Aperture f4 Lenses Indoors

[wedding_photographer5]

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>I've been very happy with a f/2.8 zoom but am considering a lighter lens. There are two things that keep me from trading the brighter model for a lighter alternative.</p>

<p>- How well does an f/4 lens focus indoors under low light compared to an f/2.8 lens?<br>

- How bright is the viewfinder f4 vs f2.8?</p>

<p> </p>

[Two23]

<p>Absolutely would not use an f4 for weddings. Everything else, I'd prefer the 4 zooms. You're asking the wrong questions.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[Jochen_S]

<p>Mount some polarizer / ND / orange filter on your current f2.8 & find out?</p>

[SCL]

<p>Unless it is an EVF which automatically compensates its brightness, your viewfinder will be approximately 50% or 1 f/stop less bright as it would with an f2.8 lens. You can easily test the effect yourself by pressing your stop down button with your lens diaphragm set at f/4.</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>If you need the shallow DOF of the f/2.8 lens then it won't do. If you just need a stop more light it shouldn't be a problem. If it is you can upgrade the camera to one that is more capable in low light. </p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>An f/4 will give a significantly darker image in the viewfinder and won't AF as fast or as accurately. Doesn't matter how high the ISO in your camera can go. If the weight of the lens is your concern, you owe it to your clients to put good images ahead of the inconvenience. <br /><br />Every time these slow-fast lens questions come up, what stands out to me is that a 2.8 lens isn't a particularly fast lens to start with. Before the day of kit zooms came along, the standard 50mm lens was 2.0, and you only bought that if you couldn't afford a 1.4 or 1.2. f/4 lenses simply didn't exist until you got out to about 200mm or longer.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Which lens are you talking about? I would be happy for weddings with a 24-70 f2.8 and a 70-200 f4, for example, but would not want a 24-70 (24-120) f4.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Nikon's, and AFAIK all other DSLR viewfinders are not linear in their brightness. Following a debate in a thread from a while back, I dug out an eyepiece photometer that was made for use on a micro-densitometer - long story.<br /> Anyway I used it to take reading of the viewfinder brightness of several SLR and DSLR cameras, mostly Nikon's. Surprisingly the photometer showed no deflection on stopping down an f/1.2 lens to f/1.4; typically only a 4% change on stopping down from f/1.4 to f/2; a 20% drop on going from f/2 to f/2.8, and a further 29% reduction in brightness on stopping down to f/4.</p>

<p>Therefore you'll see a difference of around 1/3rd stop in viewfinder brightness at most between a nominal f/2.8 and f/4 lens. Since actual lens transmission can vary from marked F-number by more than that amount, you probably won't perceive much difference at all in viewfinder brightness. Of course the camera's AF sensor will respond differently and you may see a drop in focus speed with more hunting and missed focus with a slower lens, but this is going to be very dependant on the camera model and how responsive the lens is. Generally speaking a more up-to-date camera is going to cope better than an older one.</p>

<p>Having said that, I agree that if you already have an f/2.8 zoom that's delivering the quality of images required, you ought to keep it and look at other solutions. Maybe a better strap or cradle system for the camera would help take the strain?</p>

[pete_s.]

<p>f/4 for weddings? Just say no.</p>

<p>If you want significantly lighter, you need primes (or another sensor format / system).</p>

<p>You could also do a hybrid, carry a zoom when you absolutely need one and carry a prime the rest of the time.</p>

 

[Javier Gutierre]

<blockquote>

<p> If the weight of the lens is your concern, you owe it to your clients to put good images ahead of the inconvenience. <br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is exactly right. <br>

<br>

<br>

Not many questions are dumb, but this one is. and from a wedding photographer. wow</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Once upon a time, f/2.8 zoom lenses were considered state of the art. In order to get the best mechanical quality, as well as optical, these lenses were uniquely superior. I think the dynamic has changed. Canon started by offering high quality f/4 "L" zoom lenses, and Nikon reluctantly followed about 5 years later. With the advent of the A7, Sony never bothered with the f/2.8 phase, jumping directly to constant aperture f/4 zooms.</p>

<p>One stop doesn't make the viewfinder dark. The change is barely visible, and then only if you do an A-B comparison. The sensitivity of your eyes (and ears) are logarithmic. A factor of two is barely barely perceptible in either case. One stop means more depth of field, but f/4 is still adequate to isolate a subject against a background. The latest generation of cameras have useable ISO sensitivity at least two stops greater than when f/2.8 zooms were the only professional option. You can argue that f/2.8 takes better advantage of higher ISO capability, but in reality, it's nearly a moot point. If f/2.8 worked at ISO 800 (1600 for a D3), why not f/4 at 25,600?</p>

<p>The one thing you can't compromise on is build quality. You need a lens that will hold up to the rigors of wedding photography, relatively sealed against moisture and dirt, with the best image quality. Even consumer lenses are sharper than ever before, but usually take shortcuts with the mechanical parts. Another indicator of superior quality is having a constant aperture, which requires careful design, usually accompanied by meticulous mechanical quality and internal focusing and zoom mechanisms.</p>

<p>I have a Sony 70-200/4 IS zoom which is every bit as sturdy as my Nikon 70-200/2.8 AFS VR. Optically, it is superior in every regard. Times have changed, even if the f/2.8 myth persists.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Once upon a time, f/2.8 zoom lenses were considered state of the art. In order to get the best mechanical quality, as well as optical, these lenses were uniquely superior. I think the dynamic has changed. Canon started by offering high quality f/4 "L" zoom lenses, and Nikon reluctantly followed about 5 years later. With the advent of the A7, Sony never bothered with the f/2.8 phase, jumping directly to constant aperture f/4 zooms.</p>

<p>One stop doesn't make the viewfinder dark. The change is barely visible, and then only if you do an A-B comparison. The sensitivity of your eyes (and ears) are logarithmic. A factor of two is barely barely perceptible in either case. One stop means more depth of field, but f/4 is still adequate to isolate a subject against a background. The latest generation of cameras have useable ISO sensitivity at least two stops greater than when f/2.8 zooms were the only professional option. You can argue that f/2.8 takes better advantage of higher ISO capability, but in reality, it's nearly a moot point. If f/2.8 worked at ISO 800 (1600 for a D3), why not f/4 at 25,600?</p>

<p>The one thing you can't compromise on is build quality. You need a lens that will hold up to the rigors of wedding photography, relatively sealed against moisture and dirt, with the best image quality. Even consumer lenses are sharper than ever before, but usually take shortcuts with the mechanical parts. Another indicator of superior quality is having a constant aperture, which requires careful design, usually accompanied by meticulous mechanical quality and internal focusing and zoom mechanisms.</p>

<p>I have a Sony 70-200/4 IS zoom which is every bit as sturdy as my Nikon 70-200/2.8 AFS VR. Optically, it is superior in every regard. Times have changed, even if the f/2.8 myth persists.</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>I've been very happy with a f/2.8 zoom but am considering a lighter <em>[F/4 zoom]</em> lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If this is your aim and you require considered responses then you are not supplying enough information.</p>

<p>*</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>How well does an f/4 lens focus indoors under low light compared to an f/2.8 lens?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Specifically what lenses are we comparing?<br>

Used on what Camera Bodies?<br>

Using what AF Point?<br>

With or without AF Flash Assist?<br>

Please better define "<em>low light</em>" *Approximate EV would be good or a description of the typical Lighting Scenario<br>

What OTHER lenses do you have as back-up? </p>

<p>*</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>How bright is the viewfinder f4 vs f2.8?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A little bit darker: to my eyes barely noticeable and not an issue for all practical viewing purposes, when shooting indoor action and portraiture in low light.</p>

<p>*</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Mount some polarizer / ND / orange filter on your current f2.8 & find out?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Don't think so: effectively that will attenuate the SCENE, but the F/2.8 lens will still be working at F/2.8 to facilitate its Auto Focus function.</p>

<p>*</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Not many questions are dumb, but this one is. and from a wedding photographer. wow</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Disagree.<br>

The question is seeking information and of itself seeking information is certainly not dumb action.<br>

Moreover, it's never a dumb for one to seek information <em>irrespective of</em> whatever others <em>might expect </em>one should or should not already know.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[Two23]

<blockquote>

<p> One stop means more depth of field, but f/4 is still adequate to isolate a subject against a background. The latest generation of cameras have useable ISO sensitivity at least two stops greater than when f/2.8 zooms were the only professional option. You can argue that f/2.8 takes better advantage of higher ISO capability, but in reality, it's nearly a moot point. </p>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

<p>In my own experience, an f4 lens just will not have shallow enough DoF when shooting a wedding at some crucial moments. It's not a matter of ISO. It's a matter of the physical property of the optics. There's a reason the Nikon 200mm f2 is so popular with wedding/portrait photographers and the f4 lenses are not. Remember, we aren't talking about general photography here, but rather a very specialized genre. Kent in SD</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Wedding photography is no more technically challenging than photography in general, just more people issues and and work flow efficiency.</p>

<p>An f/4 zoom lens can be used to isolate a subject effectively, as the following example illustrates. IMO, the bokeh is better in my Sony lens than a Nikon 70-200, with much less color fringing of OOF highlights. I have no need for a 200 mm f/2 lens, but have other fast primes at my disposal. At f/2, even a 25 mm lens, used close, offers DOF control.</p>

<p>Sony A7Rii + Sony 70-200/4 at f/4<br /> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18135437-lg.jpg" alt="" width="400" height="600" /></p>

[paul_b.1]

<p>I concur with Edward Ingold :<strong>"One stop doesn't make the viewfinder dark. The change is barely visible"...</strong>I use D4s with 70-200/4 VR exactly for that reason : to save weight. Optical, compared to 70-200/2,8 this two lenses are almost identical, same bookeh, same colors and almost same sharpness (70-200/2,8 II being sharper). I have both lenses , using the big one to shoot "trash the dress" sessions with my D3/D4s , and carrying all day (wedding day) D4s+70-200/4 and D810 with 24-70/2.8 and some small 1.4 primes . <br /> <strong><br />...</strong>Oh, and I almost forget : 70-200/4 have way better stabilization...</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>In my own experience, <strong>an f4 lens just will not have shallow enough DoF</strong> when shooting a wedding<strong> at some crucial moments.</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>and</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Wedding photography is no more technically challenging than photography in general,</strong> just more people issues and and work flow efficiency. <strong>An f/4 zoom lens can be used to isolate a subject effectively</strong>, as the following example illustrates.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The <em><strong>difference</strong></em> between the SHALLOWNESS of the DoF when comparing two APERTURES will become MORE as the FRAMING of the shot becomes WIDER.</p>

<p>In other terms, regarding PORTRAITURE, for a shot framed as a ‘Bust Shot’ (example of the Horn Player above) there will be relatively little <em>difference</em> in the DoF, whether one uses F/4 or F/2.8.</p>

<p>However, as the shot becomes WIDER in its FRAMING (for example a Full Length Shot of one person - or an Half Shot of a GROUP of people), the <strong><em>difference</em></strong> between the Shallow DoF of F/2.8 and F/4 will become more noticeable.</p>

<p>So, much of the discussion about <em>‘what aperture will work’</em> or <em>‘what aperture will not work’</em> for Subject Isolation, is dependent upon the typical Framing that the Wedding Photographer uses; and another major aspect is the ability to have the Subject to Background Distance much greater than the Camera to Subject Distance.</p>

<p>BUT as a general comment: it is probably it’s fair to state that many Wedding Photographers, during the course of their Wedding Coverage, <strong>will make several Full Length and ¾ Shots where Shallow DoF is required</strong> and where there is not the ability and/or the time to manoeuvre the shot such that the Background is a much greater distance from the Subject, relative to the Shooting Distance.</p>

<p>HOWEVER - If I require very shallow DoF and the framing of the shot is wide (such as a Full Length Shot of one person or an Half/Three-Quarter Shot of two or a group of people), I’d mostly always use a fast PRIME LENS rather than using my F/2.8 Zoom Lens, so I can take advantage of: F/2, F/1.8, F/1.6, F/1.4 or F/1.2 – because as already stated, F/2.8 is not really ‘fast’ when we start to discuss Prime Lenses. <a href="/photo/18031439&size=lg">(EF135F/2 @ F/2)</a></p>

<p>In regard to the OP’s question and advice for him/her, and especially if we are discussing Subject Isolation and introducing Fast Primes as part of that discussion/solution, (for example the aforementioned Nikon 200mm F/2 lens), then I think it would be helpful if the OP answered the questions that I previously posted.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[ian_gordon_bilson]

<p>At the risk of stating the bleeding obvious - why not stop down your current lens to F4 and observe the difference?</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>A full-length shot with a 200 mm lens will put you in another room, possibly another township. I should think a fast 35 mm to 90 mm prime would get that job done in spades. Remember, for the same absolute magnification (subject to image ratio) and f/stop, the DOF is the same regardless of focal length. Full length at 35 mm f/2 has the same DOF as full length at 90 mm f/2. You don't need a second mortgage for a 90/2 (or 85/1.4).</p>

<p>If you compare the DOF at f/4 v f/2.8 , you barely see the difference, even with an A/B comparison. Even that takes a little effort, disrupting the work flow, if you continually press the DOF preview. Otherwise the lens is always fully open through the viewfinder.</p>

<p>As an aside, an electronic viewfinders has a clear advantage in this regard. It defaults to live view at the selected aperture, except the viewfinder automatically compensates to keep a constant brightness (unless previewed with effects). What you see is what you get, not what you hope for. Since the AF detectors are embedded in the sensor, you never need to calibrate fussy lenses like a 50/1.2. Even manual focusing is quick and superbly accurate, compared to an optical finder.</p>

[wedding_photographer5]

<p>Who said the f4 lens is for weddings? It's not.</p>

<p>It's meant for stuff other than weddings. Or do you all carry heavy glass on hiking or to the studio while shooting at f8-11.</p>

[paul_b.1]

<p>Sorry that I try to help you..., anyway , what kind of wedding photographer are you , obviously a young one (to be kind).</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>Who said the f4 lens is for weddings? It's not.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's irrelevant. The answers to my six questions, however, are.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>The OP's subject is "Aperture f4 Lenses Indoors". Therefore, the context should be various indoor photography such as wedding, parties, concerts, studio .... However, hiking seems to be outside of the context since that is outdoor activity, at least as far as I know.</p>

<p> </p>

[clive_murray_white]

<p>The AF-S 24-85 3.5/4.5 G corrected in Lightroom was my solution with D800, I don't and won't do weddings but a regular part of my work is indoor functions in poor light conditions.<br>

It is light, small, cheap and annoyingly good.</p>