Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 33

Thread: F2.8 for wide, what are the uses?

  1. #1

    Default F2.8 for wide, what are the uses?

    Felt so bad hijacking a thread, decided to start a new one.

    Split from:
    http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthrea...526#post542526

    So what are the uses for a max f2.8 for a wide lens (17mm-35mm f2.8-4)?


  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    730

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HelmetBox
    Felt so bad hijacking a thread, decided to start a new one.

    Split from:
    http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthrea...526#post542526

    So what are the uses for a max f2.8 for a wide lens (17mm-35mm f2.8-4)?

    To shoot where flash is not permitted or for better bokeh. My own experience while shooting in church (as a voluntary service) prompt me to change my lenses to 2.8 and never regretting it.

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay
    To shoot where flash is not permitted or for better bokeh. My own experience while shooting in church (as a voluntary service) prompt me to change my lenses to 2.8 and never regretting it.
    alrite, but for better bokeh, its basically the lens and you'll have to zoom in. At wide, the bokeh's not that evident?

    HEY! I JUST VOLUNTEERED TO SHOOT IN CHURCH TOO! hehehehehehehe........

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    6,405

    Default

    Sometimes you JUST need that extra stop. I always wished my Nikkor 12-24mm is f/2.8 or larger under low light conditions.

    Regards
    CK

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    706

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HelmetBox
    Felt so bad hijacking a thread, decided to start a new one.

    Split from:
    http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthrea...526#post542526

    So what are the uses for a max f2.8 for a wide lens (17mm-35mm f2.8-4)?

    1) DOF
    2) Faster, able to take in lower light conditions
    3) Faster AF

  6. #6

    Default

    For my usage it not abt the DOV but like someone had also mention b4, the extra stop you need.

    For covering of events, esp in low light, with a wide angle, you can pretty much get most of the things in sharpness with even a 2.8 at times. and if you can push your F stop down to 2.8, it means that either you can choose a lower iso, or higher shutter speed, which will result in a cleaner picture or a sharper picture resp.
    Even when it is of reasonable brightness, or you need to shoot at F4 or 5.6, a lens of 2.8 will preform better also when compare to a lens that have it aperature max out at F4 or F5.6
    Last but not least, a 2.8 lens would means a brighter lens which make it easier to see under low light condition with the already small viewfinder that most DSLR have. and brighter lens also means better AF generally.
    Yes, if onli there is a 12-24 2.8, lolz.

    End of the day it depends on what shoot you normally do, do you shoot at wide open, indoor most of the time, or do you shoot at F8 or higher, outdoor more often?
    cheers and happy shooting

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    706

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jus_a_Nick
    For my usage it not abt the DOV but like someone had also mention b4, the extra stop you need.

    For covering of events, esp in low light, with a wide angle, you can pretty much get most of the things in sharpness with even a 2.8 at times. and if you can push your F stop down to 2.8, it means that either you can choose a lower iso, or higher shutter speed, which will result in a cleaner picture or a sharper picture resp.
    I thought optimum sharpness occurs at ard f8-f11. At f2.8 the DOF is not very shallow but somethings won't be in sharp focus, esp the background.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by coke21
    I thought optimum sharpness occurs at ard f8-f11. At f2.8 the DOF is not very shallow but somethings won't be in sharp focus, esp the background.

    Ohh, cause IMHO, we gotta see whether do we have the luxury to shoot at F8, like i had mention what kind of shoot you do, indoor, high apperture, or outdoor high F stop mostly.
    Ok abit technical here, but lets say we are shooting a stage play and the correct exposure is at iso 800, 125, F2.8.
    yes, shooting at F8, might yields me the optimum shaprness my lens can give, but it will bring down my shutter to 15. And for this, will result in me getting some handshake probs. Well even if we are be more hardworking and bring abt a tripod, but still at 15, it will not capture the movement of my subj. so do i wanna trade the "optimum" lens sharpness for all these other factors tat might cause blurrness? And in my opinion, pushing your ISO 3 stops up would not be recommend as then we will get very grainly results, well unless tats the effect your wanna archieve.

    Ok an estimation of the hyperfocal distance, at 17mm F2.8, is abt 3.5m on Film n 5m on digital. that is pretty near enough from my point of view. moreover how often do we actually need it to be sharp till inf? by assuming that the backdrop is atmost 8m from the subj, we can even safely pull our focus nearer by ard another 1/2m or so. And say if you ready need more DOF, or maybe the scene brighten up to iso 800, 125, F4, open upz a stop to F4, would still means comparing a 2.8 lens shooting at F4 to a F4 lens wide open.

    well, i am not saying that it is not good to shoot at F8, Jus tat at times we do not have the luxury of being able to do that. End of day it boils down to what you are shooting, the restriction you might have n in this thread to discuss abt the possible uses of a 2.8 wide angle.

    cheers n happy shooting.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    706

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jus_a_Nick
    Ohh, cause IMHO, we gotta see whether do we have the luxury to shoot at F8, like i had mention what kind of shoot you do, indoor, high apperture, or outdoor high F stop mostly.
    Ok abit technical here, but lets say we are shooting a stage play and the correct exposure is at iso 800, 125, F2.8.
    yes, shooting at F8, might yields me the optimum shaprness my lens can give, but it will bring down my shutter to 15. And for this, will result in me getting some handshake probs. Well even if we are be more hardworking and bring abt a tripod, but still at 15, it will not capture the movement of my subj. so do i wanna trade the "optimum" lens sharpness for all these other factors tat might cause blurrness? And in my opinion, pushing your ISO 3 stops up would not be recommend as then we will get very grainly results, well unless tats the effect your wanna archieve.

    Ok an estimation of the hyperfocal distance, at 17mm F2.8, is abt 3.5m on Film n 5m on digital. that is pretty near enough from my point of view. moreover how often do we actually need it to be sharp till inf? by assuming that the backdrop is atmost 8m from the subj, we can even safely pull our focus nearer by ard another 1/2m or so. And say if you ready need more DOF, or maybe the scene brighten up to iso 800, 125, F4, open upz a stop to F4, would still means comparing a 2.8 lens shooting at F4 to a F4 lens wide open.

    well, i am not saying that it is not good to shoot at F8, Jus tat at times we do not have the luxury of being able to do that. End of day it boils down to what you are shooting, the restriction you might have n in this thread to discuss abt the possible uses of a 2.8 wide angle.

    cheers n happy shooting.
    Thank you for qualifying your statment. Because it seemed that you were saying that f2.8 your shots will be sharper. Which is not exactly true. But if you are saying its sharper then taking at f8 in low light condition...then i totally agree with you.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,720

    Default

    optimal sharpness need not be from F8 downward. depend on the lens can be as wide as f3.5/4.

    anyway, got a little confused by what you guys are debating about.

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Singapore, Bedok
    Posts
    1,785

    Default

    At wide angles, you don't want bokeh, bcoz it's half-baked bokeh and not very nice anyway. You want everything ASAP - as sharp as possible.

    The true strength of fast wides come in shooting in extremely low light, handheld. F2.8, unfortunately, doesn't quite cut it. i tried a shot handheld in the dim indoors at 16mm/f2.8 (Nepal):



    This shot was at least 1.5 stops underexposed, and already at the limits of handholding (~1/2 sec?). i wished i had something faster. i have since acquired a 24/1.4, which is a much better low light lens. i covered an birthday party in a dim pub with this lens last month - i must say i was surprised at how 'low-light' this lens can go.

    When you're into this kind of available light pictures, sharpness is about the last thing you're worrying about. That's where you need fast and wide. Fast gives you better shutter speeds, wide lowers the haldholding requirements.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    706

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ST1100
    At wide angles, you don't want bokeh, bcoz it's half-baked bokeh and not very nice anyway. You want everything ASAP - as sharp as possible.

    The true strength of fast wides come in shooting in extremely low light, handheld. F2.8, unfortunately, doesn't quite cut it. i tried a shot handheld in the dim indoors at 16mm/f2.8 (Nepal):



    This shot was at least 1.5 stops underexposed, and already at the limits of handholding (~1/2 sec?). i wished i had something faster. i have since acquired a 24/1.4, which is a much better low light lens. i covered an birthday party in a dim pub with this lens last month - i must say i was surprised at how 'low-light' this lens can go.

    When you're into this kind of available light pictures, sharpness is about the last thing you're worrying about. That's where you need fast and wide. Fast gives you better shutter speeds, wide lowers the haldholding requirements.
    Why didn't you use a flash?

  13. #13

    Default

    Is some scenes, flash is simply not an option as it might not be allowed or will totally destroy the ambience. Sometimes, its the mood rather than the sharpness that makes the shot.

  14. #14

    Default

    ahhhhhhhh....... its all starting to make sense.......

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    730

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zerstorer
    Is some scenes, flash is simply not an option as it might not be allowed or will totally destroy the ambience. Sometimes, its the mood rather than the sharpness that makes the shot.
    You hit the magic words that I have totally missed out .. ambience and mood. Thats the main reason why I often shoot at 2.8.

    Helmetbox, my focus is always on the main subject and usually come out sharp. Try the Nikon 28-70 and 70-200 at 2.8 and you dont have to worry about sharpness. Similarly there are many other make lenses that give this performance as well.

    All in all like the rest said, it depends on what you are shooting, how you want to shoot and your style.

  16. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay
    You hit the magic words that I have totally missed out .. ambience and mood. Thats the main reason why I often shoot at 2.8.

    Helmetbox, my focus is always on the main subject and usually come out sharp. Try the Nikon 28-70 and 70-200 at 2.8 and you dont have to worry about sharpness. Similarly there are many other make lenses that give this performance as well.

    All in all like the rest said, it depends on what you are shooting, how you want to shoot and your style.
    but the lenses you mentioned are not as wide.

    I always have problems getting sharp pictures when using wide at f3.5, I still do not understand why. The subject is lets say 4 meters away, I focus on him and when I try to crop the picture when I get back, they turn out blur. I don't have this problem at 50mm even at f1.8. Wonder why.......

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    730

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HelmetBox
    but the lenses you mentioned are not as wide.

    I always have problems getting sharp pictures when using wide at f3.5, I still do not understand why. The subject is lets say 4 meters away, I focus on him and when I try to crop the picture when I get back, they turn out blur. I don't have this problem at 50mm even at f1.8. Wonder why.......
    Should these lenses be at 1.8 or 1.4, they will be like a bazooka!
    From your description, its seems that your lens at that aperture is not sharp by its nature or something is wrong with it e.g. calibration problem. What lens are you using for the shot?

  18. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay
    Should these lenses be at 1.8 or 1.4, they will be like a bazooka!
    From your description, its seems that your lens at that aperture is not sharp by its nature or something is wrong with it e.g. calibration problem. What lens are you using for the shot?
    hehehehe....... bazookaa And they'll cost a Bomb too!

    I'm using sigma 15-30. The calibration is okay, no back/front focusing issues. No such problems with tripod shots at f8. Probably its my handholding? But then blast flash 30mm 1/60 f/4 should eliminate handshake what.......

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    730

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HelmetBox
    hehehehe....... bazookaa And they'll cost a Bomb too!

    I'm using sigma 15-30. The calibration is okay, no back/front focusing issues. No such problems with tripod shots at f8. Probably its my handholding? But then blast flash 30mm 1/60 f/4 should eliminate handshake what.......
    Yes, both lenses cost me a bomb and already bombed out of cash!
    I had this lens and is definately soft at 3.5 and its the reason why I sold it off as I always like to shoot open wide.
    Try and shoot at varying apertures, review them and you'll know which is the best for your future shots.

  20. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The heart of the Abyss
    Posts
    2,307

    Default

    As what Jay had said above; its the lens. Tried AF-S 12-24 yet? Althought not have that a big aperture, the sharpness is pretty good even at 12mm, f/4. Smaller and lighter than the Sigma 15-30

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •