It is interesting...

[jwbryson1]

that you hear not to shoot "wide open" because of DOF issues and soft focus problems, but then you'll pay $$$$$ for a lens with a max aperture of f/2.8.

Kinda like buying Ferrari and then being told not to drive over 100mph because of wind noise...

Owell.

[TPF Sponsor]

[MTVision]

that you hear not to shoot "wide open" because of DOF issues and soft focus problems, but then you'll pay $$$$$ for a lens with a max aperture of f/2.8.

Kinda like buying Ferrari and then being told not to drive over 100mph because of wind noise...

Owell.

You can shoot wide open. I do - not all the time but i do do it.
Most people starting out shouldn't shoot wide open because they miss focus and then wonder why. It doesn't work in every scenario either and can result in a not so sharp image.

F/11 will give you a shallow DOF on a 50mm lens if you are shooting a close up - like at 4 ft. You'll only have like 8" of depth of field. I guess it just depends.

[Big Mike]

that you hear not to shoot "wide open" because of DOF issues and soft focus problems

Usually a much bigger problem on cheap lenses. More expensive lenses are usually better when 'wide open'. I've heard that big, fast telephotos are designed to be very good wide open, because that's where they will be shot 90% of the time.

Also, faster lenses are still 'better' because most lenses do get better when stopped down a little from the maximum. So with an F1.4 lens, you can probably get outstanding results at F2.0....but with an F5.6 lens, you have to stop down to F8 to get that improvement.

[Overread]

that you hear not to shoot "wide open" because of DOF issues and soft focus problems, but then you'll pay $$$$$ for a lens with a max aperture of f/2.8.

Kinda like buying Ferrari and then being told not to drive over 100mph because of wind noise...

Owell.

It's more that you don't buy a Ferrari to drive at 100mph all the time every time you use it. You buy it so you "can" drive at that speed when its the right time to do so.
The same is true of these wide aperture lenses, you've bought the ability for wide aperture shooting, but that does not mean you must nor need to use it all the time. Many beginners will get addicted to shooting wide open and this results in problems with the depth of field that they get and the overall focus of their photos (in addition to the fact that many might well still be perfecting how they focus so that adds extra complications).

[sm4him]

that you hear not to shoot "wide open" because of DOF issues and soft focus problems, but then you'll pay $$$$$ for a lens with a max aperture of f/2.8.

Kinda like buying Ferrari and then being told not to drive over 100mph because of wind noise...

Owell.

It's more that you don't buy a Ferrari to drive at 100mph all the time every time you use it. You buy it so you "can" drive at that speed when its the right time to do so.
The same is true of these wide aperture lenses, you've bought the ability for wide aperture shooting, but that does not mean you must nor need to use it all the time. Many beginners will get addicted to shooting wide open and this results in problems with the depth of field that they get and the overall focus of their photos (in addition to the fact that many might well still be perfecting how they focus so that adds extra complications).

^+1
It's really not advisable to hop in that Ferrari and just start off in top speed. You really want to learn about the car first, see how it handles at normal speeds. Then if you can handle it, you try it out a little faster.
Nothing wrong with shooting wide open..but too many people grab that lens, open that baby wide open, without the first clue as to how it's really going to handle...and then they crash and burn.

[MReid]

Most "experienced, quality" professional photographers who shoot people...need the ability to shoot in low light without flash.
DOF and soft focus are not a problem because the buy the best quality and know how to use them.

Lens are tools to the experienced professional.

[analog.universe]

People don't spend thousands of dollars on f/1.2 lenses to shoot them at f/8. The blanket recommendation to not shoot wide open is lazy advice as a replacement for actually learning how to handle a shallow depth of field.

Lenses have limitations, but that doesn't mean that certain settings are off limits, just means you need to expect limitations.

[o hey tyler]

People don't spend thousands of dollars on f/1.2 lenses to shoot them at f/8. The blanket recommendation to not shoot wide open is lazy advice as a replacement for actually learning how to handle a shallow depth of field.

This

[gryphonslair99]

People don't spend thousands of dollars on f/1.2 lenses to shoot them at f/8. The blanket recommendation to not shoot wide open is lazy advice as a replacement for actually learning how to handle a shallow depth of field.

Lenses have limitations, but that doesn't mean that certain settings are off limits, just means you need to expect limitations.

Well I have spent thousands of dollars on and 85mm f1.2L and rarely shoot it at f1.2. The DOF is usually shallower than I want for the subject I am shooting. However if I shoot that same 85mm f1.2L at say f1.8 I have often increased my DOF to where I want it and I already know that it is going to be sharper at f1.8 than my 85mm f1.8 I bought for sports and action shots at f1.8.

If I need/want f1.2 I want to be able to use it. Otherwise I appreciate the range of sharpness I have not afforded to me by slower glass. Kind of like buying a car. I don't need 500 horsepower, but when I am traveling down that highway and want to go around that semi in front of me, I want to have that 500hp engine to call on instead of some 125hp 4 cylinder. Especially when I am on that two lane highway. No lazy about it.

[Derrel]

I own some fast primes and zooms...I almost never really "want to" shoot at f/2.8 or wider...I seldom shoot my 200/2 or 300/2.8 lenses wide-open, even though both are close to optimal at those apertures...I almost never, ever use my 50/1.4 or 135/2 lenses at f/2...why would I when the image quality is simply SUPERB at f/3.4 to f/4.8??? In fact, I have noticed that diffraction sets in at f/4.8 on my 70-200 on my good-light portrait body...smaller f/stops offer no improvement in sharpness.

Wide-aperture lenses do one thing better than slower lenses: they collect much more light, and that helps the AF system. They also have shallower depth of field wide-open, and that improves focusing accuracy and repeatability. Keep in mind, the newer Canon professional bodies have a system that offers what Canon calls "double precision" in focusing--but ONLY with (most, but not all!) f/2.8 or faster lenses. Slow, narrow-aperture zooms give the AF system an image that is "mostly in-focus" whenever the focusing system is anywhere near "close" to focus...that leads to sub-par AF. The fast-aperture lenses do not have that problem to nearly such a degree, not do the fast primes.

[o hey tyler]

People don't spend thousands of dollars on f/1.2 lenses to shoot them at f/8. The blanket recommendation to not shoot wide open is lazy advice as a replacement for actually learning how to handle a shallow depth of field.

Lenses have limitations, but that doesn't mean that certain settings are off limits, just means you need to expect limitations.

Well I have spent thousands of dollars on and 85mm f1.2L and rarely shoot it at f1.2. The DOF is usually shallower than I want for the subject I am shooting. However if I shoot that same 85mm f1.2L at say f1.8 I have often increased my DOF to where I want it and I already know that it is going to be sharper at f1.8 than my 85mm f1.8 I bought for sports and action shots at f1.8.

You spent thousands of dollars on the Canon 85mm f/1.2 L to not shoot it close to wide open?

That's strange. I wouldn't shell out any amount of money for an 85 f/1.2L. It's simply not worth it with the Sigma offering of the 85mm f/1.4

[jwbryson1]

A friend's dad is a full-time pro wedding photographer and he's by far the best I've ever seen. Untouchable. In his words he "always shoots wide open" on his shots.

Just one person's approach I guess.

[Derrel]

A friend's dad is a full-time pro wedding photographer and he's by far the best I've ever seen. Untouchable. In his words he "always shoots wide open" on his shots.

Just one person's approach I guess.

I would love to see his group shots...everybody in the back out of focus...but only just a little bit...

Does he always "drive at 65 MPH, everywhere"?

[Sw1tchFX]

I'm in the camp of shooting wide open..all the time.


I've never shot a picture of a person with my Mamiya 645 at anything but f/2.8.

I almost always shoot my portraits at f/1.4 if I'm shooting 35mm.

With the money i'm getting for my D700, i'm seriously considering buying an EOS 1V and a 50mm f/1.2L to keep it at f/1.2 all the time.

Wide open is interesting and beautiful. And there are many famous photographers that would agree with that.

Take Jose Villa for example, he's completely out of all of our leagues here, and charges up the a** for weddings because of what he does. Shoot 400h @ 200 with his Contax 645 at f/2 and his EOS 1V at f/1.2.

Bottom line, you just need to know what the hell you're doing.

[mishele]

<shrugs> I shoot f2.8 almost every time.