Using an f2.8 Lens at say f/22

[Northern Light]

Plain and simple, not because the car can be driven at 200mph one should only drive it at that speed.
There are landscapes where you dont want the background to be prominent. Or some night scenes where you dont want slow shutter speed. This is when f2.8 comes in. I wont say 24-70 f2.8 is specifically desined for landscapes although one can capture anythign with any lens. I would select a wide angle if I want to go for landscapes specifically and 24-70 if I want to go for portraits spcifically. Having said that one can find portraits shot with wideangle more pleasing.

Thanks for this. I also have the TamronSP 15-30mm f/2.8 but have never used this for portraiture as I have a dedicated portrait lens. I will, however, try the wide angle lens in my next shoot and see the results.

[Manfred M]

Thanks Richard and William for the clarification. Seems I made an error in joining large aperture glass being more expensive because of production and generally expecting/presuming better IQ. I've still got plenty to learn.

Fast lenses are more expensive to manufacture. they need more optical elements to correct distortion (and these means more mechanical parts as well); larger maximum aperture, with larger pieces of glass, means the light needs to be bent more acutely and hence requires more correction. Often this means using more expensive high refractive index glass, low dispersion glass and / or aspherical lens elements and more expensive anti-reflection coatings to cut losses at the air / glass interfaces.

Is there better image quality? Not necessarily; faster lenses may in fact perform a bit less well that slower ones, but that issue tends to go away after one stops down two or three stops from wide open. If you look at the lens reviews of the f/1.2 or f/1.4 lenses 50mm fixed lenses; performance can be a bit worse that the relatively inexpensive f/1.8 ones; but of course your tradeoff is better low light performance as well as shallower depth of field. These tradeoff might very well be worth it, depending on the type of photography you are planning to do.

To me, I often shoot wide open to get the very narrow depth of field or to let me shoot at a lower ISO (better colour depth and less noise), so I use "fast glass". If these characteristics are less important to you, you could save yourself a fair bit of money (and weight) by going to slightly slower lenses. It's all about which tradeoffs are most important to you.

[William W]

Also, the need for a very fast APERTURE to arrest Subject Motion has become less over the past few years with the advances in very good, very high ISO performance of digital cameras.

For example, in 2002~4 it was absolutely imperative for me to be able to use F/2.8 with a 300mm Lens to shoot Competition Swimming Events from the poolside, because with an EOS 1D used at ISO1600, we needed F/2.8 to get the appropriate Shutter Speed (flash is prohibited); but today, a recent release APS-C camera with the kit 55 to 250 lens can make the same necessary Shutter Speeds using that kit lens at its minimum Aperture of F/5.6, simply by bumping the ISO to ISO 6400.

Sure, the Kit Lens might not have the same optical quality and the resultant shot will not have the same Shallow Depth of Field as I would have using an EF 300 F/2.8 L, but the point is, the very fast Apertures that we required to arrest Subject Motion are not as necessary now that sensor performance has improved at the high ISO levels: the take home is with a reasonable amount of skill, knowledge and experience, a Mum or Dad can indeed often get reasonably good, sharp shots of their kids at a night-time Football; Indoor B.Ball; Gymnastics; Swimming etc, with a recent release APS-C DSLR Camera and the pair of Kit Lenses.

WW

[William W]

. . . I also have the TamronSP 15-30mm f/2.8 but have never used this for portraiture as I have a dedicated portrait lens. I will, however, try the wide angle lens in my next shoot and see the results.

I think that it is good that you want to experiment with different approaches to Portraiture. It stifles creativity to adapt the approach that any one particular lens is dedicated to any one particular Genre of Photography. Portraits can be made with many different Lenses, as can Landscapes.

Below is selection of Portraits all of which are made with an EOS 5D, using Available Light and the various different Lenses, as mentioned below each image:


15 F/2.8 Fisheye

*


16~35 F/2.8

*


24 F/1.4

*


35 F/1.4

*


50 F/1.4

*


85 F/1.8

*


100 F/2.8 Macro

*


24~105 F/4

*


135 F/2

*


70 to 200 F/2.8


WW
All Images ©AJ Group Pty Ltd Aust 1996~2015, WMW 1965~1996

[rpcrowe]

Thanks for this. I also have the TamronSP 15-30mm f/2.8 but have never used this for portraiture as I have a dedicated portrait lens. I will, however, try the wide angle lens in my next shoot and see the results.

A wide angle lens can be quite effective in environmental portraiture by including the environment around your subject...

However, for traditional portraiture, I prefer longer focal lengths because of the lack of distortion when shooting from a distance. I think that longer focal lengths are more flattering, especially for female subjects. I looked at many of my portraits and most of them are shot with 100 mm or longer focal lengths on a 1.6x crop camera (160 mm equivalent). OTOH quite a few of my portraits have been shot at 200 mm (320 mm equivalent, such as this portrait...

[Northern Light]

Thank you for this. Very much appreciated.

I think that it is good that you want to experiment with different approaches to Portraiture. It stifles creativity to adapt the approach that any one particular lens is dedicated to any one particular Genre of Photography. Portraits can be made with many different Lenses, as can Landscapes.

Below is selection of Portraits all of which are made with an EOS 5D, using Available Light and the various different Lenses, as mentioned below each image:


15 F/2.8 Fisheye

*


16~35 F/2.8

*


24 F/1.4

*


35 F/1.4

*


50 F/1.4

*


85 F/1.8

*


100 F/2.8 Macro

*


24~105 F/4

*


135 F/2

*


70 to 200 F/2.8


WW
All Images ©AJ Group Pty Ltd Aust 1996~2015, WMW 1965~1996

[tbob]

I use small apertures on good lenses for depth of field. I know there is some loss of sharpness, so far this has not bothered me as a problem. I would have to check, but I suspect most of my stuff is shot at f16 or smaller

70-200mm f2.8 at f22


Micro Nikkor 200mm f4 at f29


16-35 mm f4 at f18


70-200mm f2.8 at f22


50 mm f1.8 at f16

[Mike Buckley]

A couple people have mentioned the lack of sharpness when shooting at a very small aperture. The CiC tutorial explaining diffraction puts the concern in context by explaining the following: "Even when a camera system is near or just past its diffraction limit, other factors such as focus accuracy, motion blur and imperfect lenses are likely to be more significant. Diffraction therefore limits total sharpness only when using a sturdy tripod, mirror lock-up and a very high quality lens." I would add when making a relatively large print to that list.

[tbob]

A couple people have mentioned the lack of sharpness when shooting at a very small aperture.
I would add when making a relatively large print to that list.

I second Mike's point.

I am a bit obsessive about sharpness in my images as the wood grain detail in the old buildings is a crucial component. So I shoot Mirror Up on a sturdy tripod. And I print at 20 by 30 inches (50 by 75 cm). So far any loss of detail due to diffraction has been an utter non issue.

[William W]

I second Mike's point. . .

Me too.

Knowing what Shutter Speed is necessary; Using a Tripod/Monopod and Head correctly, Using MU Technique, Correct Camera Holding Technique; Correct Shutter Release Technique; understanding how the AF works; Best Practice Post Production Sharpening - should all be on many Photographer's hit list, well before their concerns about diffraction.

WW

Trevor - I love the Cloudscape. Bravo.

[Donald]

Knowing what Shutter Speed is necessary; Using a Tripod/Monopod and Head correctly, Using MU Technique, Correct Camera Holding Technique; Correct Shutter Release Technique; understanding how the AF works; Best Practice Post Production Sharpening - should all be on many Photographer's hit list, well before their concerns about diffraction.

How very, very true. These are the things that contribute to great image-making.

[Mike Buckley]

should all be on many Photographer's hit list, well before their concerns about diffraction.

You said it better than the tutorial or I said it.

[William W]

^^^ . . .ta Mike,

but it was you who got the fire stoked under me: one of my hobby-horses.

I actually love theory; and detail; and mathematics; and pedantry - but like them all to "add to", and not to "distract and detract from"

WW