Is it worth upgrading from f3.5 to f2.8?


Status
Not open for further replies.

wildcat

Senior Member
Sep 8, 2004
3,258
1
38
Bedok
I am thinking whether 2/3 of a stop is worth the money to pay to upgrade to a moderately good quality lens, up from kit lens. Focal length is similar.

e.g. 14-50mm f3.5-f5.6
to 14-50mm f2.8-f3.5

I am using this mostly for walkabouts, and some night/indoor shootings.

Better visibly better bokeh? Faster shutter speeds can be used? What if most shootings are in daylight and landscape (i.e. using f9 aperture thereabouts)

Tradeoff is heavier lens.

Would value inputs. Thanks in advance :)
 

if just daylight and landscapes, then it'll just be a luxury item.
 

Why not? The range of your aperture is kept to a faster range too.
 

Why not? The range of your aperture is kept to a faster range too.

I guess if like mayhemics says, taking a landscape at 1/50sec instead 1/80sec may be more of a luxury than a necessity. Or will the glass make a difference in the final output?

On the other hand, will it make a difference in say, a sporting event where one can take at 1/120sec and 1/200sec?

Or night shots where it makes a difference between 1/15sec and 1/25sec or have to push less ISO?

I have tried a prime lens with f2.0 and wow, okay I could see the difference in bokeh effects, etc. but I'm trying to get more of a feel of users who upgraded in the range of the topic mentioned.
 

Maybe the TS would like to tell us the exact lens that he is referring?

I am using a four third system so it's from the kit lens to either a Zuiko 14-54mm f2.8-3.5 or Panasonic 14-50mm f2.8-3.5. Zuiko 12-60mm price range is out for me. Hope that helps.

Not sure what are the equivalent lens for Canon or Nikon but I'm sure the question applies for any user who's thinking of the next step.
 

good to have, not essential.

if got the money, go 2.8. if you gotta struggle, den 3.5.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.