional and customer and people really seem to like it. I also have been reading the forums about lenses. There are as many opinions as there are different kinds of equipment. Some people like the lenses from the manufacturer, and some like the Sigma, Tokina, and Tameron. I have also looked at used lenses on Amazon. As long as you stick with people with really good feedback, you can do well on there. I don't want to get a cheap lens, but the professional is probably over my head. I do need auto focus because when I manually focus, it takes me too long.
I found Inkistas EF 100-400L on Amazon for $1300 used like new. I also found Tamron SP AF 70-300mm Di VC USD for $345 in the same catagory on Amazon. Some people really like the lenses that are from the other manufacturers. Any thoughts on that? I am taking my time. I hope to get new camera and lenses before Christmas when we are going on a trip to the Philippines, or Thailand or somewhere.

[Donald]

Some people really like the lenses that are from the other manufacturers. Any thoughts on that?

Lizzy

I know what you mean about there just being so many reviews and pieces of advice out there. Given your options, i think you're making a good choice thinking about a 60D as the body.

On lenses - As you say a lot of people always go with the camera manufacturer, e.g. Canon, Nikon. And there is no doubt that, at the top end, (e.g. Canon's 'L' series) they are the best thing that money can buy.

It's always a good thing to think that we should buy the best lens that we can afford. And 'what we can afford' is the key point, unless you want to get into debt in the belief that you will make it back through profit made from what you achieve with the lens. But that's not what most of us are about. We're just wanting to enjoy a hobby.

When you do get into 3rd party lenses (Tamron, Tokina, Sigma, etc) then I think you really do have to study the reviews and, in particular, try to find out the views fo people already using the lens. The quality is, I think, more variable. But the fact remains that Sigma, Tokina etc wouldn't still be in business if they made bad lenses. They make lenses that people want to buy and enjoy using and are more than adequate fro so much of the photography that we do.

So, be clear about your budget and then look within that.

[lizzy310]

Thanks Donald...I have several months to research. I need a good lens for general purposes. Then if I am out birding or something maybe the better one. Not expecting to make the money for them back. I found several macro lenses also both the aftermarket and the cannon on Amazon...used like new. What lens would you recommend for a general all purpose lens that I could use in most situations? Is a I think the 100-400 is more specialized. What specs would be good for a general lens that is still good quality. The one opinion that seems to be universal is that the lenses that come in a camera kit are not all that great. I also am with those who use protective filters and lenses, and polarizing lenses. I am a bit of a klutz and when you spend that much on camera and lenses, you want to take good care of them.
By the way, I love the forum...so many good suggestions on here.

Lizzy

I know what you mean about there just being so many reviews and pieces of advice out there. Given your options, i think you're making a good choice thinking about a 60D as the body.

On lenses - As you say a lot of people always go with the camera manufacturer, e.g. Canon, Nikon. And there is no doubt that, at the top end, (e.g. Canon's 'L' series) they are the best thing that money can buy.

It's always a good thing to think that we should buy the best lens that we can afford. And 'what we can afford' is the key point, unless you want to get into debt in the belief that you will make it back through profit made from what you achieve with the lens. But that's not what most of us are about. We're just wanting to enjoy a hobby.

When you do get into 3rd party lenses (Tamron, Tokina, Sigma, etc) then I think you really do have to study the reviews and, in particular, try to find out the views fo people already using the lens. The quality is, I think, more variable. But the fact remains that Sigma, Tokina etc wouldn't still be in business if they made bad lenses. They make lenses that people want to buy and enjoy using and are more than adequate fro so much of the photography that we do.

So, be clear about your budget and then look within that.

[lizzy310]

Thanks Donald...I have several months to research. I need a good lens for general purposes. Then if I am out birding or something maybe the better one. Not expecting to make the money for them back. I found several macro lenses also both the aftermarket and the cannon on Amazon...used like new. What lens would you recommend for a general all purpose lens that I could use in most situations? Is a I think the 100-400 is more specialized. What specs would be good for a general lens that is still good quality. The one opinion that seems to be universal is that the lenses that come in a camera kit are not all that great. I also am with those who use protective filters and lenses, and polarizing lenses. I am a bit of a klutz and when you spend that much on camera and lenses, you want to take good care of them.
By the way, I love the forum...so many good suggestions on here.

Lizzy

I know what you mean about there just being so many reviews and pieces of advice out there. Given your options, i think you're making a good choice thinking about a 60D as the body.

On lenses - As you say a lot of people always go with the camera manufacturer, e.g. Canon, Nikon. And there is no doubt that, at the top end, (e.g. Canon's 'L' series) they are the best thing that money can buy.

It's always a good thing to think that we should buy the best lens that we can afford. And 'what we can afford' is the key point, unless you want to get into debt in the belief that you will make it back through profit made from what you achieve with the lens. But that's not what most of us are about. We're just wanting to enjoy a hobby.

When you do get into 3rd party lenses (Tamron, Tokina, Sigma, etc) then I think you really do have to study the reviews and, in particular, try to find out the views fo people already using the lens. The quality is, I think, more variable. But the fact remains that Sigma, Tokina etc wouldn't still be in business if they made bad lenses. They make lenses that people want to buy and enjoy using and are more than adequate fro so much of the photography that we do.

So, be clear about your budget and then look within that.

[Donald]

I think the 100-400 is more specialized. What specs would be good for a general lens that is still good quality.

If you go down the Canon route, and you can afford it, I'm sure a number of people would recommend the Canon 24-105 f4L IS. It is a very popular lens. Another top-of-the-line model is the 24-70 f2.8L. It doesn't have IS (Image Stabilization), but is faster (has a wider maximum aperture). It of course doesn't have the same focal range.

So, it's about working out priorities.

The kit lenses do have the reputation of being not that great. However, I have to coinfess that my dear old 17-85 f4 - f5.6 IS continues to amaze me with its quality (for what I need/want). I've had 16 inch wide prints made and they look superb. Maybe I just got lucky and got a very good one.

Canon seems to be mounting the 18-55 f3.5-f5.6 IS II lens onto some bodies as a kit lens. Again, some people have spoken positively of that lens. And it is not nearly as expensive as the L lenses. With you go have a wider option than 24mm, but your longest length is 55mm. Again, depends on what you want to shoot.

[lizzy310]

I found the 2 you gave me on Amazon. The first is used for $990 and the 2nd used is $1244. For a basic lens, wouldn't having a F2 be better? If I understand correctly, those lenses work with the camera's auto focus. With a telephoto I need to make sure the lens has it's own AF mechanism. I found another one on Amazon which is probably a step down from the 100-400. EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM. The one I found on amazon is $1065. I think I understand that the larger number gives the info about the distance it will do. So the lens recommended by inkista at 400 goes way farther and I found it on Amazon for $1299. I can afford a regular lens, a telephoto and a macro, and a few filters and extra battery pack. So many of these are really close in price, so I need to learn as much as possible to decide which ones are what I want. I really appreciate your input. I am going to take my time and really check out all of them. By the end of Nov I will be ready to make a decision.

If you go down the Canon route, and you can afford it, I'm sure a number of people would recommend the Canon 24-105 f4L IS. It is a very popular lens. Another top-of-the-line model is the 24-70 f2.8L. It doesn't have IS (Image Stabilization), but is faster (has a wider maximum aperture). It of course doesn't have the same focal range.

So, it's about working out priorities.

The kit lenses do have the reputation of being not that great. However, I have to coinfess that my dear old 17-85 f4 - f5.6 IS continues to amaze me with its quality (for what I need/want). I've had 16 inch wide prints made and they look superb. Maybe I just got lucky and got a very good one.

Canon seems to be mounting the 18-55 f3.5-f5.6 IS II lens onto some bodies as a kit lens. Again, some people have spoken positively of that lens. And it is not nearly as expensive as the L lenses. With you go have a wider option than 24mm, but your longest length is 55mm. Again, depends on what you want to shoot.

[Donald]

I found the 2 you gave me on Amazon. The first is used for $990 and the 2nd used is $1244. For a basic lens, wouldn't having a F2 be better? ...........So the lens recommended by inkista at 400 goes way farther and I found it on Amazon for $1299.

Liz - Re the highest 'f' number that you want (remember, 'f' numbers work the other way round. The smaller the number, the bigger the aperture opening) - it depends. My main interest is in landscape. I 'live' in the f8, f11, f16 area. I very rarely shoot anything at f4 on my Canon 70-200 f4L, at anything above !SO100.

So it depends on what you want to shoot. If you are going to be shooting things where you want to maintain fast shutter speed and the depth-of-field is less important (or you want to deliberately create blurred backgrounds), then the faster lens will help you.

And on the focal length, at its longest length, the 70-200 is half the focal length of the 100-400.

If you look on a number of the photo review and commentary sites, they state that although the 100-400 is an excellent lens it is actually quite an old one in terms of the Canon stable of lenses. There is quite a bit of older technology in it. For example, the IS system is much better in more modern lenses than in the 100-400. I think people are looking closely for an updated version appearing quite soon.

The 70-200 that you've seen is the lens I have. It has a bigger brother in the 70-200 f2.8. It is a bigger and heavier lens. I think there are a great many people who will argue that these two (or one or the other, depending on you preference) is the best zoom lens that Canon has ever made. They are supreme in terms of quality. Canon got everything just right when they designed these lenses.

If you want to go for teh highest quality, but you still want to have something that goes longer than 200mm, then the other option to consider is getting the 70-200 and buying a tele-converter. Canon do a 1.4x converter and a 2x converter. So, if you mount the, say 2x converter onto your camera and the lens onto the converter, you have a 140-400 lens of the same quality as the 70-200. The only thing you lose, with the 2x converter is 2 stops of light. So, it's not as fast. But then you just increase your ISO speed by 2-stops (say 100 - 400) and you've got the exact same situation for aperture and shutter as you would have without the tele-converter

[lizzy310]

One more question....I have been looking and asking lots of questions. I found the 60D bundled with the following lens... EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Is this a decent lens for a basic starter? If so, then I can get the zoom for now, and then come back and get a better basic lens after the first of the year. I appreciate your input very much and all the people on here. So glad I joined.

Liz - Re the highest 'f' number that you want (remember, 'f' numbers work the other way round. The smaller the number, the bigger the aperture opening) - it depends. My main interest is in landscape. I 'live' in the f8, f11, f16 area. I very rarely shoot anything at f4 on my Canon 70-200 f4L, at anything above !SO100.

So it depends on what you want to shoot. If you are going to be shooting things where you want to maintain fast shutter speed and the depth-of-field is less important (or you want to deliberately create blurred backgrounds), then the faster lens will help you.

And on the focal length, at its longest length, the 70-200 is half the focal length of the 100-400.

If you look on a number of the photo review and commentary sites, they state that although the 100-400 is an excellent lens it is actually quite an old one in terms of the Canon stable of lenses. There is quite a bit of older technology in it. For example, the IS system is much better in more modern lenses than in the 100-400. I think people are looking closely for an updated version appearing quite soon.

The 70-200 that you've seen is the lens I have. It has a bigger brother in the 70-200 f2.8. It is a bigger and heavier lens. I think there are a great many people who will argue that these two (or one or the other, depending on you preference) is the best zoom lens that Canon has ever made. They are supreme in terms of quality. Canon got everything just right when they designed these lenses.

If you want to go for teh highest quality, but you still want to have something that goes longer than 200mm, then the other option to consider is getting the 70-200 and buying a tele-converter. Canon do a 1.4x converter and a 2x converter. So, if you mount the, say 2x converter onto your camera and the lens onto the converter, you have a 140-400 lens of the same quality as the 70-200. The only thing you lose, with the 2x converter is 2 stops of light. So, it's not as fast. But then you just increase your ISO speed by 2-stops (say 100 - 400) and you've got the exact same situation for aperture and shutter as you would have without the tele-converter

[Donald]

One more question....I have been looking and asking lots of questions. I found the 60D bundled with the following lens... EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Is this a decent lens for a basic starter? If so, then I can get the zoom for now, and then come back and get a better basic lens after the first of the year. I appreciate your input very much and all the people on here. So glad I joined.

Liz - I think that's a reasonable way to go. BUT .........

Please check - Is it the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II. If it ain't got that II at the end, then the deal is not so good. The old one hasn't got the II in the name and, I believe, is not nearly as good a lens.

But, assuming it is the II version, if you had lots and lots of money (and you may have, in which case my address is ..............) a starter route, if you wanted 2 lenses right away (but see below) could have been a 24-70 f2.8L and the 70-200 L (either f2.8 or f4, depending on personal taste). That would give you a mighty fine (maybe the best that's possible anywhere in photography) suite of lenses. And you could have added, for example, a 1.4x or 2x converter later.

But, if you are just starting out on the DSLR road, I think you want to stick with one lens at the beginning. You need to get to know it and all that it can do, before you start trying to learn all about another lens. And to get onto that learning curve and start to climb up it, the 18-55 etc II, seems a very appropriate one to go with. As I said above reports I've read (including comments on here), indicate that the 18-55 ....II, is a good lens.

[lizzy310]

I hope I am not annoying you... so much to learn! You are very kind to keep answering all my questions! I am thinking even if I can only get one lens...the 24-105 would still get me more distance than my poor little G10. It might be the one to start with. The kit lenses say nothing about II so I am assuming they aren't. I am probably going to be blown away by the difference anyway, so the telephoto may not matter at the beginning. Reading about the 24-70, it doesn't have IS and sometimes my hands are not as steady as I'd like.
Can you use the extender with the 24-105 to get extra distance? And can you use the accessories that get you closer with it as well? I think I read that they are called tubes. My G10 will get 1 inch from a flower and I would like to do close up things too.

Trip to the Philippines in Dec, and I need to "borrow" camera money from my hubby to get it before the trip. So perhaps the 24-105 would be the place to start for that trip.

Liz - I think that's a reasonable way to go. BUT .........

Please check - Is it the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II. If it ain't got that II at the end, then the deal is not so good. The old one hasn't got the II in the name and, I believe, is not nearly as good a lens.

But, assuming it is the II version, if you had lots and lots of money (and you may have, in which case my address is ..............) a starter route, if you wanted 2 lenses right away (but see below) could have been a 24-70 f2.8L and the 70-200 L (either f2.8 or f4, depending on personal taste). That would give you a mighty fine (maybe the best that's possible anywhere in photography) suite of lenses. And you could have added, for example, a 1.4x or 2x converter later.

But, if you are just starting out on the DSLR road, I think you want to stick with one lens at the beginning. You need to get to know it and all that it can do, before you start trying to learn all about another lens. And to get onto that learning curve and start to climb up it, the 18-55 etc II, seems a very appropriate one to go with. As I said above reports I've read (including comments on here), indicate that the 18-55 ....II, is a good lens.

[Donald]

Liz

We need someone else to come in to talk about tubes. I really don't understand much about their use, I'm afraid.

But, there is no doubt that the 24-105 is, in over all terms, a far superior quality leans that teh 18-55 kit. It is, after all out the the 'L' stable. If that is the focal range that appeals to you most, then go for it.

One point about your comment re your hands not being as steady nowadays and the 24-70 not being IS. One thing to think about with a lens of that focal length, is - Do you really need IS? It is a heavy lens and a lot of people say 'Yes'. There is some rumour that Canon are about to launch an IS version (If so, the one currently on the market will become competitively priced).

The other point I'd make, whether or not your hands are steady is - A tripod should be thought of as an essential part of your equipment.

[lizzy310]

I think there is just too much info on here and I went a little crazy. I will wait for all the extras until later. And I do have a good tripod. Everyone seems to agree that renting lenses to try them is a good idea. I think that I will do that. Too heavy is maybe too much for me, so trying them out will help me decide.

Thank you so much for all the good advice. I really appreciate it!

Liz

We need someone else to come in to talk about tubes. I really don't understand much about their use, I'm afraid.

But, there is no doubt that the 24-105 is, in over all terms, a far superior quality leans that teh 18-55 kit. It is, after all out the the 'L' stable. If that is the focal range that appeals to you most, then go for it.

One point about your comment re your hands not being as steady nowadays and the 24-70 not being IS. One thing to think about with a lens of that focal length, is - Do you really need IS? It is a heavy lens and a lot of people say 'Yes'. There is some rumour that Canon are about to launch an IS version (If so, the one currently on the market will become competitively priced).

The other point I'd make, whether or not your hands are steady is - A tripod should be thought of as an essential part of your equipment.

[lizzy310]

I have been emailing back and forth with the guy who does The Digital Picture reviews. He said that the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM is lighter and superb lens quality, but has less aperture for using an extender. Can you explain that to me? I think it means that I have less choices of what apertures I can use with an extender. Does that matter when shooting landscapes or wildlife? I like that it is lighter. I know myself...and I know that lighter is probably more practical if it is still a good quality.
Thanks

Liz

We need someone else to come in to talk about tubes. I really don't understand much about their use, I'm afraid.

But, there is no doubt that the 24-105 is, in over all terms, a far superior quality leans that teh 18-55 kit. It is, after all out the the 'L' stable. If that is the focal range that appeals to you most, then go for it.

One point about your comment re your hands not being as steady nowadays and the 24-70 not being IS. One thing to think about with a lens of that focal length, is - Do you really need IS? It is a heavy lens and a lot of people say 'Yes'. There is some rumour that Canon are about to launch an IS version (If so, the one currently on the market will become competitively priced).

The other point I'd make, whether or not your hands are steady is - A tripod should be thought of as an essential part of your equipment.

[Donald]

Liz

With a 1.4x extender you lose one stop of light. So your f4 lens becomes a f5.6 lens. With the 2x extender you lose 2 stops, so your f4 now becomes a f8.

That's a problem if your foresee yourself wanting to shoot at f4. But if you would imagine yourself shooting at f8 anyway, then you have no problem. And remember, to maintain the same shutter speed that you would get at f4 if you were shooting at f8, all you have to do is up the ISO from 100 to 400 (i.e. 2 stops).

[lizzy310]

Didn't you say on one post that you shoot with that lens at mostly the higher numbers? Lower aperture is for lower light right?
For telephoto shooting, would there be times when you want the lower light? I can see a camera with F2 for closer things, and indoors, but what about the opposite. I am really seriously thinking about all this and trying to make the best decision I can. Oh...also what do you think about buying lenses in used like new condition? It really helps with the price.

Liz

With a 1.4x extender you lose one stop of light. So your f4 lens becomes a f5.6 lens. With the 2x extender you lose 2 stops, so your f4 now becomes a f8.

That's a problem if your foresee yourself wanting to shoot at f4. But if you would imagine yourself shooting at f8 anyway, then you have no problem. And remember, to maintain the same shutter speed that you would get at f4 if you were shooting at f8, all you have to do is up the ISO from 100 to 400 (i.e. 2 stops).

[Donald]

Didn't you say on one post that you shoot with that lens at mostly the higher numbers? Lower aperture is for lower light right?
For telephoto shooting, would there be times when you want the lower light? I can see a camera with F2 for closer things, and indoors, but what about the opposite. I am really seriously thinking about all this and trying to make the best decision I can. Oh...also what do you think about buying lenses in used like new condition? It really helps with the price.

Liz

We run the risk here of getting our 'highers' and 'lowers' mixed up. I think it's better to use the terms 'wider' and 'narrower' when we talk about apertures. Wider means f2, f2.8, f4 etc. Narrower means f16, f22 etc. The wider the aperture the more light is let in. Also, the wider the aperture the shallower the depth-of-field.

So, if we go back to the 70-200 f4: At f5.6 there is half as much light let in as there is at f4. And then there is half of that (one-quarter of what you get at f4) let in at f8, and so on. Each aperture stop either halves or doubles the amount of light you let in, depending on which way your turning the control. But remember your full stops are 1.4 2.0 2.8 4 5.6 8 11 16 22. The other numbers you might see on your camera are third or half stops (depending on how the camera is set up).

So, for the sort of stuff I do, I do tend to operate at f8, f11, f16. That is not to say I don't go wider or narrower. It all depends on what I'm trying to create. But generally, that's the sort of region I work in. But I don't go for fast shutter speeds. If you are into wildlife, for example, you may need very fast shutter speeds and you may also want a shallow depth of field. So, you're more likely to be needing to operate at wider than f4.

Is that making any sense?