fast glass

[Overread]

true to a point - weight is noticable and can cause problems. Its a reason why many people avoid the heavier 180mm macro lenses and favour the shorter ones because they are easier to handhold - and after what I just spent the last 20 mins or so doing (chasing a bee/wasp/fly thing up a window) I am very glad that my 70mm macro is so much lighter than my 150mm macro!

 

[JerryPH]

One main disadvantage that hasn't been mentioned is the increase weight and size of faster glass.

Though very true, it is a small price to pay for the ability to get the shot that a slower lens could not ever get you. The first time I used the 70-200 at a concert, I learned fast all the ways one could hold the camera when not shooting to minimize the effect of it's weight on the arms and neck... but had I not, I would have had both a sore neck and arms becuase of it. But as an example, at that same concert, I generated hundreds of keepers whereas the guy beside me with the 70-300 F/5.6 generated about 4 keepers out of 3 times more pictures than I took overall (I took about 500 shots, he told me he had about 1500, and he sure sounded like he took 1500 shots!).

 

[250Gimp]

Everyone has different reasons for having the speed of glass they have, but in my opinion you buy fast glass so that if you need it you have it for that once in a life time shot! The fact that you may not use the max aperature all the time is not really a factor. Even your f4 or f5.6 lenses still need to be stopped down further to get their sweet spot.

 

[JerryPH]

I don't see this as a disadvantage.

Try holding a Nikon D700 and Nikkor 70-200 for a 4 hour concert, man you'd better be a gym person, becuase that left arm is going to shake, burn and get cramps and do all kinds of wierd things on you by the 3rd hour... lol

 

[Seefutlung]

Back to the OP, I shoot all my lenses wide open ... a significant amount of the time because I seem to always be shooting in low light conditions ... or I'm shoot action an require a higher shutter speed or both. As a secondary reason, I like the isolation shooting 2.8 @ 200mm (lack of DOF).

I have a 20MM f/1.8 which I shoot wide open just for the DOF.


200mm @ F/2.8

 

[Chairman7w]

Gah!!!! WTH???!!!

 

[photogincollege]

Gah!!!! WTH???!!!

It's called a different culture XD. Though I have no problem with piercings and tattoos on a woman.

 

[Seefutlung]

It's called a different culture XD. Though I have no problem with piercings and tattoos on a woman.

LOL ... I wouldn't have shot her had she looked like she your average Sacramento WalMart patron.

Gary

 

[CrimsonFoxPhotography]

<As far as "over emphasized", if you mean over rated, then no, they are not. They may be a little over priced, but the producers are going to make you pay for the best.>

I don't think that's the point. One thing that I take from the OP and what I've noticed is that the first thing people often recommend in low light situations is fast glass. But even in low light situations, you have to be mindful of shooting wide open given the narrow depth of field. f1.8 if fine for still life and macro, but does you no good if you're doing a fairly active event on the fly (e.g., people moving about, group shots, etc.). Not that one couldn't make do, just that you'd have to be prudent and creative about your approach, not simply "Oh, you've got an f1.8 so you should be golden."

So to rephrase what I heard [right or wrong] when I read the OP, "What good's having fast glass in low light if you're not going to be using it at fast apertures anyway?"

 

[Overread]

Remember that fast glass lets in its full amount of light until you press the shutter button and the aperture blades close (if your not shooting wide open of course) and that means more lights gets in to help the AF and also more light for manual focusing if the AF is not working well. That (in dim conditions) is very important since you will often be shooting with a small depth of field (even if your not shooting wide open) so you have to make sure your focus is at the right spot or else the shot is a waste

ps f1.8 for macro is definitly not a good aperture to use - macro is the other end of the scale - f13 area. f1.8 is usable but your depth of field is going to be so thin that it would take some seriously good positioning to make best use of it.

 

[JerryPH]

LOL ... I wouldn't have shot her had she looked like she your average Sacramento WalMart patron.

ROFL!
Usually they are "adorned" like this during a wedding. The piercings are real, but the tattoos are not permanent. They fade after a couple of weeks or months depending on the method used.

As far as the "other culture" comment, I've seen Americans and Canadians with real full face tattoos and piercings that would put her to shame. I bet they also shop at Walmart too... LOL

 

[GeneralBenson]

I think it's just important to have a god understanding of what YOU need. Not what other people need. I have 2.8 lenses, and I currently find myself wanted a f/4 lens. Because it fits a need I have. I do a lot of outdoor sports photography, (hiking, rock climbing, and all that stuff) and I find the f/2.8 lenses to be too heavy, big and not enough range for what I want. Pentax makes a 17-70 F/4 (28-105 equivelent) that would be perfect. Wide enough for landscapes, long enough for getting in on people, fast enough, and much smaller and lighter than my 16-50 f/2.8. Besides, outdoors, I'm usually shooting at f/5.6-f/11 anyways. So it's all about appropriate for you. They're absolutely worth it, if you need them. But f/4 lenses have a lot of benefits.

 

[Mystwalker]

honestly how often do you owners of the 70-200 f2.8 actually use it wide open? or other fast glass, im just using the 70-200 as an example. people always talk about how important fast glass is, but i rarely hear of people using them wide open, we all know it isnt sharpest there anyways.

i just sort of feel that fast glass is a little over emphasized.

I do not use my f/2.8 IS wide open that often - most of the time I even forget to turn IS back on. But if I had bought the slower f/4.0, I will not be able to go faster or have IS when I do need it. Negative of f/2.8 IS is that it's HEAVY and costs ~$1000 more then the f/4.0 non-IS.

For me, it's about getting the "best" that I can afford without having regret in future - or worse, having to sell and upgrade.

 

[JerryPH]

I was looking back at some of my flickr photostream... I would say a full 50% are at F/4 or wider.

I even have several shots at 1/8000th and F/2.8 and F/1.4 and I am liking those the best! There is something about isolating your subjects, even in bright sunlight that just makes that photo pop.

As far as low light situations, wide apertures and shallow DOF... yes, the wider the aperture, the shallower the DOF, however, those that understand bokeh and how it works know how to still use wide apertures and get some VERY decent DOF in their pics.

There are pics I can show you that the background is severely blurred at F/7.1 and pictures at F/1.4 that have a GREAT depth of field. Knowledge is power.

 

[Mitch1640]

Remember that fast glass lets in its full amount of light until you press the shutter button and the aperture blades close (if your not shooting wide open of course) and that means more lights gets in to help the AF and also more light for manual focusing if the AF is not working well.

this is an aspect i did not think of/realize. and seems to be quite important.