... on my D800 is the Nikkor 28-300 f3.5~5.6.
Give the high light-sensitivity (=ISO range, sort of), is there really
much advantage these days in sacrificing convenience (and maybe a few
types and degrees of distortions) for the potentially 'better' overall quality and low-light/high-speed light-performance of a smaller zoom
range and/or faster lens ?
And is there really much point in a fast lens these days anyway, in
general use ?
geoff
... on my D800 is the Nikkor 28-300 f3.5~5.6.
Give the high light-sensitivity (=ISO range, sort of), is there really
much advantage these days in sacrificing convenience (and maybe a few
types and degrees of distortions) for the potentially 'better' overall quality and low-light/high-speed light-performance of a smaller zoom
range and/or faster lens ?
And is there really much point in a fast lens these days anyway, in
general use ?
... on my D800 is the Nikkor 28-300 f3.5~5.6.
Give the high light-sensitivity (=ISO range, sort of), is there really
much advantage these days in sacrificing convenience (and maybe a few
types and degrees of distortions) for the potentially 'better' overall quality and low-light/high-speed light-performance of a smaller zoom
range and/or faster lens ?
And is there really much point in a fast lens these days anyway, in
general use ?
On 14/11/2021 06:19, geoff wrote:
... on my D800 is the Nikkor 28-300 f3.5~5.6.
Give the high light-sensitivity (=ISO range, sort of), is there really
much advantage these days in sacrificing convenience (and maybe a few
types and degrees of distortions) for the potentially 'better' overall
quality and low-light/high-speed light-performance of a smaller zoom
range and/or faster lens ?
And is there really much point in a fast lens these days anyway, in
general use ?
geoff
Depends on whether you want to make use of shallow depth of focus for artistic effect.
On 14/11/2021 06:19, geoff wrote:
... on my D800 is the Nikkor 28-300 f3.5~5.6.
Give the high light-sensitivity (=ISO range, sort of), is there really
much advantage these days in sacrificing convenience (and maybe a few
types and degrees of distortions) for the potentially 'better' overall
quality and low-light/high-speed light-performance of a smaller zoom
range and/or faster lens ?
And is there really much point in a fast lens these days anyway, in
general use ?
geoff
Depends on whether you want to make use of shallow depth of focus for artistic effect. Not that you necessarily have to pay big money for
that, I have a TT Artisans manual lens for the Fuju-Xs just for that reason.
Depends on whether you want to make use of shallow depth of focus for artistic effect. Not that you necessarily have to pay big money for
that, I have a TT Artisans manual lens for the Fuju-Xs just for that reason.
You *can* do that without fast glass
- long lenses as close as you can
get will deliver that too. The 28 - 105 focuses incredibly closely so
at 105 you'd think was shot at 2.8 or wider.
... on my D800 is the Nikkor 28-300 f3.5~5.6.
Give the high light-sensitivity (=ISO range, sort of), is there really
much advantage these days in sacrificing convenience (and maybe a few
types and degrees of distortions) for the potentially 'better' overall quality and low-light/high-speed light-performance of a smaller zoom
range and/or faster lens ?
And is there really much point in a fast lens these days anyway, in
general use ?
In article <slrnsp4d20.k07.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
<u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:
Depends on whether you want to make use of shallow depth of focus for
artistic effect. Not that you necessarily have to pay big money for
that, I have a TT Artisans manual lens for the Fuju-Xs just for that reason.
You *can* do that without fast glass
yep, in software.
- long lenses as close as you can
get will deliver that too. The 28 - 105 focuses incredibly closely so
at 105 you'd think was shot at 2.8 or wider.
that's not always possible, plus it changes perspective and may also
annoy the subject and others nearby.
The D800 has decent low light performance but
nothing amazing.
actually it's quite amazing, especially compared to film, which could
only dream about high iso, resulting in the need for fast expensive
glass.
It's nothing amazing compared to newer cameras or cameras designed for
high ISO performance. How does comparing it to obsolete techonology
that enthusiasts use help?
If you shoot action or indoor events, a faster lens is
a must-have if you want clean images without motion blur.
no it isn't.
use auto-iso with a fast enough shutter speed.
With a 28 - 300? Good luck with that.
Maybe all the professionals
using the 70 - 200 2.8, 85mm 1.8 and 50mm 1.8 for sports and events have
got it wrong and they should use a slow zoom lens at ISO 6400 or beyond.
I'm sure their clients would love that.
In article <slrnsp4ctu.k07.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
<u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:
The D800 has decent low light performance but
nothing amazing.
actually it's quite amazing, especially compared to film, which could
only dream about high iso, resulting in the need for fast expensive
glass.
If you shoot action or indoor events, a faster lens is
a must-have if you want clean images without motion blur.
no it isn't.
use auto-iso with a fast enough shutter speed.
So you're saying one can't get shallow depth of field with close focus?
You'd better let the macro photographers know;
On 2021-11-15, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
In article <slrnsp4ctu.k07.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
<u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:
The D800 has decent low light performance but
nothing amazing.
actually it's quite amazing, especially compared to film, which could
only dream about high iso, resulting in the need for fast expensive
glass.
It's nothing amazing compared to newer cameras or cameras designed for
high ISO performance. How does comparing it to obsolete techonology
that enthusiasts use help?
If you shoot action or indoor events, a faster lens is
a must-have if you want clean images without motion blur.
no it isn't.
use auto-iso with a fast enough shutter speed.
With a 28 - 300? Good luck with that. Maybe all the professionals
using the 70 - 200 2.8, 85mm 1.8 and 50mm 1.8 for sports and events have
got it wrong and they should use a slow zoom lens at ISO 6400 or beyond.
I'm sure their clients would love that.
In article <slrnsp4ilk.plt.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
<u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:
Depends on whether you want to make use of shallow depth of focus for >> >> > artistic effect. Not that you necessarily have to pay big money for
that, I have a TT Artisans manual lens for the Fuju-Xs just for that
reason.
You *can* do that without fast glass
yep, in software.
Not the same.
that depends on the software.
- long lenses as close as you can
get will deliver that too. The 28 - 105 focuses incredibly closely so
at 105 you'd think was shot at 2.8 or wider.
that's not always possible, plus it changes perspective and may also
annoy the subject and others nearby.
As I said, you can do it without fast glass
as i said, not always.
try running up to the stage in a theatre during a performance.
and your need to have the
last word doesn't change that.
it's not about having the last word.
you're simply wrong. very wrong.
Quite. The extra light doesn't just let them keep ISO down and speeds
up, it gives them faster and better autofocus which really matters when
you rely on selling pics for a living.
In article <yP6dnbJRz_xFyA_8nZ2dnUU78IOdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>,
newshound <newshound@stevejqr.plus.com> wrote:
Quite. The extra light doesn't just let them keep ISO down and speeds
up, it gives them faster and better autofocus which really matters when
you rely on selling pics for a living.
autofocus works up to f/5.6, and f/8 on some cameras.
In article <slrnsp4k7n.qrv.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
<u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:
So you're saying one can't get shallow depth of field with close focus?
nope. i'm saying that it is not always possible.
for more common scenarios, such as portraits, sports, theatre and many others, it is not possible to get close, nor is it even desirable if it
were.
So you're saying one can't get shallow depth of field with close focus?
nope. i'm saying that it is not always possible.
In fact, this is how the conversation went:
Me: As I said, you can do it without fast glass
You: as i said, not always.
Then: you're simply wrong. very wrong.
So how am I wrong? It's either possible or it isn't. I didn't say it
was always possible, as you keep saying.
- long lenses as close as you can
get will deliver that too. The 28 - 105 focuses incredibly closely so >> at 105 you'd think was shot at 2.8 or wider.
that's not always possible, plus it changes perspective and may also annoy the subject and others nearby.
As I said, you can do it without fast glass
as i said, not always.
try running up to the stage in a theatre during a performance.
for more common scenarios, such as portraits, sports, theatre and many others, it is not possible to get close, nor is it even desirable if it were.
As I said, it is possible. I didn't say it is always an option.
For portraits, however, a comparatively slow lens can easily have
shallow depth of field at the closest focus distance if the lens is long enough. A 200mm f4 or a 300mm f4.5 aren't considered fast but they will definitely work for portraits if you get as close as the lens allows.
In article <slrnsp4q0e.sq3.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
<u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:
So you're saying one can't get shallow depth of field with close focus? >> >nope. i'm saying that it is not always possible.
In fact, this is how the conversation went:
Me: As I said, you can do it without fast glass
You: as i said, not always.
Then: you're simply wrong. very wrong.
So how am I wrong? It's either possible or it isn't. I didn't say it
was always possible, as you keep saying.
you left out the full exchange:
In article <151120210713426401%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam
<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
- long lenses as close as you can
get will deliver that too. The 28 - 105 focuses incredibly closely so >> > >> at 105 you'd think was shot at 2.8 or wider.
that's not always possible, plus it changes perspective and may also
annoy the subject and others nearby.
As I said, you can do it without fast glass
as i said, not always.
try running up to the stage in a theatre during a performance.
it's rare that getting close is an option, especially when raising the
iso is easier and maintains perspective.
for more common scenarios, such as portraits, sports, theatre and many
others, it is not possible to get close, nor is it even desirable if it
were.
As I said, it is possible. I didn't say it is always an option.
For portraits, however, a comparatively slow lens can easily have
shallow depth of field at the closest focus distance if the lens is long
enough. A 200mm f4 or a 300mm f4.5 aren't considered fast but they will
definitely work for portraits if you get as close as the lens allows.
those are a bit long for portraits, and getting close is not desirable because it changes perspective and creeps out the subject.
In article <slrnsp4ilk....@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus <u953...@gmail.com> wrote:
Depends on whether you want to make use of shallow depth of focus for >> > artistic effect. Not that you necessarily have to pay big money for
that, I have a TT Artisans manual lens for the Fuju-Xs just for that >> > reason.
You *can* do that without fast glass
yep, in software.
Not the same.that depends on the software.
- long lenses as close as you can
get will deliver that too. The 28 - 105 focuses incredibly closely so
at 105 you'd think was shot at 2.8 or wider.
that's not always possible, plus it changes perspective and may also annoy the subject and others nearby.
As I said, you can do it without fast glassas i said, not always.
try running up to the stage in a theatre during a performance.
and your need to have theit's not about having the last word.
last word doesn't change that.
you're simply wrong. very wrong.
I've seen lots of good portraits taken with 200 and 300mm lenses. 85mm
seems to be the most popular to-day.
- long lenses as close as you can
get will deliver that too. The 28 - 105 focuses incredibly closely so >> at 105 you'd think was shot at 2.8 or wider.
that's not always possible, plus it changes perspective and may also annoy the subject and others nearby.
As I said, you can do it without fast glassas i said, not always.
try running up to the stage in a theatre during a performance.
Not sure you're allowed to do that, or it would be a good reason to throw you out.
Well in the UK you would be disturbing the performance and be escorted out.
I tried my camera out at 25600 ISO it was a bit woolly, but not bad considering
On 2021-11-15, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
In article <slrnsp4ctu.k07.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
<u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:
The D800 has decent low light performance but
nothing amazing.
actually it's quite amazing, especially compared to film, which could
only dream about high iso, resulting in the need for fast expensive
glass.
It's nothing amazing compared to newer cameras or cameras designed for
high ISO performance. How does comparing it to obsolete techonology
that enthusiasts use help?
If you shoot action or indoor events, a faster lens is
a must-have if you want clean images without motion blur.
no it isn't.
use auto-iso with a fast enough shutter speed.
With a 28 - 300? Good luck with that. Maybe all the professionals
using the 70 - 200 2.8, 85mm 1.8 and 50mm 1.8 for sports and events have
got it wrong and they should use a slow zoom lens at ISO 6400 or beyond.
I'm sure their clients would love that.
On 16/11/2021 12:53 am, Incubus wrote:
On 2021-11-15, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
In article <slrnsp4ctu.k07.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
<u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:
The D800 has decent low light performance but
nothing amazing.
actually it's quite amazing, especially compared to film, which could
only dream about high iso, resulting in the need for fast expensive
glass.
It's nothing amazing compared to newer cameras or cameras designed for
high ISO performance. How does comparing it to obsolete techonology
that enthusiasts use help?
If you shoot action or indoor events, a faster lens is
a must-have if you want clean images without motion blur.
no it isn't.
use auto-iso with a fast enough shutter speed.
With a 28 - 300? Good luck with that. Maybe all the professionals
using the 70 - 200 2.8, 85mm 1.8 and 50mm 1.8 for sports and events have
got it wrong and they should use a slow zoom lens at ISO 6400 or beyond.
I'm sure their clients would love that.
I am referring to a 'standard lens', for day-to-day general photography.
That doesn't preclude me from using my 80-200/2.8 and my 50/1.4 for
anything 'critical' and depth-of-field effects on occasions .
In article <d1228c24-1089-42a2...@googlegroups.com>,
Whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:
- long lenses as close as you can
get will deliver that too. The 28 - 105 focuses incredibly closely so
at 105 you'd think was shot at 2.8 or wider.
that's not always possible, plus it changes perspective and may also annoy the subject and others nearby.
As I said, you can do it without fast glassas i said, not always.
try running up to the stage in a theatre during a performance.
Not sure you're allowed to do that, or it would be a good reason to throw youexactly the point.
out.
Well in the UK you would be disturbing the performance and be escorted out.
I tried my camera out at 25600 ISO it was a bit woolly, but not bad consideringno need to go that high.
iso 3200 and 6400 are very good, much better than iso 400 film.
There was , as the leaf shock in the wind and it was in shadow , I'd had prefered a slightly high shutter speed
and a bit more DoF for other smaller insects I was trying to take photos of.
The F16 versions was a bit too whoolly so I just kept this version.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/whiskydave/51625283461/
... on my D800 is the Nikkor 28-300 f3.5~5.6.
Give the high light-sensitivity (=ISO range, sort of), is there really
much advantage these days in sacrificing convenience (and maybe a few
types and degrees of distortions) for the potentially 'better' overall quality and low-light/high-speed light-performance of a smaller zoom
range and/or faster lens ?
And is there really much point in a fast lens these days anyway, in
general use ?
geoff
Worst aspect of most long zoom designs is the mushy long end. This also makes no sense because if you examine most people's
images, they use a lens like that mostly for reach. The companies if possible should err on the side of focal length.
On Sunday, 14 November 2021 at 01:19:14 UTC-5, geoff wrote:
... on my D800 is the Nikkor 28-300 f3.5~5.6.
Give the high light-sensitivity (=ISO range, sort of), is there really
much advantage these days in sacrificing convenience (and maybe a few
types and degrees of distortions) for the potentially 'better' overall
quality and low-light/high-speed light-performance of a smaller zoom
range and/or faster lens ?
And is there really much point in a fast lens these days anyway, in
general use ?
geoff
Worst aspect of most long zoom designs is the mushy long end. This also makes no sense because if you examine most people's
images, they use a lens like that mostly for reach. The companies if possible should err on the side of focal length.
Am 16.11.2021 um 14:13 schrieb Whisky-dave:
There was , as the leaf shock in the wind and it was in shadow , I'd had prefered a slightly high shutter speed
and a bit more DoF for other smaller insects I was trying to take photos of.
The F16 versions was a bit too whoolly so I just kept this version.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/whiskydave/51625283461/Hmmmm.... F4 wouldn't have had sufficient DOF?
Alternatively, you could have used a flash.
--
Alfred Molon
Olympus 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras forum at
https://groups.io/g/myolympus
https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 292 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 184:08:52 |
| Calls: | 6,616 |
| Files: | 12,165 |
| Messages: | 5,314,646 |