The Trinity is Dead, Long Live the Trinity!

[SwissFrank]

I don't really see the point of f/2.8 trinity any more.

1) We don't need it for viewfinder brightness.

2) We don't need it for autofocus. (In the 90s and even I think the EOS-1Ds MkI MkII MkIII, only the center AF point worked at smaller then f/2.8.)

3) We don't need it to avoid grain/noise or to freeze motion on moving subjects. (Current sensors are fantastically low-noise at high ISO.)

4) We don't need it to shoot still subjects that would otherwise require a tripod (50/1.8 on R5 shoots about as well at 1/2 sec as at any speed above 1/30)

5) We don't need it to make subjects pop from backgrounds. (It used to be that focus was never great, lenses weren't so high resolution, film was grainy, exposures were blurred by camera shake, and so even the SUBJECT was pretty blurry. Because of those factors, we didn't use images in big sizes. In order to make the background visibly yet blurrier at this low print size, f/2.8 sometimes helped to make the subject stand out. But now, we prepare every shot even for our personal social media to be 15" (38cm) wide. The sensors are practically noiseless. The AF is utterly nailed to the subject eyes. Lenses can do 50lp/mm or better at very high contrast. Sensors are noise-free up to ISO 4000+. IBIS saves us with camera shake. The subject is absolutely clear as a bell and even f/4 (wider shots) or 72mm aperture (tele) gives us more pop at these large image sizes than we ever got at f/2.8 in the old days.

------------

In reaction to the new 24-105/2.8, and the nice 15-300mm f/2.8 trinity it creates: I do get the utility of 24-105. For me I've been shooting 24-105/4 instead of 24-70/2.8 pretty much exclusively for 15 years now, despite shooting 24-70/2.8s since they were 28-70s... 24-105 is a a great shooting range. I even used the RF24-105 almost exclusively on my R despite having a half-dozen EF lenses in the cupboard.

I just don't see the need for f/2.8 for it though.

The EF MkI 24-105/4 was a good size but soft. The EF MkII was bigger and better IQ. I'd summarize the RF MkI as being the EF MkI size with EF MkII image quality. I'd like to see them make a higher image quality RF MkII, even if substantially bigger and more expensive, and I'd buy it instantly.

I do love the big apertures too like the 135/1.8 and would order a 35/1.0 or 35/1.2 instantly, for special projects, but I don't need f-stop bigger than f/4 or aperture greater than 72mm in general. f/4 and 72mm do everything I need to. For me the big question is: if you need more than f/4, and I agree such cases arise, how can f/2.8 be enough? If I really want to blur backgrounds or something, then I want not f/2.8 but f/1.4 or bigger.

 

[clearwaterphotog]

I generally agree with what you said, but countered it with "well, some people just want more bokeh" or "some people don't care that ISO3200 now is better than ISO800 of film back then and still want the cleanest images possible". It's perfectly fine to want clean images and MOSTLY fine (lol) to want more bokeh. I think people chase bokeh too hard and end up with their subject partly out of focus because their DoF is simply too shallow for the scenario in which they are shooting.

Where I highly agree with you, though, is the final big question. It's the concept of min-maxing. If f/4 isn't enough, then f/2.8 probably isn't either. You should be aiming for f/2 or f/1.4. If you really are chasing bokeh or super clean images, then one extra stop over f/4 for such a large increase in size, weight, and price seems silly when you could have 2 or 3 stops of light over f/4, with a prime. This is why the 28-70/2 is awesome... you actually get a substantial benefit in aperture with a zoom instead of one measly stop. Hopefully that's not the only f/2 zoom we see for the RF system. While I don't own that lens, my one regret is that I would be missing out on my favorite mid-tele FL, 85mm. A 35-85/2 would be pretty awesome.

 

[danfaz]

This is why the 28-70/2 is awesome... you actually get a substantial benefit in aperture with a zoom instead of one measly stop.

Yep, totally agree.

 

[dcm]

This thread seems oddly familiar...

 

[SwissFrank]

This thread seems oddly familiar...

I've made the same points in passing a half-dozen times in the last 3-4 years on this forum. This is the first time I tried to organize it more as an essay and topic of discussion unto itself. Sorry if I'm too repetitive about it! In fact part of my goal was to just have the discussion once and for all and stop dragging it in sideways all over the place...

 

[SwissFrank]

countered it with "well, some people just want more bokeh" or "some people don't care that ISO3200 now is better than ISO800 of film back then and still want the cleanest images possible". It's perfectly fine to want clean images and MOSTLY fine (lol) to want more bokeh

Exactly! The words of your quote I highlighted are the first half of my point.

In the 90s and 00s, it wasn't just "some people." It wasn't just "want." Pro cameras, you could almost say, didn't even work right unless you had an aperture of at least f/2.8. Even if you were exposing at f/8, you couldn't see your subject and AF couldn't focus on it, generally speaking, unless you had f/2.8 optics. You had to have them unless you were flying half-blind.

So the second half of my point is: those days are over. f/2.8 is strictly optional now, much like the choice of EF50/1.0 over EF50/1.4 was/is. It's purely a question of personal taste and budget and muscle power.

But people are treating it as the automatic decision: if I am a pro or trying to cos-play one, step one is to get an f/2.8 trinity. That's the decision I'm saying is wrong.


---

Also, I think ISO 4000 on the R5 is better than ISO 50 on the EOS-1V on Velvia. I shot a lot at 1600 with my 35/1.4 ASPH on my Leica M6 too, with 800-speed film hand-developed in Emofin. I think ISO256,000 on the R5 is significantly better than that.

And to be clear I'm not saying f/2.8 bokeh isn't nice. I love it. Even using my 50/1.8 I'm often exposing at f/2.8 by choice. And I've been as much an addict of big apertures as anyone, with the EF24/1.4, EF35/1.4, EF50/1.0, EF50/1.2, EF85/1.2, EF135/2.0, and EF600/4 all in my bag (or in my trunk). I've have the 135/1.8 and had the 50/1.2 (which I only dumped as the highlights are way too football-shaped in the corners).

But I will say this: I don't think I've taken a photo in 30 years of shooting that "needed" the bokeh of f/2.8 that wouldn't have worked at f/4. I have a bunch of images I love with huge bokeh but they're not f/2.8 shots (at least below 72mm aperture: for telephotos I think the entrance pupil is where bokeh comes from, not f-stop). They're f/1.0, f/1.2, and so on. You put it well:

If f/4 isn't enough, then f/2.8 probably isn't either. You should be aiming for f/2 or f/1.4.

Or bigger. In all serious I've said Canon should make an RF 50mm f/0.7. Such lenses existed for satellites (Soviet moon photography) and Kubrick shot most of a movie with them. It's still just the same aperture as 85/1.2, 135/2, 200/2.8. It's not necessarily that exotic. With modern computational power to nail the formula, and modern manufacturing, Canon should put a range of such halo lenses in its line-up even if they're only made in lots of ten or only rented or loaned by invitation or what have you. I also see room for a 35/1.0 and 135/1.0DS. A 35/1.0 only has the entrance pupil and amount of bokeh of a 50/1.4. What I want with the 135/1.0 is to have circular highlights even in the deepest corners by f/1.4, then have a DS filter to make those look spherical while cutting transmission down to f/2.0. It'd be the most beautiful portrait and cinematography lens in human history, and people would be able to recognize its shots on sight when they knew what to look for. And while it would be a monster lens, 135/1.0 would have the same entrance pupil of 400/2.8, 600/4, 800/5.6 etc. Massive, but not unprecedented.

 

[scyrene]

I don't follow the point about subject separation. Wider apertures blur the background more, ceteris paribus. Why compare it to what happened in the film era? 24-105 f/2.8 gives more background blur than the f/4 version. And as both are available, people have the choice. I don't see the problem. Don't buy it if it's not for you.

 

[koenkooi]

I don't really see the point of f/2.8 trinity any more.

[...]
2) We don't need it for autofocus. (In the 90s and even I think the EOS-1Ds MkI MkII MkIII, only the center AF point worked at smaller then f/2.8.)
[...]

For my camera traps at night I can see a noticable difference between AF performance on the EF180L f/3.5, the RF100L f/2.8 and the RF85 f/2. Subject detection works a lot better on the f/2 lens than on the f/2.8 lens. AF works with all 3 lenses, but the 180L and 100L do tend to get distracted and focus on the background of pits of moss in the foreground.

 

[SwissFrank]

Why compare it to what happened in the film era?

My point is that people DO. In the film era or even 00s, f/2.8 was a practical necessity. So to paraphrase you, I'm saying, "Think whether you need the lenses you needed in the film era." (except f/2.8 was also needed on the EOS-1Ds MkI MkII and MkIII.)

24-105 f/2.8 gives more background blur than the f/4 version.

Right! If you need one more f-stop, and NO MORE than one more f-stop, of background blur, then boy is this the lens for you! But part of my point is that this background blur is about the ONLY win now. No longer is that f/2.8 critical to getting lower noise, stopping subject motion, reducing blur from moving camera, or a bright finder. f/2.8 is really now just about background blur.

(I totally respect koenkooi's observations, but it's not clear to me that his experience is due for sure to max f-stop and not some other factor.)

And as both are available, people have the choice.

Right! In the 90s and 00s, people did NOT have the choice. You HAD to have f/2.8. You didn't really have the option of shooting zooms but not shooting f/2.8 zooms, at least not if you wanted all the AF to work and the viewfinder to be bright. The reason for my post is that many photogs internalized this lesson that "you MUST have f/2.8 if you're a pro or trying to shoot like one." That was in fact true in the past. But it's not true with the modern R system. You CAN choose.

 

[scyrene]

My point is that people DO. In the film era or even 00s, f/2.8 was a practical necessity. So to paraphrase you, I'm saying, "Think whether you need the lenses you needed in the film era." (except f/2.8 was also needed on the EOS-1Ds MkI MkII and MkIII.)

Right! If you need one more f-stop, and NO MORE than one more f-stop, of background blur, then boy is this the lens for you! But part of my point is that this background blur is about the ONLY win now. No longer is that f/2.8 critical to getting lower noise, stopping subject motion, reducing blur from moving camera, or a bright finder. f/2.8 is really now just about background blur.

(I totally respect koenkooi's observations, but it's not clear to me that his experience is due for sure to max f-stop and not some other factor.)


Right! In the 90s and 00s, people did NOT have the choice. You HAD to have f/2.8. You didn't really have the option of shooting zooms but not shooting f/2.8 zooms, at least not if you wanted all the AF to work and the viewfinder to be bright. The reason for my post is that many photogs internalized this lesson that "you MUST have f/2.8 if you're a pro or trying to shoot like one." That was in fact true in the past. But it's not true with the modern R system. You CAN choose.

Oh ok.

 

[neuroanatomist]

No longer is that f/2.8 critical to getting lower noise, stopping subject motion, reducing blur from moving camera, or a bright finder. f/2.8 is really now just about background blur.

Except when you DO need lower noise or a faster shutter, then it's not just about background blur. A stop of light is a stop of light. If you're shooting at ISO 51200 at f/2.8, the consequence of using an f/4 lens is not just a bit less background blur.

Evidently your personal use cases are typically well lit. Don't assume your use cases are the same as others'.

 

[SHAMwow]

Except when you DO need lower noise or a faster shutter, then it's not just about background blur. A stop of light is a stop of light. If you're shooting at ISO 51200 at f/2.8, the consequence of using an f/4 lens is not just a bit less background blur.

Evidently your personal use cases are typically well lit. Don't assume your use cases are the same as others'.

Thank you. People are so freaking wild with this "death of 2.8". Like, I shoot my R5 for high school sports. At 8000 ISO that thing is Swiss cheese. And I'm not going to denoise it to the point of everyone looking like they have a snapchat filter on. So I buy 2.8. Lens aperture still matters, depending on the situation. Otherwise there wouldn't be as large a market for these fast lenses.

 

[clearwaterphotog]

Except when you DO need lower noise or a faster shutter, then it's not just about background blur. A stop of light is a stop of light. If you're shooting at ISO 51200 at f/2.8, the consequence of using an f/4 lens is not just a bit less background blur.

Evidently your personal use cases are typically well lit. Don't assume your use cases are the same as others'.

51200 is already pretty extreme; I'd say even f/2.8 isn't saving you if you have that little light. That seems like prime territory to me. It's again about min-maxing... if you'd have to exceed ISO25600 with f/4, you might as well swap to an f/1.4 prime to get ISO6400 or 12800. Anyone who needs to get "the shot" in such low light should be ready for that situation - I'd have a fast prime on and ready to go for that scenario. If you truly need FOV flexibility in such low light, well at least you've got the 28-70/2, but otherwise yeah you're still gonna end up with a grainfest at f/2.8.

 

[neuroanatomist]

51200 is already pretty extreme; I'd say even f/2.8 isn't saving you if you have that little light. That seems like prime territory to me. It's again about min-maxing... if you'd have to exceed ISO25600 with f/4, you might as well swap to an f/1.4 prime to get ISO6400 or 12800. Anyone who needs to get "the shot" in such low light should be ready for that situation - I'd have a fast prime on and ready to go for that scenario. If you truly need FOV flexibility in such low light, well at least you've got the 28-70/2, but otherwise yeah you're still gonna end up with a grainfest at f/2.8.

I was going to use ISO 25600, but @AlanF just posted some nice shots at ISO 51200, so.... AI-driven NR has really come a long way, DxO DeepPrime XD enables me to use ISOs that were unthinkable a few years ago. But that doesn't mean an extra stop of light is useless. It means I can shoot in situations that a few years ago would have been impossible.

Depends on your FL, too. Shooting sports with my 100-300/2.8, what faster 300mm prime should I have ready for that situation?

 

[scyrene]

I was going to use ISO 25600, but @AlanF just posted some nice shots at ISO 51200, so.... AI-driven NR has really come a long way, DxO DeepPrime XD enables me to use ISOs that were unthinkable a few years ago. But that doesn't mean an extra stop of light is useless. It means I can shoot in situations that a few years ago would have been impossible.

Depends on your FL, too. Shooting sports with my 100-300/2.8, what faster 300mm prime should I have ready for that situation?

The PE 300mm f/1.8

 

[clearwaterphotog]

I was going to use ISO 25600, but @AlanF just posted some nice shots at ISO 51200, so.... AI-driven NR has really come a long way, DxO DeepPrime XD enables me to use ISOs that were unthinkable a few years ago. But that doesn't mean an extra stop of light is useless. It means I can shoot in situations that a few years ago would have been impossible.

Depends on your FL, too. Shooting sports with my 100-300/2.8, what faster 300mm prime should I have ready for that situation?

I did see Alan's photos, quite impressive for sure. There's a lot of out-of-focus area that takes NR quite nicely, but weddings might have more distracting backgrounds. Maybe not - sticks/branches/leaves usually make for pretty distracting bokeh. Thinking about it though, bokeh might actually enable more aggressive NR because it doesn't need to be sharp, so even faster lenses are double rewarded, with more light, and more bokeh which enables cleaner NR for super high ISO.

I don't have a solution for the sports use case because you're right, they just don't make primes faster than f/2.8 once you get that long, and you need flexibility of framing in many cases (I'd imagine, shooting across a large field), so a zoom makes more sense in that case anyway. But if we're talking anything 135mm and under, there is usually a prime that will be 2-3 stops faster than the next fastest zoom.

I did actually shoot some Milky Way shots at f/4 ISO12800 during a recent camping trip and with the built-in LR AI NR, I got pretty nice results. The ISO25600 shots were a stretch and 51200/102400 ended up just being a test to see how high I can go. I wouldn't print them large, but I actually really like the results at ISO12800. So, I don't doubt that you can still get really usable shots at 25600, but suggesting 51200 for anything other than extreme cases seems like a bit of a stretch. I love zooms, but if I could switch to a prime and get the noise much lower, as long as I could make the shallow DoF work, I absolutely would prefer to go that route.

 

[koenkooi]

I did see Alan's photos, quite impressive for sure. There's a lot of out-of-focus area that takes NR quite nicely, but weddings might have more distracting backgrounds. […]

DxO does weird things with human skin on very noisy photos, so do some experimenting before embarking on a paid job with it.
I get the impression that it injects patterns when it gets confused, reptiles tend to get a hilbert curve like pattern, dragonfly tails get parallel streaks and so on. The effect on faces that are very small in the frame can be nightmare fuel

 

[SwissFrank]

Except when you DO need lower noise or a faster shutter, then it's not just about background blur. A stop of light is a stop of light. If you're shooting at ISO 51200 at f/2.8, the consequence of using an f/4 lens is not just a bit less background blur

Fair enough, I'd like to see an example of this. I think you have the 24-105/2.8 on order? You shoot indoor nighttime high school sports or similar? Once it shows up, perhaps you'd have time to shoot some shots with 50k at f/2.8, and 100k at f/4, and perhaps additionally 50k at f/4 but double shutter duration. That'd be I think a huge lesson to all of us of the utility of 24-105. That would really be exactly what Canon needs to sell this lens: new lens gets the shot, but the old one is either too noisy or too blurry. (Or simply not enough bokeh to make subject pop at modern typical presentation on big LCD monitors.)

And it would also wipe out my objection that "if f/4 doesn't do it for you, it's unlikely f/2.8 will suddenly be enough." If you can show that f/2.8 really looks so good that f/2 (f/1.4, f/1.2) simply isn't worth considering, and yet f/4 just has too much noise, motion blur, or DOF, you'll have totally disproved my theory.

Also to be clear I admit I was over-speaking when I said "the ONLY reason" and "NO-ONE needs" this. I'm sorry about that. I still stand behind my general argument that f/2.8 trinity is INCORRECTLY treated as the go-to no-brainer automatic decision any pro would make. You (or at least, indoor nighttime sports shooters) may be a special case. And yet this lens isn't being described as a narrow tool for indoor nighttime sports shooters but rather something a huge number of pros might consider.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Fair enough, I'd like to see an example of this. I think you have the 24-105/2.8 on order? You shoot indoor nighttime high school sports or similar?

I did preorder the 24-105/2.8. Concerts/events/sports, both indoors and out (typically at night with high school lighting). The 24-105/2.8 will pair perfectly with the 100-300/2.8 for me.

Once it shows up, perhaps you'd have time to shoot some shots with 50k at f/2.8, and 100k at f/4, and perhaps additionally 50k at f/4 but double shutter duration. That'd be I think a huge lesson to all of us of the utility of 24-105. That would really be exactly what Canon needs to sell this lens: new lens gets the shot, but the old one is either too noisy or too blurry. (Or simply not enough bokeh to make subject pop at modern typical presentation on big LCD monitors.)

And it would also wipe out my objection that "if f/4 doesn't do it for you, it's unlikely f/2.8 will suddenly be enough." If you can show that f/2.8 really looks so good that f/2 (f/1.4, f/1.2) simply isn't worth considering, and yet f/4 just has too much noise, motion blur, or DOF, you'll have totally disproved my theory.

I doubt your hypothesis can be disproven, because it's all a matter of judgement and personal taste. Does f/2.8 blur the background more than f/4? Objectively, yes. Is the background at f/4 not blurry enough? Depends on the shot and who's viewing it. Will f/2 or f/1.2 have a creamier background than f/2.8? Yes, but the tradeoff is the flexibility in framing you get with a zoom.

You can categorically state that FOR YOU, f/4 is just fine and there's no need for an f/2.8 trinity. But only for you.

Also to be clear I admit I was over-speaking when I said "the ONLY reason" and "NO-ONE needs" this. I'm sorry about that. I still stand behind my general argument that f/2.8 trinity is INCORRECTLY treated as the go-to no-brainer automatic decision any pro would make. You (or at least, indoor nighttime sports shooters) may be a special case. And yet this lens isn't being described as a narrow tool for indoor nighttime sports shooters but rather something a huge number of pros might consider.

There are lots of situations when one stop matters. Think basketball with a 15(16)-35/2.8 under the net. Light is not great, and the 1/500 s will be have motion blur but 1/1000 s will not. I don't shoot in those types of settings (not that close to the action), which is why I swapped my EF 16-35/2.8 II (<1% of my shots were wider than f/4) for the EF 16-35/4, then that for the RF 14-35/4. But for normal and longer focal lengths, I find f/2.8 better in many cases.

Specifically regarding the 24-105/2.8, the 70-200/2.8 is a great lens for portraits and I often use it in the 70-100mm range for that. I think the 24-105/2.8 will become an automatic no-brainer for pros because it enables wide shots, portraits, and low-light use without a lens change.