Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 25 of 25

Thread: Why use all other aperture sizes other then f2.8?

  1. #21

    Default Re: Why use all other aperture sizes other then f2.8?

    Mainly size. weight,portability and hand holdability.

    Example :
    I have a 300mm f4.5. Length is only 160mm. Weight 880g

    Compare to a monster of a lens if it is 300mm f2.8 at 247mm and 2495g.

    The former can be part of the regular kit in the camera bag.
    The latter will be more for specialized/planned outings since its so heavy/large and will often need a tripod.

  2. #22

    Default Re: Why use all other aperture sizes other then f2.8?

    Why settle for f/2.8? Go for f/1.2 or f/1.0. Seriously, when shooting landscape with my 5D + 17-40, I don't remember using anything faster than f/5.6. f/11 to f/16 most of the time.

  3. #23

    Default Re: Why use all other aperture sizes other then f2.8?

    oh wow..i didn't expect such a response but thanks for all inputs. Definitely very valuable for us to understand the technical aspects.

    Of course the length, weight, size, IQ etc play a significant part in the decision making process.

    The 18-200mm f2.8 example for pure fantasy..as an example

    I just needed to understand the significant difference between say a 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 and a 17-50mm f2.8
    and why do people keep the 18-55mm if all things are being equal.

    basically i now understand that both lens used as example above, can stop down to f8 or f22 as required and achieve the dof or sharpness required.

    Just that the 17-50 can stop down to an additional f2.8 throughout and may be costlier or heavier.

    Thanks so much again for all inputs. Luckily this didn't turn into a "flaming-go read your manual" thread LOL
    Last edited by SpyGlass; 18th May 2011 at 03:05 PM.
    Run and Gun All for Fun!
    Nikon D90/ Tokina 11-16mm / Tamron 17-50mm f2.8

  4. #24
    Senior Member sinned79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    10,849

    Default Re: Why use all other aperture sizes other then f2.8?

    Quote Originally Posted by SpyGlass View Post
    Thanks so much again for all inputs. Luckily this didn't turn into a "flaming-go read your manual" thread LOL
    we are all very nice if u asked nicely

  5. #25
    Senior Member ZerocoolAstra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    rainy Singapore
    Posts
    9,523

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SpyGlass
    oh wow..i didn't expect such a response but thanks for all inputs. Definitely very valuable for us to understand the technical aspects.

    Of course the length, weight, size, IQ etc play a significant part in the decision making process.

    The 18-200mm f2.8 example for pure fantasy..as an example

    I just needed to understand the significant difference between say a 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 and a 17-50mm f2.8
    and why do people keep the 18-55mm if all things are being equal.

    basically i now understand that both lens used as example above, can stop down to f8 or f22 as required and achieve the dof or sharpness required.

    Just that the 17-50 can stop down to an additional f2.8 throughout and may be costlier or heavier.
    .
    .
    .
    Just to correct you there: when the term "stop down" is used, generally it refers to the aperture being made smaller. Going from f/2.8 to f/5.6 would be termed stopping down, but not the other way around.
    Probably can stop down from f/1.8 to f/2.8
    Exploring! :)

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
  •