# Some Fuji Superia 1600 shots



## iamacyborg (Nov 24, 2010)

Some stuff I shot last weekend.


----------



## Light Artisan (Nov 24, 2010)

I see snapshots, but I like the colors in the second one.


----------



## iamacyborg (Nov 24, 2010)

They weren't snapshots!
More seriously, I was trying to emphasise the grain, and the composition and lighting were taken into consideration when taking the shots.
Just wish I could have a faster 24mm prime. My f2.8 Nikkor has no real DoF.


----------



## compur (Nov 24, 2010)

iamacyborg said:


> Just wish I could have a faster 24mm prime. My f2.8 Nikkor has no real DoF.



I think you have a misunderstanding about DoF.  A faster lens won't increase
it and a 24/2.8 has plenty of it if used properly for that purpose.


----------



## iamacyborg (Nov 24, 2010)

compur said:


> I think you have a misunderstanding about DoF.  A faster lens won't increase
> it and a 24/2.8 has plenty of it if used properly for that purpose.



Faster, as in, a 24mm f1.4 lens. Maybe I've been thinking the wrong way, but when one talks about faster lenses, isn't that generally just talking about the f-stop? 

I'm pretty sure I know what I'm talking about when it comes to depth of field.


----------



## compur (Nov 24, 2010)

A faster lens won't give you more depth of field.

Increasing DoF on a particular lens is done by either stopping the lens 
down (using a larger "f/stop number" aka a smaller aperture) and/or by 
focusing to a point further from the lens.

A faster lens will allow you to shoot at a wider aperture (smaller "f/stop 
number") which would _lessen_ its DoF, not increase it.

In short, if you want more DoF from your 24mm lens, stop it down further, 
i.e. use a smaller aperture or "larger f/stop number." For example, shoot
at 5.6, 8, 11, 16, etc.

A 24mm lens on a film camera shot at f/16 would give you a DoF of 
roughly 2.5 feet to infinity if focused properly.


----------



## iamacyborg (Nov 24, 2010)

Sorry, my bad, I didn't explain what I meant well enough. 
By increase DoF, I meant tighten it, hence talking about 24/1.4.


----------



## compur (Nov 24, 2010)

So, you want _less_ depth of field then?


----------



## iamacyborg (Nov 24, 2010)

compur said:


> So, you want _less_ depth of field then?



Yes indeedy. I always get my semantics missed up


----------



## Buckster (Nov 24, 2010)

iamacyborg said:


> compur said:
> 
> 
> > So, you want _less_ depth of field then?
> ...


So, what f stop were these shot with?


----------



## iamacyborg (Nov 24, 2010)

Buckster said:


> So, what f stop were these shot with?



These were all f8. I took some shots at f2.8 that I've not uploaded anywhere. The DoF is just too wide on them. I could upload them if you want to see, but don't expect anything great 

Unfortunately, I've only got my 24/2.8 at the moment, other lenses are a few hours train ride away


----------



## Buckster (Nov 24, 2010)

When it comes to landscapes (subject relatively far away) and a wide lens like a 24mm, I don't think you're going to see much noticable difference between f/2.8 and say, f/1.4 for example.

24mm @ f/2.8 with a 35mm camera focussed on something 50 ft away has sharpness from 15.4 ft out to infinity.

24mm @ f/1.4 with a 35mm camera focused on something 50 ft away has sharpness from 23.6 ft out to infinity.

So what do you think you'd gain with a faster lens in such situations?


----------



## iamacyborg (Nov 25, 2010)

Buckster said:


> When it comes to landscapes (subject relatively far away) and a wide lens like a 24mm, I don't think you're going to see much noticable difference between f/2.8 and say, f/1.4 for example.
> 
> 24mm @ f/2.8 with a 35mm camera focussed on something 50 ft away has sharpness from 15.4 ft out to infinity.
> 
> ...



I like to get very close to stuff when I shoot with the 24, so I'd definitely see a difference with it.


----------



## Buckster (Nov 26, 2010)

iamacyborg said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > When it comes to landscapes (subject relatively far away) and a wide lens like a 24mm, I don't think you're going to see much noticable difference between f/2.8 and say, f/1.4 for example.
> ...


Yeah, okay.  Whatever you say.


----------



## terri (Nov 26, 2010)

> Yes indeedy. I always get my semantics missed up


 


> I like to get very close to stuff when I shoot with the 24, so I'd definitely see a difference with it.


 


> I took some shots at f2.8 that I've not uploaded anywhere. The DoF is just too wide on them.


 
I do think you're struggling with semantics here.  It seems you're confusing DoF with lens focal lengths. If you want to see _wide angles_ when you look through your viewfinder, your 24mm will continue to serve you well. The depth of field is controlled through aperture - your f stops. Some cameras have a DoF preview button that allows you to check your selected focus, based on your choice of f-stop - but this is independent of which lens (focal length) you have.


----------

