Faster Lens for Outdoors?

[nachi_abrams]

I am shooting exclusively outdoors at this time. Is there any reason for me

to get a "faster lens"? I am thinking of the canon 17-40L or the 24-105L.

Mostly landscapes, some children, casual outdoor pics. Both are f4 lenses I

believe. Why would/should I invest in a 2.8 such as the 24-70? Thanks

[marcphotography]

The only reason to get a faster lens for outdoors is if you want to get pictures with a shallower depth of field. Otherwise if you never plan on shooting in low light conditions then there isnt really a reason to buy a faster lens

[savas_kyprianides]

Outdoors doesn't always mean sunlight. You have your dense, cloudy days. You have

beautiful low lighting at sunrise and near sunset.

 

For those bright days when wide open would cause problems, use a ND filter so that you can

get that shallow depth of field and properly expose it.

[Matt Laur]

And don't forget that even if your actual exposure will involve a stopped-down lens, the brightness of what you see in your viewfinder and your camera's autofocus system are impacted by how much light the lens can drag in while wide open. Even if you choose to shoot at f/16, you'll REALLY notice the difference (in the finder) between an f/2.8 and an f/4 when, say, composing an early morning or twilight shot.

[William Michael]

There are several reasons you might consider a faster lens, even if you are shooting `outdoors at this time`

 

Firstly, `at this time` may change: that is to say your tastes in what you want to photograph might change, and you might find in a few months time, you see images you wish to capture where F2.8 will render a better result than F4.

 

That aside; as well as using a faster lens to create a more narrow DoF, thus, giving more variance and flexibility for use as a `portrait lens`; a faster lens will be more beneficial / flexible, should you wish to capture an image where the subject motion needs to be stopped; you specifically mentioned kids: Kids = playing = kids sports?

 

These as I see it are the two main reasons, applicable to the three lenses you are referencing, but there are more general considerations, some of which are applicable to those three lenses.

 

I listed some of the more common reasons for considering a faster lens over a slower lens.

 

A faster lens:

 

renders a brighter viewfinder.

 

may render better AF

 

allows at any given exposure setting one stop lower ISO

 

may hold its resale value better

 

will usually be easier to use with bellows or rings

 

All of that aside, `outdoors` might also be overcast or at dusk or dawn, or even at night.

 

WW

[g dan mitchell]

In photographic terms there is little if any real advantage in getting a zoom with one more stop of aperture specifically for

"outdoor" photography.

 

Photographic reasons for getting a lens with a larger aperture include: ability to shoot at faster shutter speed in low light,

achieving a narrower DOF. There are a few others, but they are generally pretty minor concerns.

 

Are you planning to shoot at wide apertures for narrow DOF in your outdoor shots or are you more likely to shoot at smaller

apertures to improve IQ (up to the diffraction point) and gain larger DOF? If you need wider apertures far narrower DOF will one

stop be sufficient or do you really need a prime or two for this purpose since they might give you 2 or 3 stops? How often are

you in precisely the marginal lighting situation where f/4 would not be enough but f/2.8 would be?

 

As to the "dark viewfinder" issue, you can easily test the difference by using your DOF preview button on your camera. Yes, one

stop is slightly darker. No, it isn't a radical change in appearance - especially in your outdoor photography situation. I shoot

with a variety of lenses that could provide me with a maximum aperture of between f/1.4 and f/5.6. I _rarely_ think about this

in terms of the brightness of the viewfinder in actual practice. Yes, I do notice the difference of 4 stops between a lens that

only opens to f/5.6 and a lens that opens to f/1.4. But one stop? Only think of it when someone reminds me that it exists - but

not in actual shooting.

 

In the end one can't say in a general way that f/2.8 or f/4 makes a lens better or worse in a universal sense. YOU can say

whether or not this feature has value for YOUR photography and the way you shoot.

 

Many photographers select f/2.8 zoom. Many other photographers select f/4 zooms. People have been debating between, for

example the 24-105 f/4 and the 24-70 f/2.8 and between f/4 and f/2.8 versions of the 70-200mm zooms for quite some

time. If there was a clear universal answer that one is better than the other, we'd have heard by now.

 

Dan

[J.W. Wall]

You might consider the bulk of the lens, as some of the wider ones are significantly heavier.

[james_gu]

You have to consider the differences in the following:

 

flexibility in depth of field: 2.8

ability to stop motion: 2.8

weight: 4

reach: 4 (24-105 has 35mm more)

handholdability: 4 (24-105 has a 3-stop IS that allows a shutter speed 2 stops slower than that of the 2.8-non IS lens).

price: 4 (16-35/2.8 is almost 2x as expensive than 17-40/4, and 24-70/2.8 is a coupla hundred bucks more than 24-104/4).

 

I have both the 17-40 and the 24-105, and are perfectly happy for what I shoot. For portraits and low light conditions I have a couple of fast primes - not as flexible, but will do the trick for me.

 

Also, you should also consider whether it's the 24mm end or 70mm end that you shoot more, because the 24-70/2.8' zoom is reversed - maximum extension at 24mm. So if you use 24mm more, you might find it a hassle to extend it every time.

[mendel_leisk]

The 2 comparisons I think you're making are:

 

17-40 (f4.0) vs 16-35 (II) (f2.8)

 

And

 

24-105 (f4.0) vs 24-70 (f2.8)

 

All of these are distinct lens, with much more separating them than just the difference in f-stop. They all vary in factors like Image Stabilization (has it or not), sharpness (center and corner), contrast, closest focus, light fall-off, chromatical abberation, flare resistance, distortion, zoom range, dimensions, weight and last but not least, price. In either of the above comparisons, each lens has pros and cons.

 

Have a read at The-Digital-Darkroom. The reviews there are geared to comparison and weighing of those pros and cons.

[peterlyons]

Nachi, I own and use both lenses you're looking at--the f/4s. They're excellent in every

respect. But one time I tried composing a star shot through one of them. You know,

looking up at the stars, trying to line up the trees horizontally across the bottom. I

couldn't see a thing! That aside, it's fine.

 

Also, with longer lenses where focus is more critical, f/2.8 allows some of your camera's

AF sensors to work with extra speed and precision. I don't own any 2.8 lenses (except a

fisheye) so maybe someone else can comment further on that. I with my favorite lens, my

100-400, were a 2.8! Except of course it would probably weight 30 pounds and cost

more than I gross in a year.

[peter_j2]

"Why would/should I invest in a 2.8 such as the 24-70?"

 

Better WoW factor BOKEH at f/2.8 would be the primary reason for me.

[nachi_abrams]

Thanks so much everyone. With all the input, my decision is to get the 24-105 f4. Believe me, I took everyone's opinion into serious consideration. I went to B & H and tried several 2.8 lenses. I couldnt hold them for longer than 5 minutes. With all their pros, it wouldn't do me any good if i couldn't hold it, right? However, I felt like I was so much more of an educated consumer. Again, thanks everyone for your time and expertise.

[g dan mitchell]

<p>If you _really_ want the very best bokeh, you'll use wide aperture primes, not zooms.

 

<p>That said, it is possible to get decent bokeh from the 24-105. Here are a few quick examples shot at 105mm and f/4:

 

<p><a href="http://www.gdanmitchell.com/wpg2-3?g2_itemId=1337"><img src="http://www.gdanmitchell.com/gallery/main.php?

g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=1337&g2_serialNumber=3&g2_GALLERYSID=16154cdf7c5e65cf68b9b91ac8f856e1"></a>

 

<p><a href="http://www.gdanmitchell.com/wpg2-3?g2_itemId=1325"><img src="http://www.gdanmitchell.com/gallery/main.php?

g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=1325&g2_serialNumber=3&g2_GALLERYSID=16154cdf7c5e65cf68b9b91ac8f856e1"></a>

 

<p><a href="http://www.gdanmitchell.com/wpg2-3?g2_itemId=1212"><img src="http://www.gdanmitchell.com/gallery/main.php?

g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=1212&g2_serialNumber=4&g2_GALLERYSID=16154cdf7c5e65cf68b9b91ac8f856e1"></a>

 

<p>Dan

[nachi_abrams]

These pictures are magnificient. This bokeh would be more than good enough for me. Most of the time though, I am looking for less bokeh and more depth of field as I am doing groups and landscapes. Hence, my quest for a slower lens.

[g dan mitchell]

Maybe I was a bit unclear. These were shot with the f/4 max 24-105mm L lens - not with

one of the wider aperture f/2.8 zooms.

 

Any lens can shoot "slower" - the variable is whether or not you also need the "faster"

apertures in addition to the "slower" (smaller) ones that are on all lenses.

 

Dan

[nachi_abrams]

G Dan, yes, I understood. I was actually impressed with the amount of bokeh you got with a slower lens. This is precisely the reason I think a slower lens would be adequate for me. Most of the time I need more depth of field. I will miss the hightened accuracy of the autofocus, though. I guess you can't have it all.