Do we need really F2.8 anymore

Tokina add quote promoting their new 11-16 mm F2.8 zoom: "Many photojournalist consider having an F2.8 apertured lens a must". Maybe this

was true in the days of Velvia but I don't think it really applies anymore. My cameras start at ISO 200 and can handle ISO 400 or even 800 without

much problem so why the need for an extra F stop or two from the lens? Depth of field isn't going to be a factor in an 11-16 mm zoom.

i for one want alll the speed I can get.....high iso's and fast lenses......all the way. handheld night photography has never been so good.

Take your camera and take some pictures in the evening in any city of your choise and you will see why 2.8 (or even faster) is still needed - no matter how high the ISO capability of your camera is.

it still absolutely applies for working photographers. Larger apertures ( f/2, f/1.4, f/1.2) as well. Even for you for an extremely wide angle lens a large aperture in low light situations is still valuable if you simply consider the compositional and framing aspect while looking through the viewfinder. And there will be times when you are working at at a very close distance to a subject (could happen!) that you want extremely shallow depth of field to create a specific visual effect. And of course there will be times when forced by circumstance to set your camera to ISO 3200 that the difference between f/2.8 and f/4 makes a difference.

16mm isn't that wide on a crop formatted camera. So if you are doing a group shot indoors or are inside a church, f2.8, ISO 800 is a lot better than f5.6 and ISO 3200.

To me (who avoid flash if possible), there are many indoor situation where f2.8 with ISO1600 and 3200 is good

enough. The problem is, most ISO 3200 bodies are not good enough and/or cost too much.

The medium (film or digital) does not matter. The main points of a fast aperture are :

 

1) to gather enough light when the light is dim and flash is not appropriate. Dim light is still with us even n this digital age.

 

2) to reduce the depth of field to get a nice blurred background for portraits, nature shots, etc etc

The generic answer is probably "it depends on what you want to shoot, where and with what other equipment". But personally, I'd welcome a stop or two more low-light performance on my 10-22mm lens (it's widest aperture is f/3.5 on the 10mm end). Despite the decent high ISO performance of my 20D, it's still easy to run out of light after the sunset, especially outside the urban area. Sure, a tripod helps, but I don't carry it with me all the time.

I have hit many a situation when my fastest ISO and f1.8 was just not enough fast...for the reasons mentioned above!

Absolutely we need it. At least 2.8. Even f1.2 and ISO 1600 is a specific limit that will be encountered very often if you want to shoot pictures in dimly lit situations.

 

If you never shoot except in daylight, you are absolutely right.

In a word: Yes!

Big aperture=bright viewfinder.

All the above points have been hit, but what about also maximum image quality? If you have a really high quality lens, say a 50/1.4, shooting at f/2 of f/2.8 might get you excellent quality with a low ISO, but if the lens is slow, say an f/4 lens...you might have to up the ISO AND shoot wide open instead of stopped down a stop or two.

 

You say iso400 or even iso800, well I use film and I can tell you my iso400 and iso800 films still handle noise as well as most digital cameras and the resolution is still resonably high. Sure a really good digital camera can probably best my iso400 and iso800 films these days in those regards, but the films are 'good enough' to do big enlargements with. There are still plenty of times I would rather use iso100 film, or even I have iso400 or iso800 film loaded and I am forced to shot with aperatures wide open on (50mm) f/1.4, (50mm and 28mm) f/1.8 and (50mm macro and 24mm) f/2.8 lenses. I certainly wish I had a 24/2 instead of just a 24/2.8, that extra stop would be really nice.

 

IS can help, but it can't freeze motion.

Obviously, YES.

 

f/2.8 is the slowest lens I'll even consider owning. Since I don't shoot beyond 200mm, f/2.8 or faster is affordable. The premise of the question means you need a refresher couirse in Photography 101.

I'm with you Ken... I honestly can't believe so many digi users put up with the super slow lenses that are the only choices available at the lower tier. It's too bad Nikon and Canon won't adopt Minolta's old philosophy of offering the SAME lenses as the top tier with fewer coatings and lighter construction as their bottom tier. And especially with how dim many digi camera viewfinders are to begin with... it's just compounded issues.

and you could use a spelling 101 class, Ken... : -)

I own the Tokina and if I put it to f4, it's already stopped down one stop and quality is really good, whereas the competition is at their maximum apertures and not so good...

 

Recently, I was shooting some night shots on a tripod with a 50/1.2 lens... The reason for the fast lens was that since water moves even at night, I needed to keep shutter speed low to avoid a too blurred effect. I couldn't pump up the ISO, since that would have lost the finest detail and made the dynamic range narrower and since it was night, I needed good detail in the shadows. I hope this explains some reasons (other than the obvious shallow DOF) why fast lenses are desirable; we have more options nowadays, but that just means we can tackle harder challenges.

 

Also, if you're focusing a macro lens beyond life size, you will want a high speed lens...

The ability to allow more light through the lens cannot be fully compensated with high ISO. High ISO will help to an extent when compensating for a slower lens. No matter what FL is in question, there will be a difference in DOF. A f/2.8 lens will provide very good AF performance, as more light is hitting the AF sensor.

The F2.8 and bigger apertures are great for better auto-focusing, and even manual focusing...so even if you set your lens to F11, it will focus and TTL at F2.8 which can be very helpful when composing the shot.

Absolutely. Background control is a must for me. I dont need another stupid f5.6 VR lens. When I need

to blur the background some silly f5.6 VR cant do it..no way no how! Get a midrange, high quality zoom...one with

f2.8 Shoot an object at f2.8, then f5.6 then f 16...see what happens to your background and depth of field.

You cant do that with slow lens....never.

I'm guessing either A) this question is a joke or B) this question is a troll.

 

85% or more of my non-commercial paid photography work would be impossible (in it's current form) without a 2.8 zoom or a 1.4 prime. If I was stuck with a 5.6 lens, i would have to completely change (and greatly complicate) all my existing techniques (or i'd just quit and take up knitting)

 

For vacation shooting and walking the dog, i'm sure f5.6 lenses are more than sufficient.

OK, I'm convinced! I was curious because I've read many a post from photographers using the F2.8 for reason enough to switch

from the perfectly adequate Tokina 12-24 mm F4 zoom to the, in my opinion, much less versatile 11-16mm zoom. I own the 12-24

and think the 24 on the long end outweighs the 11 on the short end as far as usefulness, F stops aside.

"OK, I'm convinced!" Go rent one and see for yourself.

"and you could use a spelling 101 class, Ken"

 

I am an **EXCELLENT** speller but POOR proof reader and typo-prone kybdr.

 

YES f/2.8 is the slowest lens anyone should consider -- life is far too short to use cheap glass. (and I mean 200mm or smaller)

Without a doubt. This was a main reason why I decided to begin shooting 35mm again. Faster lenses. My RZ67 110mm lens is a F2.8 but my favorite lens the 50mm ULD is F4.5. Even shooting Delta 3200 at 3200 iso I still find myself shooting wide open. My RZ will still be my main camera to use, but I'm having so much fun toting around my Nikon F2 loaded with Tri-X (sometimes Plus-X) and using it for interior shots that I'd never get with my RZ unless it was on a tripod and a cable release. I decided on the AI-S 28mm F2.8 as the only lens I'll use at least for now. I had thought of getting one of the faster lenses, but heard so many great things about this one that I figured I'd just try to hold the camera extra steady at 1/30 at F2.8 which a few times I had to do recently.