Aperture or IS?
Quick question, would you go for f/2.8 with no IS or f/4 with IS, considering everything else are the same.
Jun 30th, 2012 11:58 pm
Jul 1st, 2012 12:01 am
Jul 1st, 2012 12:47 am
Jul 1st, 2012 1:02 am
Jul 1st, 2012 2:21 am
Jul 1st, 2012 11:26 am
Jul 1st, 2012 1:00 pm
Jul 1st, 2012 1:07 pm
That's it, we can do something about IS such as using a tripod, but for aperture, we're stuck with whatever is on the lens. A perfect reason to choose aperture over IS.
Jul 1st, 2012 1:49 pm
Lol so we are talking about shooting still objects? Ok.. In real-world settings, you are gonna suddenly find that the chance of having the opportunity to set a tripod to get the perfect composition is very few (not to mention having to bring it everywhere)
Jul 1st, 2012 2:27 pm
There isn't much use trying to convince some people about that... If they want to carry around a tripod and a f/2.8 lens, I'm sure they have a gym membership to help them out with that Don't get me wrong, I have f/2.8 zooms covering the range from 20-200mm and a separate 300mm and even a 400 f/3.5 and I enjoy them all. But when it comes to portability/travel, smaller IS/VR lenses allow me to get the shots I want most of the time. While f/2.8 lenses have better bokeh, you will need to check just how many of your pictures have you ever shot with the lens wide open to maximize that bokeh? Remember that shooting wide open will generally bring out the worse in a lens in terms of sharpness...bosoxfanx1 wrote: ↑Lol so we are talking about shooting still objects? Ok.. In real-world settings, you are gonna suddenly find that the chance of having the opportunity to set a tripod to get the perfect composition is very few (not to mention having to bring it everywhere)
Jul 1st, 2012 3:27 pm
Not totally still objects, it's more like 40% still and 60% moving objects.bosoxfanx1 wrote: ↑Lol so we are talking about shooting still objects? Ok.. In real-world settings, you are gonna suddenly find that the chance of having the opportunity to set a tripod to get the perfect composition is very few (not to mention having to bring it everywhere)
Jul 1st, 2012 3:48 pm
Excellent info! Thanks!craftsman wrote: ↑There isn't much use trying to convince some people about that... If they want to carry around a tripod and a f/2.8 lens, I'm sure they have a gym membership to help them out with that Don't get me wrong, I have f/2.8 zooms covering the range from 20-200mm and a separate 300mm and even a 400 f/3.5 and I enjoy them all. But when it comes to portability/travel, smaller IS/VR lenses allow me to get the shots I want most of the time. While f/2.8 lenses have better bokeh, you will need to check just how many of your pictures have you ever shot with the lens wide open to maximize that bokeh? Remember that shooting wide open will generally bring out the worse in a lens in terms of sharpness...
As for your dilemma between the 14-24mm and the 16-35mm, I've shot with both on a D700 body and I can offer you this advice... there is something magically about the 14-24mm on the D700 for landscapes. What you can do and see with that lens is just outstanding! However, the weight of the lens, the large objective, and the limited nature of the range hinders when you might want to use it. The 16-35mm is much more usable (a little longer in range and portable) without the great lost in quality - however, you might miss the 2mm if you have used the 14-24mm in the past. The VRII will allow you to shoot another 4 stops which will come in handy.
Jul 1st, 2012 3:51 pm
Jul 1st, 2012 4:08 pm
Jul 1st, 2012 6:04 pm
24-70 and 24-105 lolbosoxfanx1 wrote: ↑I think 2.8 vs 4+IS can't be discussed unless you tell us which two lenses we are talking about...
Jul 1st, 2012 6:19 pm
Jul 1st, 2012 6:42 pm
One lens - 35mm f/2D. Can be had for relatively cheap and rated fairly highly in comparison to the price.bosoxfanx1 wrote: ↑Excellent info! Thanks!
I love my wide angle shots, but at this point I think it would be most practical to go for a 24mm 1.4. I want to shoot some night street photography, and that lens can't be beat I still need a 24-70mm or similar to cover the normal range, don't know if a 50mm 1.8D can do it, but if I get the 24mm 1.4 then I have to go for 50mm
Jul 1st, 2012 6:43 pm
Two things:NewsyL wrote: ↑Speaking to the comment re Weight....
I've always thought a meatier lens was a positive feature for low light long exposure shots simply because, when hand held, it engages your muscles better and the weight provides some inertial momentum to dampen small sharp flicks and vibrations.
.
Jul 1st, 2012 9:06 pm
I was referring to hand held... no need for a tripod as per craftsman's post....
Jul 2nd, 2012 12:51 am