Big aperture do we really need them?
- Thread starter excelglsi
- Start date
- Status
why not? the advantages about using big aperture lens...
taken from Re: what is the use of the 17- 70mm range large aperture f2.8 since most are used for
taken from Re: what is the use of the 17- 70mm range large aperture f2.8 since most are used for
I mean do 1 really have to spend so much to get a F2.8 where f3.5 can do the job... Tat wher money are concern... Because usually doing In doorshoot ! aperture will be ard F5-6 dont usually shoot with wide open... Isit?:dunno:
well, imo, indoor lighting can become very challenging unless you get yourself a strobe with softbox as a min. the money you save on the glass will be spent on the strobe, infact, i think a lot of the time, the glass might not seem to cost so much especially if you are comparing it against good lighting equip. the other thing would be that flash lighting is actually pretty tricky, its much much easier to get a 'nice' shot with the avaliable light.
if the arguement is over f3.5 and f2.8, my adivce to you would be to get yourself some primes, and since you are indoors, theres a higher chance you can control the environment so, pick one tele and one wide and it might save you a whole lot of money compared to shooting with f2.8 zooms.
if the arguement is over f3.5 and f2.8, my adivce to you would be to get yourself some primes, and since you are indoors, theres a higher chance you can control the environment so, pick one tele and one wide and it might save you a whole lot of money compared to shooting with f2.8 zooms.
i shoot quite a bit of film so 28mm works for me, if you're shooting digital on a cropped sensor, see if you can fish out a manual 18 or 19mm. these are much cheaper than the auto focus variety. and at 18mm manual focusing is so simple, and its also where autofocus sensors have the most trouble..
Usually I do not use wide aperture when using flash. Do we REALLY need them? Not really but good to have IMO
in restrained situations, fast lenses are indispensable.
as for the TS actual question (shooting indoor with flash): i don't think it's really necessary.
as for the TS actual question (shooting indoor with flash): i don't think it's really necessary.
Wide apertures are indispensable for achieving shallow depth of field, and I find myself shooting at apertures wider than f/2.8 very often just to blend background and make the subject to pop-up.
Neither flash, nor high ISO, nor IS alone can give you narrow depth of field.
Regarding the so called "sweet spot" which is two stops down. Well, that is probably true for consumer zooms many of which achieve their best performance at f/8 or f/11. That doesnt mean the same rule applies to L zooms. For instance the 70-200 f/2.8 lenses are notorious for producing excellent results even wide open, and their sweet spot starts all the way from f/2.8.
Neither flash, nor high ISO, nor IS alone can give you narrow depth of field.
Regarding the so called "sweet spot" which is two stops down. Well, that is probably true for consumer zooms many of which achieve their best performance at f/8 or f/11. That doesnt mean the same rule applies to L zooms. For instance the 70-200 f/2.8 lenses are notorious for producing excellent results even wide open, and their sweet spot starts all the way from f/2.8.
you can also achieve shallow DOF with smaller apertures if you use a long focal length / subject too far from background
.With bigger apperture, you can allow more ambient light to balance with the flash exposure. I love to shoot with large aperture even with flash on.
BC
BC
Do we really need them when doing indoor shoot with Flash... Anyone??
If not, I would be contented shooting PnS.
you can also achieve shallow DOF with smaller apertures if you use a long focal length / subject too far from background
True. But firstly, doesn't that alter perspective as well? Narrow perspective might or might not be what you want, depending on what you are trying to shoot. Secondly, there might be not enough space behind to step back in order to fill the frame. And lastly, long lenses that can deliver good image quality don't come at cheap price (think about L telephoto primes).
i guess this one's another topic
yup that's why i stated in restrained conditions
.i think the cheap 70-300 ones can give acceptable quality already in this regard.
anyway, the point is there are options but some things are to be compromised in any way: quality, shooting distance, lens speed, weight, price, etc.
- Status
Similar threads
