binary visions
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
ilkka_nissila wrote:
f/8 can be okay for a small bird at 600 mm but if you have a 400 mm and your subject requires a 600 mm you would probably not stop down the 400 mm to f/8 and then crop to 600 mm field of view and expect a good result. It would be similar to shooting the 600 mm stopped down to f/12 in terms of noise and depth of field, but not detail. f/12 might still be only slightly soft if shooting in bright sunlight but usually it is not the bright, direct sunlight high above that yields the aesthetically most beautiful results.
For my subjects, e.g., at the edge of a pine forest at a time of day when mammals are active, it is common that f/2.8 gives iso 3200 at an acceptable shutter speed, f/4 gives 6400, f/5.6 iso 12800 and f/8 iso 25600, then if I need to crop from the iso 25600 image, the result will be of poor quality. (Indoor sports can be similar though the lighting is a few stops brighter, but the fast action requires a fast shutter speed.) At around sunrise and sunset, the animals are often the most active. There can be a lot of birds flying around at a pond near where I live just before sunrise, and to take those photos the exposure might be around f/5.6 iso 25600-51200 1/400s. Again here the bigger the aperture the more chances for decent images. At subarctic latitudes this kind subtle soft light can last hours.
Not at all saying f/8 cannot be used occasionally, for example, for landscape details, it is just that with an f/4 lens you can shoot in many more situations in interesting light and more active subjects. That's my experience anyway. Some people prefer longer focal lengths and will accept smaller apertures but I want the option of being able to photograph in any light where I can still see the subject.
...Show more →
It just seems like your argument is, "since I see no value in it, I can't understand why someone else would see value in it."
Absolutely, if you are an enthusiast who is going out to take pictures of interesting animals in the golden hours and you're inspecting the results for acceptable sharpness and the right kinds of light, then you will probably not appreciate the tradeoffs from a small, lightweight telephoto lens with a small aperture.
But if you're a parent sitting the stands of a little league game and want to take some pictures of your kid in the outfield, or a casual kayaker who likes taking their camera out on the lake to snap a shot of the beavers, or you're going on a trip and want something to tuck into your backpack "just in case," or you're an older birder who can't swing the 4 pound lenses, or you live in the woods and take some pictures of the deer when they wander through your yard... plenty of people have a camera to capture the small, casual moments in their lives. And having a small, inexpensive lens available will be the difference between those people having a telephoto lens, or not having one at all.
That's not even getting into the enthusiast photographers, who do appreciate and will buy nicer lenses, but simply need something compact for a specific use. When I'm doing a 30 mile day hike, I'll take my Tamron 70-300 along just in case I see something cool, but can't take anything bigger.
|
