Aperture and Focal length

[table1349]

Thanks for the lesson, I understand the relationship between aperture, ISO, shutter speed, and DOF....I think you are missing what I'm asking.....




Do you think that with my equipment ( listed in my signature ) will be suitable to take some hockey pictures? I was planning on starting with these settings and working from here.....ISO 1600, 1/200

Simple answer is NO. Most sports venues are dungeons with poor light. Our eyes adjust and it doesn't seem all that bad. A camera can't make that adjustment.

Your AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 is a short focal length for Hockey unless you are lucky enough to have your face pressed up to the glass. Then you are shooting through the glass. Plexi-glass used in hockey rinks is there for protection first, to be seen through second. Not great stuff to shoot through. Secondly if you use it at the long end you will be shooting at a minimum aperture of 5.6. Unless there is something very special about the arena you will be shooting in you will be pushing the ISO to 3200 to try and get close to a decent shutter speed. For fast action sports I never shoot slower than 1/250 and prefer 1/320 to 1/500 to stop the action.

Your AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 provides you with a longer focal length but you are still going to be in the 4.5 range and probably in the 5.6 range to get close to the action. As with the other lens you will be pushing the ISO to at least 3200 and still be struggling to get a decent shutter speed. The VR on the lens is useless for sports shooting, as it will not freeze the action or allow for any faster shutter speed.

Almost all of my indoor sports shooting is done with primes. 35 f1.4L, 85 f1.8, 135 f2.0L, 200 f2.8L. I rarely use my 70-200 f2.8L at indoor sports events. I like crisp shots and almost all lenses are soft at maximum aperture. With my primes I tend to bump the aperture up by 1/3 of a stop to sharpen the photo. It also allows me to shoot in the 800 to 1250 ISO range and still keep the fast shutter speeds I prefer. Much less noise than 1600 to 3200.

Low light - fast action pretty much requires fast glass unless you are strobing the arena.

 

[Tennessee Landscape]

hey tennesse whatever..... ya wanna know, take your lens to that hocky game and shoot. Look at what you can, I mean can;t do with it inside that semi low light situation.... you are going to see lots of blurred hocky players I would bet. Not much sharp, not much clear.

OK now go rent some big glass..... and take it to the same place and see what you CAN do....... clear hocky players, more stuff in focus - greater DOF.....

You having a jr high school attitude is not going to get anyone to spend the time to explain things to you, even if you are in jr high school.

Just go do some reading on the subject, and try it out for yourself dood.

But to answer your question, even though it already has been..... epensive glass is HUGE glass wise. More materials throughout the lens = more cost. And, on these pro level lens like a $5200 nikkor AF-S 300mm f2.8 VR lens is, every piece is top quality which costs more than production consumer stuff.

You can take this 300mm 2.8 lens and shoot amazingly well with not a lot of light and still get good depth of field etc compared to your little lens.

Listen man, don't patronise me with your attitude...this is a forum where you are supposed to ask questions.....If you don't like my questions, no matter how stupid they sound to you, don't post an answer. I was simply wanting to know the why the dramatic difference in price. A 300mm lens that shoots at f/2.8 is tens time the price as my 300mm at f/4.5. I was just curious, and it led me to my next question about shooting hockey games, and it was dirrected to sandspur because he was the first to answer my question. I'm not trying to be a prick, I just want the question I asked answered, not questions I don't ask which happens way too much here..............:thumbup:

 

[Tennessee Landscape]

Simple answer is NO. Most sports venues are dungeons with poor light. Our eyes adjust and it doesn't seem all that bad. A camera can't make that adjustment.

Your AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 is a short focal length for Hockey unless you are lucky enough to have your face pressed up to the glass. Then you are shooting through the glass. Plexi-glass used in hockey rinks is there for protection first, to be seen through second. Not great stuff to shoot through. Secondly if you use it at the long end you will be shooting at a minimum aperture of 5.6. Unless there is something very special about the arena you will be shooting in you will be pushing the ISO to 3200 to try and get close to a decent shutter speed. For fast action sports I never shoot slower than 1/250 and prefer 1/320 to 1/500 to stop the action.

Your AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 provides you with a longer focal length but you are still going to be in the 4.5 range and probably in the 5.6 range to get close to the action. As with the other lens you will be pushing the ISO to at least 3200 and still be struggling to get a decent shutter speed. The VR on the lens is useless for sports shooting, as it will not freeze the action or allow for any faster shutter speed.

Almost all of my sports shooting is done with primes. 35 f1.4L, 85 f1.8, 135 f2.0L, 200 f2.8L. I rarely use my 70-200 f2.8L at indoor sports events. I like crisp shots and almost all lenses are soft at maximum aperture. With my primes I tend to bump the aperture up by 1/3 of a stop to sharpen the photo. It also allows me to shoot in the 800 to 1250 ISO range and still keep the fast shutter speeds I prefer. Much less noise than 1600 to 3200.

Low light - fast action pretty much requires fast glass unless you are strobing the arena.

Thank you for your input..........

 

[AlexParlett]

The main reason in that Large Aperture lenses are more expensive is mainly due to the construction that enables them to keep that fixed aperture at any focal length.

The vari-aperture lenses, depending on the focal length, only use a certain amount of glass. Whereas an f2.8 equivilant of that lens will use a significant amount more of glass and different types of glass, this of course causes manufacturers to drive the price of the fixed aperture lenses up compared to the non-static ones.

For example, sigma 70-300 f4.5-5.6 has 14 elements in 10 groups and a maximum magnification of 1:4.1, whereas a 70-200 f2.8 (they dont make exact corresponding lenses) uses ELD and SLD glass with 18 elements in 15 groups with a max magni of 1:3.5, also being a faster lens they are going to charge you more for the improved specs.

 

[Tennessee Landscape]

For example, sigma 70-300 f4.5-5.6 has 14 elements in 10 groups and a maximum magnification of 1:4.1, whereas a 70-200 f2.8 (they dont make exact corresponding lenses) uses ELD and SLD glass with 18 elements in 15 groups with a max magni of 1:3.5, also being a faster lens they are going to charge you more for the improved specs.

What do they mean by a faster lens?

 

[AlexParlett]

*shrugs* figure of speech ive got used to, its a faster lens because with the larger apertures you can take photos at a faster shutter speed due to more light being available to the sensor.

 

[Tennessee Landscape]

*shrugs* figure of speech ive got used to, its a faster lens because with the larger apertures you can take photos at a faster shutter speed due to more light being available to the sensor.

Oh okay, makes sense.....thanks for the help

 

[usayit]

The answer is that it's a lot more difficult - and expensive! - to craft a lens that large, and all the internal elements as well.

Ding ding.. what he said. I think overall build just comes with the territory when trying to sell a lens that is more expensive than the next. most of the cost is in optics and the complex design. It is exponential... the faster the aperture the more difficult it is to deliver.. much less deliver with control over IQ issues associated with faster apertures.

The Leica 50mm f1 noctilux alone costs $5000.. oops.. make that $6000 USD thanks to the falling dollar.

 

[adolan20]

The answer is that it's a lot more difficult - and expensive! - to craft a lens that large, and all the internal elements as well.

Yeah and since Nikon/Canon isn't Unicef, they're going to charge you more for any extra work they have to do