1.2, 1.4, 1.8 Lenses Depth of field shallowness Problem

[Robin Usagani]

You got to remember shooting wide open when your subject is far will give you pretty deep DOF. When I am in a dark church, sometimes I just set it wide open to keep shutter fast. When I shoot something closer, thats when I start thinking about DOF.

What do you do about the softer focus from being wide open?

Well.... sometimes I can get away with slow shutter, sometimes I cant. The only thing I can do is open up the aperture or bring the ISO even higher OR both. My lenses are plenty sharp wide open though. Better be wide open than have motion blur.

 

[MReid]

Depends on the look you are going for, and the application.
I have never shot a portrait at greater than F4. I shoot most of my stuff wide open or close to it. I choose my backgrounds accordingly.
As long as the eyes are sharp the rest is gravy...if you know what you are doing it is not a problem.

All the lenses I use for portraits are very sharp wide open.

 

[Garbz]

I mainly shoot fashion and beauty.

So to translate. "I mainly shoot subjects that are required to be tac sharp from front to back, I don't understand why people buy lenses that give narrow depth of field!"

The answer is simple, not everyone shoots fashion and beauty. Shallow depth of field is a great way to draw attention to a very specific item in a deep complicated and distracting background. Think bird in a tree, you're interested in the bird and not the tree.

What's the fuss about f/1.2 lenses? It lets the people who want to get a specific look, attain their specific look. It may not work for you but damn it works for many others.

 

[Balwazer]

You got to remember shooting wide open when your subject is far will give you pretty deep DOF. When I am in a dark church, sometimes I just set it wide open to keep shutter fast. When I shoot something closer, thats when I start thinking about DOF.

Good point

 

[Balwazer]

If they made an 18-200 with the same precision, care and quality of professional lenses then for studios work it would be fine. But they don't. Everything about that lens is inferior and is not a professional lens. I didn't buy the 70-200 2.8 only because it could go to 2.8. It is QUALITY glass and Precision elemments. Being able to go down to 2.8 in a dark venue is just a benefit of professional glass. The 50mm comes in 2.0, 1.8, 1.4 and 1.2. Does the f number really matter? not really. The lens quality makes a difference. I would take a Zeiss 50mm 2.0 over a Canon 50mm 1.2L any day because I have used both and I prefer the quality of the Zeiss lens.

Thank you CCericola, I think this is the answer I am looking for

 

[EchoingWhisper]

The optics of the wide aperture prime lenses have to be made to a higher standard than slower lenses.

Prime lenses can be corrected more precisely for optical aberrations than zoom lenses can.

Many photographers use way too shallow a DoF, particularly newbies, because they lack technical understanding and experience in doing photography.

Me.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

That's why VR is important even in 24-70mm 2.8.

 

[o hey tyler]

That's why VR is important even in 24-70mm 2.8.

Why is VR important on a 24-70 f/2.8? If you're going to shell out the money for a 24-70, I'd expect that you'd also know how to hold a camera to reduce shake.

Personally, I've never had a reason to have IS or OS or VR or whatever on a shorter focal length than 100mm, and even then most of the time I have it turned off.

 

[KmH]

That's why VR is important even in 24-70mm 2.8.

Why is VR important on a 24-70 f/2.8? If you're going to shell out the money for a 24-70, I'd expect that you'd also know how to hold a camera to reduce shake.

Personally, I've never had a reason to have IS or OS or VR or whatever on a shorter focal length than 100mm, and even then most of the time I have it turned off.

Absolutely and for me extend that out to 200 mm.

Image stabilzation is more of a marketing gimmick than a feature needed on lenses of 200 mm focal length and less.

Nikon VR explained

 

[EchoingWhisper]

That's why VR is important even in 24-70mm 2.8.

Why is VR important on a 24-70 f/2.8? If you're going to shell out the money for a 24-70, I'd expect that you'd also know how to hold a camera to reduce shake.

Personally, I've never had a reason to have IS or OS or VR or whatever on a shorter focal length than 100mm, and even then most of the time I have it turned off.

Absolutely and for me extend that out to 200 mm.

Image stabilzation is more of a marketing gimmick than a feature needed on lenses of 200 mm focal length and less.

Nikon VR explained

Thanks for the information.

 

[Garbz]

Why is VR important on a 24-70 f/2.8? If you're going to shell out the money for a 24-70, I'd expect that you'd also know how to hold a camera to reduce shake.

Amazingly the effects happen to stack. My hands are far more steady than my girlfriends, but not 4 stops more steady. Now if her hands were as steady as mine, or I had VR I could shoot handheld in an even wider range of scenarios.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

VR actually stabilizes the AF too, so you need not worry if your focus point is changed due to hand shake. But upon seeing the link, I think VR isn't as important as I thought it was.