Upload & Sell: On
Kerry Pierce wrote:The difference in subject isolation may or may not be of significance, but it is a valid point of contention. For me, the overwhelming difference has always been the differences in exposure. VR can take care of some camera shake issues, but it can't take care of the stop of difference to be had in shutter speed.
For me, it's worth putting up with the negatives, to make sure that I've done everything possible to get the cleanest image I can, with a shutter speed that negates OOF issues due to subject movement.
Now, if you still don't understand what it means to "need" an f/2.8 lens, then I'll have to bow out because this is the best that I can do.
You make it sound like you're shooting with film. Maybe I have a fundamental misunderstanding about exposure, but if you need to gain a stop of shutter speed (or preserve a stop), isn't dialing up the ISO going to give you the same exposure? Wouldn't ISO 200 @ f/2.8 @ 1/100 be equivalent to ISO 400 @ f/4 @ 1/100? I understand there might be some (likely very slight) noise and that the subject isolation would be slightly less.
I get that there are upward boundaries - you're only going to live with a certain amount of ISO bump or shutter speed (I struggle with the second more than the first for what I do), but I think I'll be fine from an exposure perspective with f/4, and as I said above I've got the 85 f/1.8 if I need isolation for portraits.
I'm honestly not trying to be argumentative here - I'm trying to articulate my thinking and learn. I just have a natural reaction to absolutes like "must be f/2.8 or else" for non-professional shooters.
For me, if I ever go back to a f/2.8 pro zoom, I'll save a little longer to have the ~$400 needed to get a used Nikon VRII over a $1500 Tamron (even though the early reviews look very good).
Two23 wrote:The way I decide which lens (or whatever) to buy is to base it on if it will create the images I want it to. From my own experience I know that when photo'ing bride coming down the aisle (or newly married husband & wife heading back up the aisle for the door), I want f2.8 to isolate them better from the crowd. I also know that some churches are pretty dim when a wedding is done at night, and I'd rather open up one stop to f2.8 than dial up ISO (or worse, slow the shutter speed.) Either a lens etc. can deliver the images you want it to, or it can't. You start by analyzing the image, not the photo gear. If I mostly shot in daytime and hiked difficult terrain, usually shooting at f8, then I would know I did not need f2.8. In any event, I certainly would have the answer as to which lens to buy after thinking carefully about the kinds of images I typically take. I.e., either I need f2.8 or I don't. If I do need it, f4 won't work for me. If I don't need it, why pay extra $$ and carry a bulkier lens? The lenses are similar, but NOT the same.
Kent in SD
Kent, I totally get it for you. If you're a pro doing weddings, all the considerations change. If I was a pro, I'd have the pro f/2.8 lens, even if it is a pound and a half heavier. If I was a birder and wasn't carrying a range of other lenses, the weight wouldn't the main factor.
Edited on Feb 21, 2013 at 02:21 AM · View previous versions