Jump to content

One simple arguement against the perceived need for fast lenses: the 400/2.8 and the 600/4


Recommended Posts

Aperture width is something that you should probably take if you can get it - especially if you don't have to pay extra. All other things being equal...

 

But, most of the time, you're going to pay for it. Whether it's cost, size, quality, rarity, whatever. So here is a thought I had. Is it worth having anything faster than f/2.8? Or even f/4? Here I am talking in terms of the 135 format, a 36x24mm gate, film or digital, which is somewhat of a lingua franca of gate sizes among photographers.

 

Think about this: the fastest, most practical lens that a sports photographer has at their disposal is the 400/2.8. This can be made into a 600/4 with a 1.4x TC. Perhaps it's better to shoot with the 400mm and crop? I don't know, as I have never shot sports (maybe some of you can talk about this below?). But, for the sake of argument, let's go with f/2.8 as the fastest practical aperture that a press shooter has at their disposal. Some would shoot with a 100-400/4.

 

Even back when colour film's top speed was ISO 160 (High Speed Ektachrome!) photographers had to make do with what we would call slower apertures. It wasn't fun, but it worked if the light was good. In the '80s you could push negative film to ISO 3200 and get great results, relatively speaking.

 

So given all that, what the hell do we need fast lenses for? Especially now that we have sensors - some much smaller than full-frame 135 - that deliver usable results at ISO 6400? If you really, really love selective focus (i.e. only one eyeball of your subject will be sharp) then that is a completely separate issue.

 

My conclusion: if we want to make smarter purchases, I say that we forego the fastest lenses and go for quality and portability instead. As always, YMMV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I depends . . .

. . . on what you are shooting.

 

Everything is a compromise.

My 18-140 f/3.5-5.6 is a great GP lens, but with an aperture range of f/3.5-5.6, it sucks for shooting night games under light, or indoor gym games, where I am up at ISO 12800 or 25600. IOW, it is a daytime lens. I have to back it up with a 35mm f/1.8 for low light.

 

The only faster similar lens in the NIkon line, is the 24-120 f/4. But that is only ONE stop faster at the long end, so I would be at ISO 6400 instead of 12800.

If it were a f/2.8 lens, I would be down at ISO 3200.

 

If those games were all held during the day, then I would not have the issues of shooting in low light that I had this past year.

 

BTW, in yesteryear, for night games, we would shoot with the 135 f/2.8 rather than the 200 f/4, for the extra stop of lens speed. We would have loved a f/2 lens.

Tri-X was pushed to 1200, 1600 with pretty bad results. Lets call it newspaper quality.

 

 

As for f/2.8 or 4. In low light, I would rather shoot with a f/2 or better yet a f/1.4.

  • 2 stop faster lens will let me shoot at 1/60 sec instead of 1/15 sec, or ISO 6400 instead of 25600.
  • 3 stop faster lens will let me shoot at 1/125 sec instead of 1/15 sec, or ISO 3200 instead of 25600.

So depending on the task, there could be a very real need for FAST glass.

 

Today Sigma is filling some of the speed gaps with their f/1.8 lenses.

 

 

Does everyone need FAST glass, NO.

But those that do, do need them.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you need to stop action, and if that action is at a distance, and if that action is in poor light, then F/2.8 is better than F/4 or F/5.6 or F/8, no matter how good your sensor is at high ISO, because it will always be better at a lower ISO: but you'll pay more for a fast telephoto prime.

 

Another point is, if you need to do all that then AF acquisition and tracking is usually (always?) better at F/2.8 than at smaller maximum apertures and this is more a necessity for 'Sports' genre photography.

 

But, not many Photographers need to do all that and need an high quality output.

 

As Gary rightly said - "Does everyone need FAST glass, NO. But those that do, do need them."

 

***

 

On your query about the 400 and cropping vs. using a tele-converter: I've done quite a few field tests with various Canon EF Primes and the 70 to 200 F/2.8 Zooms. Much has to do with the camera being used and the model (and make) of the tele-converter.

 

As a general comment, using the x1.4 EF Mk II or (especially) MkIII and a Canon F/2.8L Prime, the Tele-converter route is the more favourable.

 

On the other hand, for fast moving field sports, the technique of shooting a little wide and cropping in Post is often more desirable.

 

Additionally a 400 Prime (naked) is more useful over the course of the game on (for example) an Hockey Field, than using a 400 + x1.4: because the times that you'd really need 560mm you'd probably be able to run forward, (i.e. facing the action) along the sideline, but if you’re stuck with a 560mm lens and the action is coming toward you, backing up and watching the play is real a pain in the butt. (I’d assume you’d have a second camera with a 70 to 200 mounted for the much closer action).

 

I’ve never 'owned' a 400/2.8, but I had the use of several. For a long time I had an arrangement to use one gratis, basically whenever I wanted it. More recently it is a better (business) choice to rent one when I really need that reach at F/2.8, rather than pay money for a Capital Asset which would be a shelf-sitter 59 days out of 60.

 

Since about 2004 I’ve thought that the best practical choice for (Canon) fast telephotos is to buy the 300/2.8 and the 500/4 and use the Tele-converters EF MKII (and the MkIII is now better) as necessary. The current Canon Lens line up hasn’t altered that opinion.

 

People who have Photography as their ‘hobby’, and I am in that situation more now, than before, buy stuff for reasons other than sound business logic. If the purchase is doable without hardship and the purchase will give you enjoyment, no matter how infrequently it will be used, then I reckon go for it. Life is too short to drink inferior quality wine, if your means can afford better.

 

WW

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had this conversation a couple of days ago with a friend--he had been shooting a baptism in a poorly lit church and was frustrated with poor AF and having to bump up the ISO to get any useable pictures. Someone at the event (a camera salesperson) told him that he needed an $1800 lens to solve the problem, which it undoubtedly would have helped with. But he isn't a pro, and wouldn't want to deal with the big increase in size and weight, let alone the expense. So for him the fast lens isn't the answer, but as I said to him, if you're a full time pro regularly shooting these kinds of events, you would certainly get good use out of the faster lens and the increase in image quality that it would provide. But the OP has a point--with today's DSLRs and their high ISO performance fast lenses are less important than they used to be for most photographers.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you crop rather than use a 1.4x tele-extender, you throw away half of your available pixels. If you're shooting a single-digit Nikon, you don't have many to lose.

 

People who think ISO 6400 is the practical limit for good quality images have been sleeping for the last five years. 25,600 is the new norm, and if you think you need 256,000 to get the shot, go for it (but carry a flashlight in case you drop something or need to see the controls).

 

The best justification for a fast tele is that manufacturers traditionally lavish the best optics and mechanical quality on those lenses. That "rule" has relaxed in recent years, and both Canon and Nikon produce some high quality, f/4 long primes and zooms.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When really fast film was Weston 100 or some such, long, high-speed lenses were necessary. Today, with astronomical ISOs and efficient noise reduction, not so much.

 

Miracles were done, however, like the Olympia Sonnar for the 1936 Olympics.

 

Like f/1.0 lenses, however these always were specialized tools and not meant for the casual shooter -- for whom a tripod was a much more practical investment.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I grew up shooting Tri-X and high speed Ektachrome in the news business when we would routinely push to 1600 in Acufine. Like Gary I delt with high school football at night in poorly lit stadiums not to mention college football in often poor lighting. Basketball was not much better. The 135/2.8 Nikkor was standard issue. The 180/2.8 as well. Let's don't even talk about the great big 300/2.8. All of these are still commonly used. Anything was better than using flash and in many places it simply was not allowed. The result is that I always look for a faster set of lenses and have them. Also got the slower f/4 zooms and they cover most things. Maybe those crazy high ISO levels are useable but I prefer to keep those numbers as low as I can.

 

Rick H.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I prefer to keep those numbers as low as I can.

As do I, but no lower than necessary. I don't need a 36" pipe wrench very often, but when something needs to MOVE, it's there when I need it. (The biggest wrench goes on the part which shouldn't move.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had this conversation a couple of days ago with a friend--he had been shooting a baptism in a poorly lit church and was frustrated with poor AF and having to bump up the ISO to get any useable pictures . . . etc

 

Often, for these types of events, when the Subject is at closer quarters, a fast (and cheap) medium telephoto or normal length Prime will suffice. For example a fast 85 on APS-C is a reasonable choice.

 

Nadine Ohara used to often recommend as a "starter-inexpensive", Wedding and Social Events Kit two APS-C Camera bodies and a Tamron 17 to 50/2.8 and an 85/1.8 (that kit is available for both Canon and Nikon gear). I think there is much wisdom in that advice, today.

 

WW

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Often, for these types of events, when the Subject is at closer quarters, a fast (and cheap) medium telephoto or normal length Prime will suffice. For example a fast 85 on APS-C is a reasonable choice.

 

Nadine Ohara used to often recommend as a "starter-inexpensive", Wedding and Social Events Kit two APS-C Camera bodies and a Tamron 17 to 50/2.8 and an 85/1.8 (that kit is available for both Canon and Nikon gear). I think there is much wisdom in that advice, today.

 

WW

 

+1

 

I shot a Senior Recognition event, and they turned off most of the lights (grrrrr). That screwed me, as my lens was my 18-140 f/3.5-5.6. It would have been OK with all the gym lights ON, but it just did not cut it when they turned most of the lights off. That extra 2 or 3 stops of light would have saved most of the shots, which I had to shoot at ISO 25600.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aperture width is something that you should probably take if you can get it - especially if you don't have to pay extra. All other things being equal...

 

But, most of the time, you're going to pay for it. Whether it's cost, size, quality, rarity, whatever. So here is a thought I had. Is it worth having anything faster than f/2.8? Or even f/4? Here I am talking in terms of the 135 format, a 36x24mm gate, film or digital, which is somewhat of a lingua franca of gate sizes among photographers.

 

Think about this: the fastest, most practical lens that a sports photographer has at their disposal is the 400/2.8. This can be made into a 600/4 with a 1.4x TC. Perhaps it's better to shoot with the 400mm and crop? I don't know, as I have never shot sports (maybe some of you can talk about this below?). But, for the sake of argument, let's go with f/2.8 as the fastest practical aperture that a press shooter has at their disposal. Some would shoot with a 100-400/4.

 

Even back when colour film's top speed was ISO 160 (High Speed Ektachrome!) photographers had to make do with what we would call slower apertures. It wasn't fun, but it worked if the light was good. In the '80s you could push negative film to ISO 3200 and get great results, relatively speaking.

 

So given all that, what the hell do we need fast lenses for? Especially now that we have sensors - some much smaller than full-frame 135 - that deliver usable results at ISO 6400? If you really, really love selective focus (i.e. only one eyeball of your subject will be sharp) then that is a completely separate issue.

 

My conclusion: if we want to make smarter purchases, I say that we forego the fastest lenses and go for quality and portability instead. As always, YMMV.

If you talking about sport photo, I am with Scott Kelby on this one, he said " Sport photographers don't ask how much lens they needed cost, they just buying one."

Everything else is compromise, usually you got what you paid for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want the shallow DOF or you rely on fast lens for good AF then that's your reason to have fast lenses. I don't need fast lenses because even in low light I still need my DOF so shooting at a very large aperture isn't the answer for me. I don't shoot things that I need to AF very quick so I don't need fast lenses for that either. In low light I prefer tripod or VR if the subjects allow. Otherwise I would crank up the ISO.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nick, perhaps I didn't make myself clear. If your fastest telephoto is f/2.8 then there is little point in owning a Noctilux, because if you can get your shot with the 400/2.8 then your Noctilux is redundant. If you can't get it with the 400/2.8 then your Noctilux won't help, as it's a 50mm, not a 400mm. Perhaps your 200/2 will save you, but that's only a stop. Same thing if your main lens is a 600mm. If you can get your shot at f/4 - and that is as fast as your 600mm can get - then an 85/1.8 is pointless. So too the 70-200/2.8, when a 70-200/4 will do just fine.

 

You can talk about how AF is faster at f/2 than at f/4, but your 600mm is 'only' f/4. What are you going to do, open up by two stops?

 

These days there is no need for anything faster than f/2.8 for 135 format digital cameras. This goes for wide angles as much as it does for telephotos. If you are stuck with an old, limited DSLR then perhaps it's cheaper and simpler to upgrade the body rather than buy faster lenses.

 

I think I made my point incomplete, which is not the first time I have done that. This leads to being misunderstood :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KG,

 

The problem is, you make a blanket statement, with no exceptions

 

These days there is no need for anything faster than f/2.8 for 135 format digital cameras.
This goes for wide angles as much as it does for telephotos.

If you are stuck with an old, limited DSLR then perhaps it's cheaper and simpler to upgrade the body rather than buy faster lenses.

 

. . . So too the 70-200/2.8, when a 70-200/4 will do just fine.

 

When you are up at ISO 25600 (current model camera), even a stop faster, to be able to shoot at ISO 12800 is welcomed. And the lower I can get the ISO the better. The stuff that I've shot at 25600 is barely tolerable, and only on small images. So the HIGH ISO of current cameras is not a magic bullet solution.

 

I shoot with a 70-200/4, and it is fine during the day and twilight. But not so much for night games and theater. The lost of the 1 stop from f/2.8 to f/4 is noticed. If they came out with a 70-200 f/2, that I could afford and carry, I would grab it.

 

When I am shooting in a dimly lit school gym, I will take a f/1.4 or 1.8 lens over a 24-70 f/2.8 lens every time. That additional stop or 2 stops (wide open) will let me shoot at a more reasonable ISO level and shutter speed. There is a reason that I shoot in the gym with a f/1.8 prime, rather than a slower zoom.

 

VR/IS is not a magic solution either.

VR/IS will only stabilize for CAMERA movement, NOT for SUBJECT movement.

So you still need to use a high enough shutter speed for subject movement. And the faster the subject is moving, the faster your shutter speed needs to be.

 

Again:

Does everyone need FAST glass, NO.

But those that do, do need them.

 

You appear to be in the first group, and seem to insist that the 2nd group does not exist.

 

Do have first-hand experience of what it is like to shoot in LOW light conditions?

Have you ever shot a NON-PRO field game (football, soccer, lacrosse) at night under lights, or a gym sport (basketball and volleyball) in a dimly lit school gym ?

I am fighting for every stop of extra speed that I can get. Or not get, because that extra stop is $$$$ more expensive than I can afford for a hobby.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nick, perhaps I didn't make myself clear. If your fastest telephoto is f/2.8 then there is little point in owning a Noctilux, because if you can get your shot with the 400/2.8 then your Noctilux is redundant. If you can't get it with the 400/2.8 then your Noctilux won't help, as it's a 50mm, not a 400mm. Perhaps your 200/2 will save you, but that's only a stop. Same thing if your main lens is a 600mm. If you can get your shot at f/4 - and that is as fast as your 600mm can get - then an 85/1.8 is pointless. So too the 70-200/2.8, when a 70-200/4 will do just fine.

 

You can talk about how AF is faster at f/2 than at f/4, but your 600mm is 'only' f/4. What are you going to do, open up by two stops?

 

These days there is no need for anything faster than f/2.8 for 135 format digital cameras. This goes for wide angles as much as it does for telephotos. If you are stuck with an old, limited DSLR then perhaps it's cheaper and simpler to upgrade the body rather than buy faster lenses.

 

I think I made my point incomplete, which is not the first time I have done that. This leads to being misunderstood :)

People buying Canon 50/1.2 for specific reasons, not because it faster than 50/1.8.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some would shoot with a 100-400/4.

Wonder how they might do that - given that such a lens does not exist.

If you really, really love selective focus (i.e. only one eyeball of your subject will be sharp) then that is a completely separate issue.

I don't understand what your simple argument against the perceived need for fast lenses actually is - but you certainly exclude a very good reason for many to own some fast glass.

 

Granted, for my needs, a 70-200/4 is sufficient - but if I were to shoot events and weddings, I would surely get a 70-200/2.8 instead.

 

If your fastest telephoto is f/2.8 then there is little point in owning a Noctilux, because if you can get your shot with the 400/2.8 then your Noctilux is redundant. If you can't get it with the 400/2.8 then your Noctilux won't help, as it's a 50mm, not a 400mm. Perhaps your 200/2 will save you, but that's only a stop. Same thing if your main lens is a 600mm. If you can get your shot at f/4 - and that is as fast as your 600mm can get - then an 85/1.8 is pointless.

What? That makes no sense whatsoever. Because I can get a shot with a 600/4, I don't need a 85/1.8? How about the shot I can get with a 85/1.8 but not possibly with a 600/4. Ever tried to shoot an indoor basketball game with a 600/4?

I say that we forego the fastest lenses and go for quality and portability instead.

Unfortunately, the way most manufacturers design their lenses, speed and quality are linked and slower lenses are often designed to a lesser standard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could use f/2.8 and because zooms are available, there are practical reasons for doing so (I use the 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 maybe half the time I'm shooting). But it is with lenses like 200/2 and 105/1.4 that I get the most ooh! aaah! wow! reactions and so I can only assume my viewers are happy with the choice of wide aperture I made.

 

Figure skating example with 200/2:

 

Jade Rautiainen

 

Chinese new year ice sculpture with the artist and sculpture both in focus with 105/1,4 wide open:

 

Untitled

 

Even with a D5, you still get much nicer tones and colours at ISO 1600 than at 6400.

 

As for TC use, I don't think I've ever seen a professional sports photographer (I'm not one!) use a TC for indoor sports. A cropped image is better than a TCd image wide open in such circumstances. In general, to get benefits from a TC, you need to stop down the lens and in an indoor sports situation you cannot afford the combined aperture loss from the TC magnification and stopping down. Furthermore, there is a pressing need to blur the advertisements in the background.

Edited by ilkka_nissila
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW KG, how did you determine this statement?

 

Think about this:
the fastest, most practical lens that a sports photographer has at their disposal is the 400/2.8.

 

Again, you are making a blanket statement.

And since you admit that you have never shot sports, what is your basis for that statement?

I don't know, as I have never shot sports

 

IMHO, a fixed 400mm is NOT the "most practical lens" for a sports photographer.

Only for OUTDOOR long shots.

But it would fail miserably for the closer shots in football or soccer, when shooting on the sidelines, where even a 100mm lens is too long.

 

And what of INDOOR sports?

Where would you use a 400mm lens indoors?

I use a 35mm f/1.8 (DX lens) to shoot indoor gym sports (basketball and volleyball), on the court floor, because even a f/2.8 lens is too slow for a dim school gym.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gary, a 400/2.8 is faster than a 200/2, a 105/1.4, or any Noctilux. But it's not faster than a 300/2. But the 300/2 is only fast - it isn't practical. Sigma makes a 200-500/2.8 which is also faster than a 400/2.8, but it doesn't seem to be very practical.

 

That's confusing.

 

What do you mean?

 

As mentioned above, usually the term "Lens Speed" refers to the lens's maximum aperture available, hence - the faster Shutter Speed attainable at any given ISO.

 

Especially, when discussing "Sports Photography" most Sports Photographers would reckon Lens Speed as meaning to refer to the Maximum Aperture of the Lens. As also mentioned AF Speed (both speed of Acquisition and accurate Follow Tracking) are (in my experience) sometimes mentioned as by the term 'fast lens', but (IME) not all that often.

 

A conversation from a typical Sports Photographer in my cohort would pan out like this: "I like my four-hundred, two-point eight because it is a fast lens, and I regularly need to use the two-point eight. It is has very fast and accurate auto focus, too."

WW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gary, a 400/2.8 is faster than a 200/2, a 105/1.4, or any Noctilux. But it's not faster than a 300/2. But the 300/2 is only fast - it isn't practical. Sigma makes a 200-500/2.8 which is also faster than a 400/2.8, but it doesn't seem to be very practical.

 

OK how is a 400/2.8 faster than a 200/2 or a 105/1.4 ?

I am looking at the aperture scale progression; it is f/1.4 - 2 - 2.8 - 4 - 5.6

f/1.4 is faster than f/2 and f/2 is faster than f/2.8.

How do YOU define "practical?" Especially since you stated that you have never shot sports.

Because, obviously I do not understand your definition, nor does it equates to my sport shooting experience.

the fastest, most practical lens that a sports photographer has at their disposal is the 400/2.8.

But the 300/2 is only fast - it isn't practical.

Sigma makes a 200-500/2.8 which is also faster than a 400/2.8, but it doesn't seem to be very practical

 

A 400mm lens is USELESS to shoot basketball or volleyball in my school gym. It is WAY TOO LONG.

So how is it the "most practical lens that a sports photographer has?"

I challenge you to shoot a basketball game in a gym (on the court floor or within 10 feet of the court) with a 400mm lens, and still tell me that it is the "most practical lens" for a sports photographer.

Edited by Gary Naka
Link to comment
Share on other sites

. . . As for TC use, I don't think I've ever seen a professional sports photographer (I'm not one!) use a TC for indoor sports. . .

 

I have and I personally have. Not often, though. As mentioned, with the Canon 2.8 Primes the x1.4 Extender EF MkIII is 'exceptional' (IMO). Specifically the 300/2.8 and the135/2 both of those lenses can be used 1/3 of a stop stopped down with the TC and there is consistently a better image than cropping. The images are more than quite reasonable with the lens wide open...

 

BUT, it is absolutely acknowledged that in consideration of the loss of one stop when adding the TC, you need to have enough light to attain the required Shutter Speed: this has been only available to me for events that have television coverage, hence a large enough (i.e. strong enough) lighting bank to suit telecast standards - so that's kind of not really typical indoor sport lighting.

 

I used to work with another who uses a 300/2.8 on one camera and a 70 to 200/2.8 on the other and the 24 to 70 on her third: she'd sometimes use the x1.4 on the 300/2.8 for that little bit of extra reach - and (I guess) that she was using a 300/2.8 and not a 400/2.8 because of the initial cost.

 

(next comments are related to these)

 

***

 

. . .

And what of INDOOR sports?

Where would you use a 400mm lens indoors? . . .

 

I don't think that there are many, but I know Swimming is one.

 

Typically three cameras - 400/2.8; 70 to 200/2.8 and 24 to 70/2.8

 

A 400mm Lens (on 135 Format, aka 'full frame') gives you around 4.5m x 3m FoV at 50m (the length of an Olympic Long Course Pool) and around 3m x 2m FoV at 35m (which is the 15mtr line where athletes must surface after their streamline) and around 2.2m x 1.5m FoV at 25mtrs (the length of a Short Course Pool and obviously the half-way point in an Olympic Pool).

 

I understand that the long-time Swimming Australia Photographer uses a 500/4 on his Nikon gear.

 

I think that USA College (University) Swimming is in yards, and the 400mm Lens is still useful for 50, 33 and 25 yard pools, if that's what pools are used.

 

WW

Edited by William Michael
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gary, a 400/2.8 is faster than a 200/2, a 105/1.4, or any Noctilux. But it's not faster than a 300/2. But the 300/2 is only fast - it isn't practical. Sigma makes a 200-500/2.8 which is also faster than a 400/2.8, but it doesn't seem to be very practical.

Now we all got confused, what are you talking about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...