Lens Hype, What is really a good lens?

[Overread]

Actually its more that humans in general are very believing in the first bit of information we receive regarding something. Thus it takes considerable effort to change our viewpoint away from that first impression.



However there are indeed people who are very hard to move on subjects; part of it is because most people don't study photography; they pick up bits here and there online and in chat and through their own experiences. Cobbled together understanding often leaves huge gaps (esp in theory) which lets any number of wrong ideas slip into place - sometimes (many timeS) they are simply simplifications from teaching theory without the remainder of the theory applied; so they kind of make sense but don't if you actually know what is really going on.

 

[thereyougo!]

Ok, so the very first thing I learned about bokeh. You never want to post anything about it to TPF. If you do you'll wind up in a hypertechnical discussion with dozens of posters attempting to one up each other to display their vast technical knowledge. There will corrections posted correcting corrections and it dissolves quickly into a complete cluster.

So, the first rule about bokeh? Don't talk about bokeh.

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk

yeah people are always trying to flex there vast technical knowledge, they think they are some sort of legend in there own time, more like Legend in there own mind lol..


i've posted proof to correct there inaccurate reply but they will just turn around and say something to defend it, like yeah they are many people wrong like you lol that was so funny. it's fun to watch some one in desperation fumble with a totally stupid remark,, lol

How ever any one with an IQ over 60 can determine reality vs ego fantasy lol

No, you have quoted another opinion that's not the same thing as proof.

When I use a FF camera to meter a scene and then use my medium format camera to meter the scene, the exposure will be pretty much the same. The only difference being the RGB exposure processor each camera has, provided you are using the same reference point to meter from.

Edited to Add:

What's really sticking at me is that you have posted this erroneous post in the beginner's section. I don't think it's the section to have an entrenched position on something as controversial as bokeh. You come over as if you are trying to educate the beginners yet when faced with criticism you call those that level the criticism at you as liars.

That's how to educate beginners? Not very helpful. Perhaps this thread should be moved to photographic discussions as I don't think it belongs here in beginners. Two reasons: it's too technical, and secondly it's so full of inaccuracies and argumentativeness that it won't help any beginner.

 

[goodguy]

Why do I love my constant f2.8 lenses ?

First let me tell you I mostly shoot them wide open at f2.8

1.I get to shoot wide open thus my ISO is lower, thus my image is cleaner
2.At f2.8 these lenses are already very sharp
3.I shoot open to get blurry background, yes if you can get closer then that's great but what if you cant ?

Slower lenses can be very good in some condition, fast lenses offer you flexibility you cant get with slow lenses.
Looking at one fact is a lens is nice for theoretical debate, what you really need to do is look at all the pro's and con's of a lens and decide if its the tool for you are not.

 

[astroNikon]

I use f/2.8 to isolate my subjects from the background.
The Bokeh, then dependent upon the lens, may be nice and smooth or maybe jagged. This is more lens dependent and requires a thread on it's own.

What exact lens are we talking about .. the Nikon 70-200/2.8? which version of it ?

 

[robbins.photo]

Ok, have a feeling I'll probably regret this, but here goes. So as GG points out, one of the big reasons for buying a faster lens is flexibility. I use a Sigma 70-200mm F/2.8 myself, and so far at least even though it is an older model without the OS features I get results that I consider to be very satisfactory.

My reason for buying such a lens is, like GG says, flexibility. On it's own the lens allows me to shoot out to 200mm at 2.8, and if I need more DOF I can always stop down the lens. Even handheld it is possible to get very good, sharp pictures at 2.8 as long as you understand how your DOF will affect the final outcome.

This shot, for example, was taken wide open at 2.8. It still appears sharp because the subject is mostly perpendicular to the camera's point of focus, so a shot like this really doesn't require a deeper DOF:

20160703_2547 by Todd Robbins, on Flickr

Now if I wanted to I could stop down the lens but in this case I'm shooting at ISO 6400 because of a lack of good lighting. So my other option would be to drop my shutter speed, but at 1/200 on a non-OS lens then I might start introducing camera shake or motion blur if the critter decides to move. So by shooting at 2.8 I maximize my potential for getting a nice, sharp shot even in bad lighting conditions.

So we move on to sample 2, and another reason why a 2.8 telephoto can be so darn flexible. In this case I'm a good distance away from a small, fast moving subject. So I add in a 2x teleconverter, and my 200 mm lens now becomes a 400 mm lens.

20160717_4592 by Todd Robbins, on Flickr

The TC costs me 2 F-stops, so my 2.8 now becomes a 5.6, but that still allows me to have enough light to maintain autofocus on the camera. I couldn't do that if my lens were a 5.6 to start with. So now I'm shooting at 400mm, ISO 1100. I could open the lens a bit but instead I decided to stop it down, I've got a big, flat fluffy target and I'd like a little more DOF - and since I have enough available light I decide to stop down to 7.1. I've got a nice fast shutter speed of 1/800 so I don't have to worry if Mr. Squirrel suddenly darts off one direction or another:

I carry both a 1.4x and 2x TC with me, so my 70-200 mm can be a 280mm F4, or a 400mm F5.6 just by adding one of the two TC's. This makes it incredibly flexible and gives me a ton of options without forcing me to carry a lot of different lenses.

So yes, if I want more separation between my subject and the background one of my options is to open the aperture, but it's not my only option. I can also change my distance to the subject, or when possible (and for what I shoot it's almost never possible) change the distance between the subject and the background.

But truthfully for me and a lot of other folks that separation is not the real reason to buy fast, 2.8 lenses. It's the flexibility they provide in a variety of shooting situations.

 

[astroNikon]

Ok, have a feeling I'll probably regret this, but here goes. So as GG points out, one of the big reasons for buying a faster lens is flexibility. I use a Sigma 70-200mm F/2.8 myself, and so far at least even though it is an older model without the OS features I get results that I consider to be very satisfactory.

My reason for buying such a lens is, like GG says, flexibility. On it's own the lens allows me to shoot out to 200mm at 2.8, and if I need more DOF I can always stop down the lens. Even handheld it is possible to get very good, sharp pictures at 2.8 as long as you understand how your DOF will affect the final outcome.

This shot, for example, was taken wide open at 2.8. It still appears sharp because the subject is mostly perpendicular to the camera's point of focus, so a shot like this really doesn't require a deeper DOF:

20160703_2547 by Todd Robbins, on Flickr

Now if I wanted to I could stop down the lens but in this case I'm shooting at ISO 6400 because of a lack of good lighting. So my other option would be to drop my shutter speed, but at 1/200 on a non-OS lens then I might start introducing camera shake or motion blur if the critter decides to move. So by shooting at 2.8 I maximize my potential for getting a nice, sharp shot even in bad lighting conditions.

So we move on to sample 2, and another reason why a 2.8 telephoto can be so darn flexible. In this case I'm a good distance away from a small, fast moving subject. So I add in a 2x teleconverter, and my 200 mm lens now becomes a 400 mm lens.

20160717_4592 by Todd Robbins, on Flickr

The TC costs me 2 F-stops, so my 2.8 now becomes a 5.6, but that still allows me to have enough light to maintain autofocus on the camera. I couldn't do that if my lens were a 5.6 to start with. So now I'm shooting at 400mm, ISO 1100. I could open the lens a bit but instead I decided to stop it down, I've got a big, flat fluffy target and I'd like a little more DOF - and since I have enough available light I decide to stop down to 7.1. I've got a nice fast shutter speed of 1/800 so I don't have to worry if Mr. Squirrel suddenly darts off one direction or another:

I carry both a 1.4x and 2x TC with me, so my 70-200 mm can be a 280mm F4, or a 400mm F5.6 just by adding one of the two TC's. This makes it incredibly flexible and gives me a ton of options without forcing me to carry a lot of different lenses.

So yes, if I want more separation between my subject and the background one of my options is to open the aperture, but it's not my only option. I can also change my distance to the subject, or when possible (and for what I shoot it's almost never possible) change the distance between the subject and the background.

But truthfully for me and a lot of other folks that separation is not the real reason to buy fast, 2.8 lenses. It's the flexibility they provide in a variety of shooting situations.

Definitely,
The increased flexibility of a modern FF sensor and f/2.8 or faster lens in anything but optimum lighting is utterly fantastic as you found out. When I had my d7000 (which was the top of the low light APS-C camp at the time) compared to my d600 wasn't really comparable. I was sold at that point.

Many will use f/1.8 or f/2.8 simply because they have it and not understand why they would use it. Once you understand the flexibility that you have it's just pure awesomeness

 

[Overread]

Tell you what people - how about we treat this thread and those in it with some respect. Lets accept that some people might be wrong and seek to educate them through approved sources, detailed replies and conversation.

If you want to act childish go down to off-topic.

 

[robbins.photo]

It's a fairly complex topic that includes a lot of variables, making it difficult to discuss. I don't think it helps matters that there are several terms that are commonly misunderstood involved, like bokeh.

I guess the thing I notice is that so many folks out there try so hard to "equate" a crop sensor camera to a full frame camera, and that's where a lot of the confusion seems to start occurring because in truth you really can't equate the two.

I see so many folks saying things like a "35mm lens on a 1.5 crop sensor is the same as an 50mm lens on full frame" but that isn't really true. They will both give you roughly the same FOV, but that's pretty much where the "equivalence" ends. They are different lenses, so they have different characteristics that will all have an effect on the final outcome. You can't really "equate" the two - just like you can't really equate a 50mm D model lens to a 50mm G model - there are differences in their design and construction that will cause variations in the final output.

Start adding in "equivalent F-Stop" and you get an extremely confusing morass that turns into a Gordian knot situation almost instantly.

So yup, I stick with my original assessment. The first rule of Bokeh, don't talk about Bokeh.

 

[astroNikon]

There is any interesting phenomenon that, once certain kinds of people commit to a certain stance, then facts that show the opposite just make their commitment stronger.

You're wrong about that.
And I am sure of it and there's nothing you can say to change my mind !!

 

[unpopular]

As I've said before, Bokeh is largely a myth. There are, indeed, different lens designs that affect how OOF portions are rendered, but the assertion that one lens design does it "better" than any other isn't true. I have seen lenses that when looking at the "bokeh balls" or whatever the technical term might be for them, they have all the hallmarks of "bad" bokeh.

The rendering of OOF regions is the sum of very complex parts, of which aesthetics is of many; Frequently what many may hail as "creamy" i personally see as "mushy".

 

[robbins.photo]

You're wrong about that.
And I am sure of it and there's nothing you can say to change my mind !!

Well of course I'm wrong about that.. but you really missed out on a golden opportunity to tell me how ugly I am and how my mom dresses me so funny.

Lol

 

[robbins.photo]

As I've said before, Bokeh is largely a myth.

Kinda like the loch ness bigfoot?

I have seen lenses that when looking at the "bokeh balls" or whatever the technical term might be for them, they have all the hallmarks of "bad" bokeh.

Hey, my eyes are up here buddy... sheesh...

 

[chuasam]

I love my 70-200 f/2.8 but i'm starting to use it less and less and favour my 85mm F/1.8
I find that the smaller my camera/lens combo is, the more playful and spontaneous my images.

 

[robbins.photo]

I love my 70-200 f/2.8 but i'm starting to use it less and less and favour my 85mm F/1.8
I find that the smaller my camera/lens combo is, the more playful and spontaneous my images.

I guess a lot depends on what you shoot and where. I had an 85mm for a while but ended up selling it.

I needed more reach in a lot of places, but that wasn't so much it.. the CA at least on the one I had was horrible. I mostly used it indoors at the zoo, and the only way to prevent the CA from being overwhelming was to stop down the lens to the point where I might as well be using a slower lens. So, sold mine.

Get a ton of use out of the 70-200, I can throw it on the camera and take a couple of tcs along and it covers about 95% of what I need. Only really need shorter than 70 in a couple of places, so I can always head back to the car and swap for the 28-75 at that point. Works pretty well for me at least

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk

 

[thereyougo!]

I think the one point I agree with the OP on is that bokeh does tend to be a fad. It's overused by gear-heads to show off their f/1.4 lenses and showing how awesome they are shooting wide open even if the shot is poorly composed and poorly exposed.

"I shot this wide open. Woah, man, look at that bokeh! I'm an awesome photographer!"

At the end of the day it can be used as a composition device when used correctly, but shooting wide open just to get a bokeh is as cliche as a red sun over an ocean, except less perrrty.

All this is opinion of course, not fact, YMMV and all that...