Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 33 of 33

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

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Singapore, Bedok
    Posts
    1,785

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by coke21
    Why didn't you use a flash?
    i didn't bring one.

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,911

    Default

    Actually, optimum sharpness is not reached at f8-f11, it completely depends on the lenses. Generally a better rule of thumb to go for is 2-3 stops down from maximum, which means that an 85/1.4 lens that starts at f1.4 is at its optimum at about f2.8 to f4.

    Some lenses are also best wide open to at most a stop down from wide open, so some long telephotos for instance perform best generally at wide open or a stop down.

  3. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Watcher
    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
    wrong mount


  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The heart of the Abyss
    Posts
    2,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HelmetBox
    wrong mount

    I know

    I said "tried". Have you tried it out on a Nikon DSLR before?

  5. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Watcher
    I know

    I said "tried". Have you tried it out on a Nikon DSLR before?
    no, no one 'willing' *HINT HINT HINT HINT HINT HINT HINT*

  6. #26
    Deregistered
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    6,601

    Default

    the EF 200/1.8 is well known for being a monster Big Mama

    if i'm not mistaken, the lens on the floor is the 200/1.8. that's already the length of the 70-200/2.8 WITH the hood on!

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,911

    Default

    What lens on the floor? The 200/1.8 isn't actually that long.

  8. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sehsuan
    the EF 200/1.8 is well known for being a monster Big Mama

    if i'm not mistaken, the lens on the floor is the 200/1.8. that's already the length of the 70-200/2.8 WITH the hood on!
    gosh.... it's 3kg....... *shaky hands*

  9. #29
    Deregistered
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    6,601

    Default

    oops! paiseh ah Jed, seen only pictures of it, but up till now i have yet to really see it in the flesh yet...

  10. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The heart of the Abyss
    Posts
    2,307

    Default

    From Canon's own website, it is 208 mm (20.8cm), weighing 3kg. The Nikon's 70-200 AF-S VR is 215mm (21.5 cm) and weighs 1.43 kg, Canon's 70-200 is 198.1 mm (19.81 cm) and weighs 1.47 kg.

    Weight yes, length no. And as usual, if you have it, you will soon get used to its size and weight...
    Last edited by Watcher; 21st February 2004 at 10:40 AM.

  11. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,911

    Default

    Like I said, it isn't actually that long. And there's one downstairs too.

  12. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Singapore, Bedok
    Posts
    1,785

    Default

    This is really strange. i thot we were on fast wide angles. How come we're discussing the 200/1.8? (Not that i'm not interested. Never handled one before.)

  13. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jed
    Like I said, it isn't actually that long. And there's one downstairs too.

    your downstairs????

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

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
  •