Lens vs body

[SnappingShark]

OK, one more question!

Let's say I have a 24-70 f4

I am tempted to upgrade to a 2.8 BUT a newer camera is available that will give me 2.5 EV - which seems like it would negate the need for the 1 extra stop of light from the lens?

Maybe I'm in correct - but just trying to judge whether to upgrade the camera for all around greatness or the lens for that 1 extra stop - I do shoot in darker conditions.

 

[dxqcanada]

Hmm, so you can get one lens that will give you a wider aperture .... or get a camera that will give all your lenses a benefit ... but usually it is more complicated than that. If the IQ of the existing lens is better than the new one ... body upgrade would seem better ... then there is the cost differences ... hmmm.
Personally for my camera (Sony A77m2) ... upgrade in lens outweighs the body ... but you may not have the same camera as I ... so my comments may be moot.

 

[ac12]

That sounds like what I ran into in school.
We had the Canon T5i, max ISO = 6400.
Rather than get more T5i, I decided to get the Canon T7i, which had a max ISO of 25600. 2 stops better.
The T7i was a much better camera for LOW light sports (night field and gym), than the T5i.

However, this only goes so far.
If you are in a really dim location, you simply need a faster lens, on top of a camera with a high max ISO.
That i what happened to me. I normally shoot a 70-200/4 at my high school stadium. But at another school, their stadium was so much dimmer than mine, that I struggled. I NEEDED a f/2.8 lens. I won't be going back to that school to shoot a night game.

 

[Strodav]

I enjoy street photography, especially at or after the blue hour, where a fast lens makes the difference between a decent shot and not getting the shot. I am a big believer in the trinity, but I added some fast primes. You might want to consider keeping your 24-70 f/4, but adding a 35mm or 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4. I've picked up some great used glass for a lot less than a new body or 24-70mm f/2.8.

Another thought is what noise reduction software are you using? The noise reduction from both Topaz (DeNoise AI) and Adobe in Lrc are getting better and better with every release and can save even underexposed images I use to put in the Recycle Bin. So, you can get great results even with f/4 glass on a less than new body. Software is less expensive than glass and bodies.

 

[AlanKlein]

Of course, there's also the heavier weight of more glass to carry.

 

[dxqcanada]

... also, depending on your camera sensor, you can under expose and still get a good image ... ISO Invariance Explained

 

[JoeW]

First, the most accurate answer to your question is by answering this question: what are you shooting and might potentially shoot in the future?

You see, yes, you can use exposure compensation to get more light. But in my experience, except for things like landscapes and shooting interiors, that usually isn't why I want a lens that is f2.8. Usually I'm looking for SPEED. For instance, if you're shoot sports or wildlife, the faster your glass the better. Exposure compensation isn't the answer for those situations.

Additionally, my default approach to most photography is Aperture mode. I love me some bokeh. So having a lens that goes f1.8 or f2.0 or f2.8 is useful not because of speed but for portraits or focus on a specific subject, that aperture will allow me to create great foreground and background blur so your eye goes to the subject. Yes, I know, software can create some of that. i'd prefer to get as much of it in camera as I can.

Now, if you're not shooting portraits (where bokeh matters), or sports/wildlife (where speed with your glass matters), and you shoot a lot of landscapes or interiors or stationary objects, then exposure compensation is probably more important than aperture.

The quick summary: some people will say "get the lens" and others will say "get the body" and they could all be right--depending upon what the subject is. Figure out what you're shooting and that will tell you which way to go.

 

[AlanKlein]

First, the most accurate answer to your question is by answering this question: what are you shooting and might potentially shoot in the future?

You see, yes, you can use exposure compensation to get more light. But in my experience, except for things like landscapes and shooting interiors, that usually isn't why I want a lens that is f2.8. Usually I'm looking for SPEED. For instance, if you're shoot sports or wildlife, the faster your glass the better. Exposure compensation isn't the answer for those situations.

Additionally, my default approach to most photography is Aperture mode. I love me some bokeh. So having a lens that goes f1.8 or f2.0 or f2.8 is useful not because of speed but for portraits or focus on a specific subject, that aperture will allow me to create great foreground and background blur so your eye goes to the subject. Yes, I know, software can create some of that. i'd prefer to get as much of it in camera as I can.

Now, if you're not shooting portraits (where bokeh matters), or sports/wildlife (where speed with your glass matters), and you shoot a lot of landscapes or interiors or stationary objects, then exposure compensation is probably more important than aperture.

The quick summary: some people will say "get the lens" and others will say "get the body" and they could all be right--depending upon what the subject is. Figure out what you're shooting and that will tell you which way to go.

Those are excellent points. Another one is that wider apertures just decrease DOF. Many people overdo it especially with portraits of people and have too narrow DOF.

For example, shooting a headshot with a 35mm camera and 105mm lens at 6 feet gives the following DOFs:
f/16 10"
f/4 2.6"
f/1.8 1.18"
f/1.4 .9"

with a 50mm lens at 6 feet:
f/16 4.5'
f/4 12"
f/1.8 5.4"
f/1.4 4.2"

You couldn't get the full head in DOF with f1/4 or f/1.8 with 50mm lens and it's worse using a portrait telephoto lens like the 105mm.

 

[JoeW]

Those are excellent points. Another one is that wider apertures just decrease DOF. Many people overdo it especially with portraits of people and have too narrow DOF.

For example, shooting a headshot with a 35mm camera and 105mm lens at 6 feet gives the following DOFs:
f/16 10"
f/4 2.6"
f/1.8 1.18"
f/1.4 .9"

with a 50mm lens at 6 feet:
f/16 4.5'
f/4 12"
f/1.8 5.4"
f/1.4 4.2"

You couldn't get the full head in DOF with f1/4 or f/1.8 with 50mm lens and it's worse using a portrait telephoto lens like the 105mm.

Wait--you mean when I shoot a portrait, I need to have more than then the nose in-focus? But, but, but.... (walks away, head in hands, at this powerful new insight).

 

[ac12]

Those are excellent points. Another one is that wider apertures just decrease DOF. Many people overdo it especially with portraits of people and have too narrow DOF.

For example, shooting a headshot with a 35mm camera and 105mm lens at 6 feet gives the following DOFs:
f/16 10"
f/4 2.6"
f/1.8 1.18"
f/1.4 .9"

with a 50mm lens at 6 feet:
f/16 4.5'
f/4 12"
f/1.8 5.4"
f/1.4 4.2"

You couldn't get the full head in DOF with f1/4 or f/1.8 with 50mm lens and it's worse using a portrait telephoto lens like the 105mm.

And the 105 was the standard portrait lens way back in the film days.

 

[greybeard]

What will the f/2.8 lens do that the f/4 won't? 1) shallower DOF at f/2.8 and 2) 1 stop more low light performance. Assuming all other specs are equal.