Please explain the need for f2.8 zooms

[Passport]

Faster lenses also allow you to see the image more clearly in the view finder. You generally get better photos if you can see the composition. The shallower depth of field enhances the distinction between what is in or out of focus making focus acquisition more precise.

 

[Radiating]

The standard lens requirement for shooting events/weddings seem to be a combination of 24-70/28 and 70-200/2.8, I read both are nailed to a pro's camera 90% of the time (though I have problems doing the maths )

A lens with a larger aperture afaik has three advantages: better af on some bodies, better subject isolation/creativity (just one eye in focus) and last not least a "fast" lens is required for "low light" shots.

My question rose when I read the great book "Captured by the Light" by David Ziser who - believe it or not - writes that f4 to f5.6 (for convenience or added safety) is his bread and butter setting for posed candid wedding flash shots, and he used the 5d2 at that time.

Question: So according to this f2.8 is more important for available light and movement shots, but if that was case with the 5d2, I'm confused why still seems to be still valid with the 6d even though it's about 1 stop better ... either f2.8 was borderline in the past, or f2.8 - 1stop = f4 would be sufficient now - or am I missing something here?

Disclaimer: Please forgive slight traces of irony, this ia a real question because I don't entirely understand the issue, it's great people get whatever gear they like for any purpose they want.

The minimum for capturing action on what I've found to be typical indoor light is:

1Ds Mark III/5D Mark II + f/2.8

OR

5D3/6D/1DX + F/4.0

The thing is that f/2.8 on a 5D Mark 3 gives you more flexibility, you aren't at the limit, so you're more comfortable.

The zoom range let's you frame shots better, and bokeh at f/2.8 is right at the boarderline between overpowering and pleasant.


So in the end f/2.8 on a newer full frame body is the optimum setup for getting a wide range of shots. Now shooting a f/2.8 lens at f/4.0 will often deliver sharper images than going with an f/4.0 lens to begin with so there is a disadvantage to going f/4.0 to begin with, and you have less flexibility (as you don't have the option of f/2.8).

Going to an a prime that's faster than f/2.8 limits you because there is no zoom, you want SOME zoom if however small it is just so you can get framing right.
F/2.8 tends to be a good "all around" range. You have zoom, bokeh, and a comfortable amount of motion stopping without flash.


Personally I have a collection of the following lenses:

24-70mm f/2.8 II
24-105mm f/4.0 IS (for landscapes, still life and other times where IS helps more than f/2.8 because there is no motion to stop and for when I don't want the onion bokeh or focus shift of the 2.8 II)
70-200mm f/2.8 II

Sigma 35mm 1.4
Canon 50mm 1.4
Sigma 85mm 1.4


24mm TS-E + 1.4x TC & 2x TC (35mm TS-E & 50mm TS-E)


Ideally I'm looking to pick up a Canon 200mm 2.0 too

 

[RLPhoto]

I love it when users say "it's only one stop" when comparing lenses. One stop is a lot! That's twice as good! Some users complain they couldn't tell the difference in rendering from faster glass and then complain that everyone one else can't see the difference.

 

[Don Haines]

Just get the f5.6 and f6.3 zooms.... welcome to the dark side......

 

[Drizzt321]

Faster lenses also allow you to see the image more clearly in the view finder. You generally get better photos if you can see the composition. The shallower depth of field enhances the distinction between what is in or out of focus making focus acquisition more precise.

Not always, I believe the stock focusing screen (at least for the 5d3) is optimized to show up to f/2 or f/2.5, and anything faster you won't really see any difference.

 

[verysimplejason]

Anything faster is always welcome because of the availability of open-wide aperture for most low-light situations. I think they're main disadvantage is that they're heavier and bulkier. That's something you don't want to bear for 4-8 hours. I think that's the main reason why primes are still very popular even if some zooms are quite as good or better than primes. That and also the price. If I'm not doing professional work, I prefer primes all day except for some very rare moments. If I'm doing professional work, of course I want the fastest zoom I can afford. This is because I want to get all possible pictures I can get at one time. You don't want to miss some moments because you're changing lens or it's too dark for you to shoot.

 

[agierke]

i primarily shoot weddings (on the 5D2 and 5DC) and the reason i went with the 2.8 zooms was primarily that i found slower glass hunted for focus in low light far too often. i am still on version 1 for both the 24-70 and 70-200. the newer lenses coupled with the 5D3 might change the circumstances but i still wouldn't ever favor an F4 glass over an F2.8 or faster glass.

i rarely ever (probably never) shoot the 24-70mm at 2.8 because when i am using that lens i am typically trying to get more than one individual in the shot. 2.8 is too shallow a depth of field to get more than a couple people in focus so i am usually at an F5.6 or F4 (if i am desperate for light) on that lens. where i have seen the 24-105 hunt for focus at times in low light on the 5D series cameras, the 24-70 never hunts for focus for me. that is why i got it.

on the other hand, i will use the 70-200 at an f2.8 because with that focal length range i am typically trying to isolate a single individual. i prefer to use it an F4 because the results tend to be a bit sharper but i will push it to a 2.8 without much concern sometimes.

both those lenses are the foundation for the days shooting at a wedding for me....but, i would hesitate to call them my bread and butter. this past year i have added a 15mm fisheye, 35mm 1.4L, and 85mm 1.8 to the lenses that i bring on weddings. the fisheye i got just to get the occasional wacky overall shot (though i have found that lens to be extremely useful to me in my architectural shots...who knew!).

the 35mm F1.4 has really become my star performer for pre ceremony shots and couple shots. at F2.0 i find i can shoot a couple, keep them in the depth of field, and maintain really nice fall off to the background that i just dont get with the 24-70. a colleague of mine that i shoot with alot has quipped on several occasions that the 24-70mm is by far the most boring lens in her bag...and i tend to agree with her. but it covers alot of ground so for me it stays in the bag.

never been a fan of the F4 lenses. i always want the maximum versatility and to me not having the 2.8 is something i cant get past.

here is some stuff i shot (mostly as a 2nd) where the 24-70 and 70-200 is primarily featured:
http://www.adamgierkephotography.com/data/pssites/PS_37/Current_Wedding_Gallery/index_12.html

and here is some more recent stuff where i have started to incorporate the 35mm a bit more:

http://www.adamgierkephotography.com/data/pssites/PS_25/Wedding_Portfolio_12/index.html

 

[Rocky]

Even you do not need to shoot at 2.8, these are the benefits of having a 2.8 lens:
1. Brighter view finder image, so you can catch th expression easier.
2. Faster focusing in dim light
3. More accurate focus after you have stopped downth lens during exposure due to increased DOF.
4. Sharper image after stopped down the len. Usually, a 2.8 lens at 4.0 is sharper than a lens wide opened at 4.0
Draw back of 2.8 lens:
1. Size and weight.
2. $$$

 

[ewg963]

basically having a wide aperture available is like a condom
its better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it

f2.8 gives much nicer shallow depth of field shots than f4 but probably both eyes will be in focus the one eye in focus thing is more the domain of fast primes

typically at weddings I'll either be shooting my 85 at f2 maybe f2.8 for more people in the shot and occassionally f4 or 5.6 but really i use this lens for portraits and couple shots
I use this lens more now than i do my 70-200 f2.8 since at f2 its sharper than even the 70-200 is at f2.8

I'll shoot the 70-200 at all sorts of apertures depending on the shot.
for the bride and groom walking down the isle its much better to stop down and play it safe
since using servo and how fast it all goes off there isn't alot of time to mess around and a redo isnt an option

the 16-35 i'll shoot at everything from f2.8 to f11 depending on the shot having 2.8 on this lens is a godsend with the 5Dmk3 for receptions (same goes for walking down the isle shots with this lens, stopped down is better) and its a fantastically fast focuser in low light, really really impressive on the 5Dmk3.

+1

 

[Hillsilly]

Hardly a pro, and a lot of the time I take group photos I often wish I had used a smaller aperture for increased DOF. So I see where the OP is coming from. But when I look at a good set of wedding photos, the photographer will generally have a good selection of narrow depth of field photos. These would tend to be the less formal shots and are often the best / favourite photos of the day. (Although, many of these are probably taken with a prime with an even wider aperture than f/2.8).

 

[tomscott]

I think this is where the amateur and pro argument reaches its peak.

If you are a pro, shooting and making money then gear is a tool, any advantage is a plus. The gear pays for itself whereas an amateur may struggle to justify the purchase. Which is fair. But these zooms are there to guarantee results. Similar to ISO 'better being noisy than missing or getting blurry shots' your better having a smaller DOF than missing the shot entirely.

F2.8 lenses are there for those occasions where you cant use flash, or your in a large room where flash just isnt enough. F2.8 has saved me many a time, also if you are shooting slightly wider you can still get sharp results at F2.8 across a frame, at closer distances the DOF seclusion is more apparent, granted softer but it can be used in those 5% scenarios. Also helps the cameras AF.

If you choose F4 then your advantage is F4 thats it. I know for a fact that when shooting say the first dance at a wedding, using F4-5.6 with flash is still hard even at ISO3200.

But on the other hand, using a 24-105mm with a prime can work really well, it depends on the situation and the light. F4 on the 24-105 gives nice results on a FF camera. The zoom just gives you more scope, instead of worrying about changing lenses. As a wedding photographer using two cameras is a good idea, one with a wider lens (zoom or prime) one with a tele.

TBH a 50mm will have you covered for most of the day at a wedding, so is it necessary? No, but it is nice to know you can IF you need too. Using a zoom can make you lazy with a prime you just have to move around more to find the shot. But you could argue you are more likely to loose the shot.

There are many arguments, it depends on how you like to work and your budget.

 

[bycostello]

basically having a wide aperture available is like a condom
its better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

 

[bycostello]

an f2.8 lens will be sharper at f4 where an f4 lens would be sharper at f5.6 or so... a jag will go 150 mph but at 70 it hums along beautifully if you get the analogy...

 

[pakosouthpark]

basically having a wide aperture available is like a condom
its better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it

just brilliant!!

 

[spinworkxroy]

basically having a wide aperture available is like a condom
its better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it

I hear it feels better without so does that mean not having an f2.8 lens feels better too?


just brilliant!!

 

[Maui5150]

My experience has been they are over all:

-- Faster
-- Sharper

I shoot a 2.8 version versus an F/4 version at say 4 or 5.6, I notice better AF and better over all quality on the shots on the 2.8 version. I think with most zoom lenses, they have most of their issues at the end so a F/4 lens may be fairly equal to the 2.8 at say F/8 or F/11, but more wide open, especially at F/4 the 2.8 has always out performed in my experience.

In many case, I find the build and over all range of the lens to be better. This may be subjective, but in a similar example in the 50s, is the 1.2 really that much better than the 1.4 and the 1.8.

Yeah. It is. Granted, it is an L versus non L as well, but I noticed a huge difference stepping up from the 70-200 F/4 to F/2.8, especially in speed. Some may argue the price, and the F/4 is a solid performer, but when it comes down to it, with almost anything in life, if your desired range is at the edge of a products capability, you are often better off finding the product that slightly to moderately exceeds your need.

 

[Studio1930]

One thing that has not been directly mentioned is that a good photographer will envision the amount of DOF he/she wants in a shot and then adjust the aperture to match based on the focal length of the lens, the distance to the subject and the distance from the subject to the background. As the distance variables change, so must your aperture to keep the same DOF.

My point is that sometimes you might need f/4 and sometimes you might back up and need f/2.8 to get that same DOF. You can't do that with an f/4 only lens. With a slower lens (and/or crop body) you will find yourself needing to get closer to your subject to get a narrow DOF which may have you cropping them more than you wanted. If shallow DOF shot at a distance is not what you want then a slower lens might work but at some point most professionals want that shallow DOF which slower lenses when shot at a distance (for full length for example) may not provide.

Full length shot with shallow DOF:

 

[Marsu42]

One thing that has not been directly mentioned is that a good photographer will envision the amount of DOF he/she wants in a shot and then adjust the aperture to match based on the focal length of the lens, the distance to the subject and the distance from the subject to the background. As the distance variables change, so must your aperture to keep the same DOF

Thanks, I didn't think about this point, keeping a consistent dof across the lens zoom capabilty certainly is a plus for a professional appeal.

Also a big thank you to all posters explaining the pro and cons to me w/o any "just get the best" attitude, to summarize my current understanding f2.8 zooms are for

* keeping a constant dof
* pro-looking bokeh
* faster shutter speed for fast motion with zoom
* reserve in available light situations, though as far as noise goes 5d2+f2.8 = 6d+f4
* sharpness because f2.8 lens stopped down > f4 lens wide open
* more reliable af - though I wonder if this is valid for the 5d2/6d af? Anyone?

All these points make me tend to get a Tamron 24-70 lens for the 6d after all since my lenses don't pay for themselves by pro shooting, I will shoot somewhat stopped down often and 100% crop sharpness is nice to have, but not critical to me... and the plain matter of the fact is that I could get 2 (two) 6d+24-70vc for 1 (one) 5d3+24-70ii :-o

 

[enice128]

My experience has been they are over all:

-- Faster
-- Sharper

I shoot a 2.8 version versus an F/4 version at say 4 or 5.6, I notice better AF and better over all quality on the shots on the 2.8 version. I think with most zoom lenses, they have most of their issues at the end so a F/4 lens may be fairly equal to the 2.8 at say F/8 or F/11, but more wide open, especially at F/4 the 2.8 has always out performed in my experience.

In many case, I find the build and over all range of the lens to be better. This may be subjective, but in a similar example in the 50s, is the 1.2 really that much better than the 1.4 and the 1.8.

Yeah. It is. Granted, it is an L versus non L as well, but I noticed a huge difference stepping up from the 70-200 F/4 to F/2.8, especially in speed. Some may argue the price, and the F/4 is a solid performer, but when it comes down to it, with almost anything in life, if your desired range is at the edge of a products capability, you are often better off finding the product that slightly to moderately exceeds your need.

This is my main argument & reason on why I'm actually going today to upgrade to the 16-35II from my 17-40. A 2.8 aperture is so important for me. I do some small weddings, sweet 16s as well as other events using my 17-40 for over a year now but I feel it's not enough. I love using my 50 1.2 & 70-200 2.8 at these events but my 16-35 will now take the 17-40's place as my main lens. U cannot beat the the overall quality of 2.8 & I absolutely love the look of 2.8 with its DOF!

 

[bdunbar79]

The standard lens requirement for shooting events/weddings seem to be a combination of 24-70/28 and 70-200/2.8, I read both are nailed to a pro's camera 90% of the time (though I have problems doing the maths )

A lens with a larger aperture afaik has three advantages: better af on some bodies, better subject isolation/creativity (just one eye in focus) and last not least a "fast" lens is required for "low light" shots.

My question rose when I read the great book "Captured by the Light" by David Ziser who - believe it or not - writes that f4 to f5.6 (for convenience or added safety) is his bread and butter setting for posed candid wedding flash shots, and he used the 5d2 at that time.

Question: So according to this f2.8 is more important for available light and movement shots, but if that was case with the 5d2, I'm confused why still seems to be still valid with the 6d even though it's about 1 stop better ... either f2.8 was borderline in the past, or f2.8 - 1stop = f4 would be sufficient now - or am I missing something here?

Disclaimer: Please forgive slight traces of irony, this ia a real question because I don't entirely understand the issue, it's great people get whatever gear they like for any purpose they want.

f/2.8 zooms are absolutely essential in low-light situations with fast-moving, or moving subjects. I don't know of any other pro sports photog who doesn't use an f/2.8 zoom lens. There are those who argue for primes in indoor sports, but you get less shots and less angles and interesting ones. I have way more keepers and action with the zoom vs. the prime. f/2.8 is a whole stop better than f/4 and yes, that makes a HUGE difference.