Do I need a faster lens?

[tecboy]

Do I seriously need a faster lens to get shallower dof in order to improve my photography. I don't feel like to spend anymore money on lenses that I already have.

 

[Derrel]

What have you got? Kit zoom type lenses, 18-55 f/3.5~5.6 for example, have very deep DOF at most normal working distances on "regular" subjects. Sure, one can do a close-up photo of something small, at two and a half feet, and blow out the background...but at 10,12,15 feet, the DOF is relatively deep.

I dunno...DOF is shallowest with FF sensors and fast apertures, at close distances, but still, even at say f/6.3 at 4 meters, you can throw a background out of focus with a lower cost zoom, like the 70-300 f/4.5~5.6 Nikon. There is a strange balancing act between camera to subject distance, focal length, f/stop, and camera format size; depth of field starts out shallow, then grows, and then as the focus distance begins to get closer to the hyperfocal distance, depth of field increases at an explosive rate. So...the depth of field issue is different for say, close-range people and group shot work, and say, baseball or soccer work, where the distances are 20,30,40,50 meters camera-to-subject.

If you want SHALLOWER depth of field, the easiest way to get it is to buy the cheapest full-frame body you can get, Canon 6D or used 5D classic for $550, and use simple, cheap primes: Canon 35/2, Canon 50 1.8 or 1.4, Canon 85/1.8; a used 5D Classic and a 50/1.8 costs a LOT LESS than a fast, yet "slow" f/2.8 zoom lens costs. The reason is mostly because of the camera-to-subject distances that the full-frame sensor allows you to shoot at with "common" lenses, like the 35/2 and 50/1.8; with the APS-C body, you can use the 85mm f/1.8 at 20 feet exactly on a 5D to shoot two people standing, head to toe, portrait orientation. With a 70D, you need to move back to 35 feet, to get the same picture height with the same 85mm lens. Annnnnd, with the camera-to-subject distance being 35 feet, the DOF behind the subject is noticeably deeper.

DOF is easy to quantify using on-line DOF calculators, but the visual,emotional, and brain-appeal is not so easy to describe. The human brain has the ability to decode fuzzy objects, to recognize objects, to an amazing degree. There is a reason that many fashion photographers like medium format cameras, and exotic lenses like the 300/2.8, 200/2, 135/2, and 85/1.2 and FF format d-slr cameras.

 

[soufiej]

Do I seriously need a faster lens to get shallower dof in order to improve my photography. I don't feel like to spend anymore money on lenses that I already have.

You are "The Joker!"? So, your question is a joke?

Your Flickr page certainly doesn't indicate any great desire for a shallow dof. Therefore, no, you don't need to change anything. Keep on doing what you've been doing ... if that's what makes you happy.

However, if you care to have a different appearance to your photos, then you need to change something. If you care to be inside rather than outside the mainstream of photography, then you need to change something. If you prefer to have your photos appear to be more than you simply know which end of the camera gets pointed towards you, then you probably want to change something. But there are no photography police who will take you away if you change nothing. So, once again, no, you do not NEED to change anything.

"Creative" photography is that which takes place with the mode selector off full Auto. Doesn't mean you can't take "interesting" photos with the camera on full auto. It means you stand a lesser chance of the camera setting itself up in full auto for a shot that doesn't look like a few thousand other photos taken on full auto. Anarchy exists outside the full auto modes. Where do you want your photos to exist?

Any article/book/discussion/idle thinking/barroom debate will give you the idea of how to achieve dof and what various aperture settings (a faster lens for instance) can do to achieve dof. Most student photographers screw up dof. Those folks in control of their camera control dof. To do the latter, you'll need to know a bit about the exposure triangle and how each leg of the triangle depends on the position of the other two. The fascinating thing about a plane defined by three points though is it will always level itself. Give it a try, see for yourself.

There are several factors which control dof. Any search for "dof and how to control it" will provide you those factors. I doubt you'll see "faster lens" in any of those responses. Learning the individual factors and how to manipulate each will allow you to better be in control of your camera and, therefore, the dof it captures. While "the easiest way" to to achieve shallow dof is to buy a full frame camera, that is certainly not the least expensive way. But sensor size and "crop factor" are a part of dof and the ability of any one camera/lens system to obtain greater or lesser values of dof. But google "tony britton smugmug" and look at the dof achieved by a camera with the smallest sensor available. Britton's camera has a very limited aperture range plus a tiny sensor. His images look nothing like your images. Not just the look of his images but "the look" of his images. Britton has control of his camera and posts those images which display his control of his camera and subject. His camera can zoom between wide angle and extremely long focal lengths which also assists his work. So you could say Britton has taken three of the most significant factors in controlling the dof of an image and he has learned to control them to his benefit. "Benefit" is a subjective term and maybe you have no interest in having your photos appear at all like Britton's. Two sentence questions don't tell us much about what you actually want or where you would say you have "improved" your photography.

However, if you're tired of your photos looking as they do, then, yes, you need to learn to control dof - at the very least. I'd say, if you want someone to spend more than a micro-second going from one of your shots to the next of your shots, then you need to do something different - at the very least. Whether you want that to be an interesting image due to dof, I don't know. Like a full frame camera though, a faster lens isn't always the least expensive or even the easiest way to "improve" your photography. Easier? Yep, sort of. If you've done the rest of the work involved. Cheaper? No, though it doesn't have to be all that expensive either.

A camera and a lens are simply tools. If you have no idea how to control the tool, you'll get lousy results no matter. That sort of means you'll have to learn first how to think about your image. If you don't want to learn, if you don't want to think, if you don't want to "see" your image before you snap the shutter, then nothing else matters. Without thought, your photos will continue to look the same even if you have a shallow dof. No one value makes an interesting photograph. Assuming, that is, you want your photos to be interesting. Some anarchists don't. They do the same thing over and over and believe they can wait out the rest of the world until it comes around to their way of thinking. Ever hear of Antonin Bertaraud? I didn't think so. He was a "waiter". The world never came around for him.

You figure out how you want to improve your photography and then you figure out how to to improve your photography. If you want to have shallow dof, you can take a look at what someone like Britton does and then backwards engineer the image to figure out what to actually do with your own photography. Doesn't need money, it does need thought.

Fair enough?

 

[astroNikon]

Do you have a large aperture lens?
Like a cheap nifty-fifty 50mm f/1.8 just to test this ?

a f/2.8 etc lens just makes it a lot easier to blow out the background, then you learn how to control it better with other lenses (at least that's how I learned how to control it better). Learning by having one of those lenses just brings it to the forefront a lot quicker and easier rather than questioning and speculating.

here's a simple example of a crop camera and 50/f1.8 lens at mid and extremes aperture ==> Struggling with Focus Page 2 Photography Forum

 

[tecboy]

I'm looking into the Sigma Lens. Here are the images that I think that need shallower dof. 2nd round at Sunday Friends Photography Forum

If I use prime lens, the problem is, I have to stand far away back to compose the image. I can't do that in the public area especially that crowded.

 

[astroNikon]

someone may have a better idea, but if you get a zoom lens with f/2.8-4.0
you should hopefully be able to achieve the proper DOF for focusing the entire person) and get close/far enough and save some money over a full f/2.8 lens

 

[astroNikon]

I did a quick search ... remember, I know not much about Canon

Canon EF 28-80mm f2.8-4 L
and Sigma/Tamron probably have options too

the f/2.8 lenses would be best but more expensive.
the f/2.8-4.0 would provide you lower cost and the DOF you probably need anyways

 

[astroNikon]

Just remember, the closer more WideAngle photo you take the more distortion you can introduce. ==> http://nofilmschool.com/sites/defau..._e4315eb25d608da3dcf848172e4f2928-616x346.jpg

Using Wide Angle Lens Distortion Creatively - Digital Photography School

But you'll have more control over what you want to do.
you'll just have to learn how to use it.

 

[astroNikon]

I'm looking into the Sigma Lens. Here are the images that I think that need shallower dof. 2nd round at Sunday Friends Photography Forum

If I use prime lens, the problem is, I have to stand far away back to compose the image. I can't do that in the public area especially that crowded.

I didn't see that link .. but yeah that Sigma looks like it would be good to have and save some cash over a f/2.8 zoom especially used.

I used to do primes but I just liked the convenience of a nice zoom. I have a 24-85/2.8-4.0 zoom too that is my main go-to lens but on a Nikon.

 

[Designer]

Do I seriously need a faster lens to get shallower dof in order to improve my photography.

A faster lens may assure you of a shallow DOF, but there are other factors involved as well. Go to the DOF master site and start plugging in some numbers. You already know your camera and existing lenses, so start there.

How shallow do you want your DOF? If you already know what DOF you want, and the distances, you can plug those values in too, and that will start showing you what aperture you need.

 

[Dave442]

Another option for the sample shots you linked to, other than your desire for less DOF, is to use a flash with a fast shutter speed to darken the backgrounds a bit so the subjects are more of the main focus. If you start shooting at f/2 you will often find that with two or three people in the shot that all are not in sharp focus, that can be a problem if you are running around trying to document the event.

At something like your Sunday Friends I might try to first get shots of the people doing things that they want to see of themselves and their friends. Then I'd go to a fast prime and try for some shots I like, but I may like only one out of ten of those shots.

 

[runnah]

Maybe.

 

[soufiej]

I'm looking into the Sigma Lens. Here are the images that I think that need shallower dof. 2nd round at Sunday Friends Photography Forum

If I use prime lens, the problem is, I have to stand far away back to compose the image. I can't do that in the public area especially that crowded.

Depends on the lens, your imagination and your post processing software. Crop the image and save money with a prime. Most zooms aren't great at their extremes anyway.

 

[TCampbell]

Of my lenses, the two that I like for portraits are my 70-200 f/2.8 and my 135 f/2. At wide angles, you don't get much DoF anyway. While I could take a photo using a shorter low focal ratio lens (like my 24-70 f/2.8) I'll get a result I like much more if I step back a bit from the subject and use a longer lens.

 

[petrochemist]

Shallow DOF is the current trend, but shallower DOF will not necessarily improve your photography, used properly it might & either way it migt be what you want - potentially a very different thing.

There are factors other than apperture that effect DOF, focal length distance to subject & sensor size. Using these can give you other options.

If I use prime lens, the problem is, I have to stand far away back to compose the image. I can't do that in the public area especially that crowded.

That depends on the prime lens. There are prime lenses that let you get in more than any zoom. I don't know of zoom lenses that go beyond 180° diagonally but there are primes that will. I doubt either will be right for you, but a less extreme prime might. If getting back far enough is a problem a fast wide angle lens might be what your after.

A completely different approach could be a lens on the lines of the lensbaby with an adjustable sharp zone & progressive bluring away from that.