Caleb Williams
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.1 #12 · Canon 100-300 vs 400mm F2.8 with R3 and R7 | |
Scott Sewell wrote:
Caleb, I'm curious why--if exposure didn't call for it--why the OP would need to shoot wide open? I'm guessing I know the answer, but am curious.
I think I was most impacted by the shot labeled as "R3 w/100-300, 25yards away, 1/2500, F6.3, ISO 640, 116mm zoom" Blowing out the distracting background in this shot would be nice.
#1 is already at f/2.8 and the one labeled "R3 w/400mm, 60yards away, 1/2000, F4.0, ISO 250, 400mm zoom" has a lot of separation between foreground and background that you don;t really need to open up more.
The one labelled "R3 w/100-300, 50yards away, 1/2000, F4.5, ISO 500, 300mm zoom" could be cropped tighter to remove the flag but blowing that out more would be nice.
Historically, with the 1D and 1Dx series bodies, shooting close to wide open would shorten your shutter lag (depending on C.Fn7 Shutter release time lag). From the 1DX nk II manual: "The shutter-release time lag is normally approx. 0.055 sec. at the
shortest. By shortening it, it can be as short as approx. 0.036 sec." Not a huge difference of course.
The R3 has the same setting (C.Fn pg 5) with the following caveat that I base my reasoning on: "Shutter-release time lag varies by shooting conditions, type of lens, aperture value, and other factors."
Scott Sewell wrote:
I will jump ahead and say that if it's for bokeh and blurry backgrounds I call hogwash. (not toward you personally, but just in general). I have images that I guarantee you couldn't tell they weren't shot at f2.8 on long glass because of the way they were made. Blurry backgrounds and bokeh is always more than just shooting wide open. Always.
Of course, it all depends on what other subjects are in the frame. For example, taking the photos you posted Sept. 14 from Army vs K-State, where the K-State QB appears to be leaping over an Army player and and a K-State player, the bg is fine, but I think increasing the softness of #30 and the referee would enhance the photo. (But this could also be a 70-200 2.8 shot cropped in a bit too.) Same with the one where # is throwing n front of an O Line player and e defender. In this case it's the foreground.
But those examples are seriously non-issues and speak to my personal preference and not the reality of the flexibility you're getting with the 200-400 and ultimately the most important part which is delivering photos to your clients.
Scott Sewell wrote:
Other factors that are sometimes more important include focal length of lens being used, distance from lens to subject and distance from subject to background. We see it here often and on other sports groups on FB when someone is shooting youth baseball, for example, wide open, and the backgrounds aren't buttery smooth. It's because that fence and the dugouts and fans are relatively close behind the subject.
I said this in the other thread, but you are 100% correct here, there is much more than just aperture at play in all these discussions.I have some venues I have previously shot with either a 300 f/2.8 + 1.4x TC, or 200-400 f/4 (or even just a 400 f/5.6) that I'll be happy to give it a go with a the 400 2.8 and see how they compare.(background wise).
Scott Sewell wrote:
Having said all that, there are a lot of people who think it's all about aperture and shooting wide open. I really don't care how other people capture their images, I just know there are many people who buy fast glass thinking it will get them creamy backgrounds then they're disappointed when it doesn't happen. It's because they don't understand all the factors that go into those images. Many we can't even control.
This gets back to what I said above: the only thing that matters to you -- or at least what should matter the most to you -- is delivering the images your clients need, regardless of whether that is with Canon, Nikon, Sony, Olympus, Leica, Fuji, Hasselblad, or what focal length or aperture your lens goes to.
|
