What does F stop have to do with lense speed

[Bryce]

I normaly never use auto focus but sometimes like when I run into a bunch of wild pigs everything is happening so fast I just barely have time to get the camera much less manual focus. One reason I don't use my DX lenses is they are to slow for me and manualy I get better pictures.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Monopods can be a good stablity aid for longer, heavier lenses without adding much weight or bulk to a setup.

Agreed.

 

[Petraio Prime]

If you get motion blur its not from not having VR - VR only counters motions made by your hands/body and the support of the camera it has no effect on blur caused by a moving subject - that is the domain of the shutter speed alone.

Typically the slowest most people can hand hold is 1/focal length of the lens - so for a 50mm lens 1/50sec for a 300mm lens 1/300sec in order to counter shake from your hands holding the setup. If you use a tripod, monopod or other support you can remove this effect (and for many lenses its advisable to turn off IS/VR when mounting to a tripod otherwise the antishake makes its own shake when there is none to counter).

If you want faster shutter speeds you really have three options:

1) Use a higher ISO - of course the penalty for this is increased noise levels in your shots. Good exposures and editing as well as a good camera body can of course greatly extend the range of ISOs that you are able to use - also the amount you can use before photos are "too bad" is based upon you're own output of the photos as well as your own standards

2) Increase the aperture (use a smaller f number) -taking the penalty of a smaller depth of field of course as a result. Also many lenses might not be their sharpest when shot wide open (at the largest aperture/smallest f number).

3) Increase the light upon the subject - either waiting for more lighting to appear (eg a different time of day/weather) or adding your own in the form of reflectors, flashes and strobes (constant light sources). Of course this is again not always possible to use as it might have its own restrictions.


A wider filter size does not always mean that you have larger front glass, the filter is a measure of the thread size and some lenses can have a deep ring around the lens before the filter is mounted. Also as said above the front element/glass size is not the only thing that determins the amount of light you have to work with because of the inner workings of the lens and the aperture setup.



As for what you are after - more depth of field with more light - as far as I know there is no lens that will give you that effect. If you want more depth you have to close down the aperture and thus that means less light for you to work with - meaning that you have to draw upon the other key areas of the setup outlined above. Don't let this discourage you from wide aperture lenses though as many of these are of a higher grade of lens - meaning that features (AF, VR, build quality) are improved and that the overall optical performance is generally superior to lesser lenses in the same range.

Much of what you said were points that I was trying to stay away from. Like raising ISO and increasing depth of field. No doubt using a bigger lense is challenging to me and I probably do need to work better on techniques with that. Small lenses are easy for me normaly.

For me this post is a reality shock. My assumptions and guesses have been proven wrong and this now changes the direction of my understanding. Refining technique after this post seems more like the problem I am having and not getting better lenses. I have been working with reptiles and flowers with macro for somtime now and that is easy. Catching things at a distance and doing more with people is somthing I would like to do next and there have been some challenges there. It sounds like many times if I don't create the perfect shot I just won't get it and I need to learn to work with what I have. Taking the information given to me in this post and making notes tells me where I need to start learning and practicing and I feel there will be some challenges here but hope I get over them and start getting some awsome shots. This post has been overwhelming with information but truly educational for me.

I work hand-held 99.99% of the time. Since I generally work with fast films (ISO 400) and know that when the sun goes down it's time to pack up, I rarely have a problem with camera shake.

 

[Bryce]

I have a nice tripod and an old crappy one. I am going to pull out the mono pod from the crappy one and try that out in the field. Also as far as auto focus somtimes it is hard to keep a wiggly snake still while I am shooting so one hand is on the camera and the other taming the snake down. Also when I am on the ground with a venomous snake I need one hand to lean on or use to push me up to get out of the way so that hand is not available for my focus ring.

 

[Petraio Prime]

I have a nice tripod and an old crappy one. I am going to pull out the mono pod from the crappy one and try that out in the field. Also as far as auto focus somtimes it is hard to keep a wiggly snake still while I am shooting so one hand is on the camera and the other taming the snake down. Also when I am on the ground with a venomous snake I need one hand to lean on or use to push me up to get out of the way so that hand is not available for my focus ring.

Refrigerate the snake for a while, to cool him down and slow his movements.

 

[Bryce]

I have a nice tripod and an old crappy one. I am going to pull out the mono pod from the crappy one and try that out in the field. Also as far as auto focus somtimes it is hard to keep a wiggly snake still while I am shooting so one hand is on the camera and the other taming the snake down. Also when I am on the ground with a venomous snake I need one hand to lean on or use to push me up to get out of the way so that hand is not available for my focus ring.

Refrigerate the snake for a while, to cool him down and slow his movements.

I can't do that in field. I have done that at home though.

 

[Overread]

Heh I've done similar one handed shots with insects and a macro lens - not sure how close or what exact setup you are using but you might find it helps if you hold your camera with our left not your right hand.

Hold your hand so that the palm is facing the front of the camera and rest the barrel of the lens in the gap between your thrumb and first finger. Your fingers then wrap around part of the lens and the side of the camera body index or first finger able to press the shutter - I have a battery grip on my camera body which helps as the corner rests into the palm of my hand. Your eye then rests against the viewfinder as the other point of stabilty aid

I find this more stable as it means that my arm is under the centre of weight of the setup rather than with my right hand where its holding it all at an angle.

 

[Derrel]

My Nikon 135mm f/2 lenses are faster than my Canon 135/2-L lens...my old friend from 1985, the 135mm f/2 Ai-S Nikkor tops out at 118 miles per hour...its new stablemate, a beat-up old 135mm f/2 AF Defocus Control is a 1992 model that was used by a pro metro dailynewspaper shooter for over a decade, and has all the crinkle finish worn off the entire left hand side of the built-in lens shade,and it tops out at 126 miles per hour on a good,flat road in top gear...but my Canon 135/2-L is a 2006 model, and has California Emission Controls that slow its top speed down to only 103 miles per hour, and that's downhill in top gear and floored, with a tailwind and only half a tank or less...

Even though all say f/2...the two Nikkors are "brighter"..and the AF Defocus Control lens seems freakishly "bright" under extreme low-light conditions...its T-stop seems to be just,well,freakishly high...

 

[Overread]

Derral raises a good point that is often not noticed - the fact that most lenses have slightly different properties to the ones they are listed and sold under. Sometimes its only a small difference from the listed whist in other cases it can be quite pronounced.
So its not surprising that some lenses that are the same - eg both f2.8 and of the same focal length, might have a slightly different actual aperture (one might be f2.7 and the other f2.9 for example). I know that the 70-200mm f2.8 IS L Canon was not quite as bright as the canon 300mm f2.8 IS L even though both are listed as f2.8 lenses.

In compasisions is can be a difference - in real world contexts its often not a major concern.

 

[Neil S.]

Neil, I learned that from the net in the past since Canon AF lens do not have the aperture ring.

- Mount the lens
- Set the aperture from the dial on the camera
- Press and hold the "Depth of field preview" button (like you said in your post)
- Gently remove the lens from the camera while holding both Depth of field and Lens release buttons.

That's it! Hope this help.

Of course .... Do this at your own risk LOL I am not responsible for any damage that may cause ... although it works for me and no harm to my cameras and lenses.

Cool Thanks!

This is good to know. :thumbup:

 

[Neil S.]

@ 300mm w/o VR will definitely be less sharp...which really just means it is slightly blurred.

300mm f/4 mounted on a D300, handheld.

It might have some slight blur issues, but I can live with them.​

Bottom line is VR is something you can live without, but you will get more good shots w/it...its no gimmick.

Ya I have to agree with this.

IS and VR are always better to have than not. There is really no downside except maybe cost.

You can always turn it off too.

Remember it allows you to use a slower shutter speed than you could without it. Clearly this is a very useful thing.

Of course you can also do without it, but why would you want to if you had a choice?

 

[Neil S.]

I have a nice tripod and an old crappy one. I am going to pull out the mono pod from the crappy one and try that out in the field. Also as far as auto focus somtimes it is hard to keep a wiggly snake still while I am shooting so one hand is on the camera and the other taming the snake down. Also when I am on the ground with a venomous snake I need one hand to lean on or use to push me up to get out of the way so that hand is not available for my focus ring.

LOL.

You are talking about wild pigs and venomous snakes....

Who are you, the Crocodile Hunter? :mrgreen:

 

[JamesMason]

Speed Simply refers tho the size of minimum aperture. Think of it as the speed that it can let light in. For example

F1.2 is a large aperture and lets lots on light in (within the time the shutters open). Fast lens

F4.5 is a smaller aperture and does not let as much light in(within the time the shutters open). Slow Lens

I think you meant maximum aperture.

Yea, i did mean !! maximum !!. Seems like they will give photographic degrees to any old idiot these days

 

[Petraio Prime]

300mm f/4 mounted on a D300, handheld.

​

It might have some slight blur issues, but I can live with them.​

Bottom line is VR is something you can live without, but you will get more good shots w/it...its no gimmick.

Ya I have to agree with this.

IS and VR are always better to have than not. There is really no downside except maybe cost.

You can always turn it off too.

Remember it allows you to use a slower shutter speed than you could without it. Clearly this is a very useful thing.

Of course you can also do without it, but why would you want to if you had a choice?

Well no, that's not true. There is some loss in optical quality with these designs.

 

[UUilliam]

think about it.

if you had to put coins in a jar (coins are the light, jar is lens and lid is aperture.)
the lid has a small hole allowing only 1 coin at a time, it will take longer to fill the jar, but if you take the lid off so its a wide hole, you will fit more coins in quicker, but the coins wont be as neat as if they were put in using the lid.


IF your subject is further away from you then f1.8 can work well to make more of it in focus, if your subject is really close, you will only get a small portion of it in focus.