Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Why is performance wide open important?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Nov 04, 2015 8:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
I recall, back in about 1978 or so, while shopping at a convenience store, my eyes being drawn into an image on the cover of Sports Illustrated magazine. Now, this was a good four years or so before I bought my first "real" camera, a Canon AE-1. Anyway, what captivated me so was what we now refer to as bokeh. The image was of a baseball pitcher in his windup. Only he was in focus, the background was completely blown. I was fascinated by this. And it wasn't until quite a few years later that I realized the photo had to have been taken with at least a 300mm f/2.8, maybe even a 600mm f/4. And it was a few years after that, still, that I could afford my first lens that would deliver this sort of blown-out bokeh. For me, it was the Tamron 300mm f/2.8. I couldn't afford the Canon or Nikon equivalent. I had been trying to get by, pror to that, with a Canon 200mm f/2.8 and 300mm f/4. Both very nice optics, butt they didn't deliver that blown-out bokeh I remembered from that Sports Illustrated photo. It had been a quest that lasted about eight years or so, but finally I had what I considered to be the basic admission ticket for real sports photography -- and other outdoor subjects as well because by that time I'd seen and read up on lots of uses for a lens like a 300mm f/2.8 -- or longer.

I think it's fair to say I remain fascinated by photos in which the subject is totally isolated from the background. But I've learned from doing that this is often easier conceived than done. Even with a very fast lens, situations have to be just right in order to achieve the goal. And of course the lens must be up to the task of rendering sharp focus when used wide open, so not just any fast lens will do.

All the other attributes of fast lenses I can appreciate, but I've always appreciated the separation that can be achieved most.


Michael thank you so much for stating what one might think should be obvious in such a personal, clear and sympathetic manner!
I also congratulate you for completely avoiding to be confrontational, I won't achieve that.
There is a whole world of photography out there that is based on strong subject separation and oof areas. Some have been mentioned. Most of Asia seems to love the aesthetics of it, the romantic worlds that can be created, many model shoots, commercials if for cosmetics or whatever that work with the idea, often combined with subtle pastel colors and / or shooting against light to additionally wash out the main subject.
I am very tired of the argument that shooting wide open is nothing more than a beginners folly. Those who say so seem to do it to distinguish themselves as matured, but imo only show their narrow views. Yes, one can see many photos that depend on this idea only, but there are just as many photos, even many more, that don't and are just as crappy. The shallow or deep dof per se isn't the criteria that makes of photo good or bad, both can be used perfectly well and less so.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 04, 2015 8:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
A good point but I think you missed my pain point and the reason for this thread. I love the wide open look and many lenses are made for wide open shooting and other lenses just happen to look good wide open as a side effect (swirly bokeh for example) of being bright only for viewfinder use.

My point is that there are people who prefer to shoot wide open just because it is wide open. Even if they could choose another even faster lens which they could stop down and get a better end result. They won't use the faster lens because the DOF might be too shallow for their uses and stopping down is against their principles.

Example:
Lens 1: 50/f1.2
Lens 2: 50/f1.7

Lens #1 is a premium lens and wonderful stopped down to f1.4
Lens #2 is a good lens but not not top of the line

Some users would choose lens #2 and use it wide open instead of using lens #1 slightly stopped down. Just because of a principle. I just don't get that since the premium lens #1 will give a better photographic result. One could argue that the user could use lens #1 wide open but no, not if the DOF has to be sufficient (aperture f1.4-f1.7) for this particular shot.

This thread was not supposed to be about bashing people who shoot wide open but to reflect upon why stopping down is so against some peoples principles. It is about choosing the right tool for the job and wide open cannot always be best.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 04, 2015 9:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
oh, sorry, I wanted to make that statement which more referred to points brought forward in the thread, not to your original point with which I agree, as I had written earlier.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 04, 2015 10:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
no, it's me not keeping up with everything being said Smile


PostPosted: Wed Nov 04, 2015 10:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I shoot wide open generally with the lenses I got. The Sigma art 35/1.4, 85/1.4 are great performers even wide open, Also the tamron 24-70/2.8 and 150-600/5-6.3 perform great wide open. Will I be a better photographer if I stop the lens down (not that I'm a good one...), I don't think so... Just another ignorant affirmation from some members around here...


PostPosted: Wed Nov 04, 2015 7:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
[quote="kuuan"]
cooltouch wrote:

I am very tired of the argument that shooting wide open is nothing more than a beginners folly.


Did someone here say that? Smile

I think everyone should shoot however they please, but lenses are sometimes discussed solely in terms of wide open performance, which I guess if you are only going to shoot it WO, makes sense, but in truth there is almost no lens, even the 200/2 mentioned above which is designed to only shoot WO, aside from some special one. I have 100 lenses, none are designed for only wide open. So I like to learn all about the lens, not just one aspect. They look so different as you go through the stops. At they do not all look the same at f/8.

But for subject separation it's worthy of note the DOF of a 50mm at at 3 feet is only 6 inches. So at close range there is no need for a fast aperture to separate a subject. That's not to say shooting at f/1.4 at a meter is something I would never do. I do it too much Smile

I'm guilty as anyone of overdoing the wide open in my own photography, and now I try to choose the aperture based on the DOF I want. Smile

But there is always the urge to "open it up", it's like a gas pedal in the car LOL.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 04, 2015 8:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
I am very tired of the argument that shooting wide open is nothing more than a beginners folly.


I think I can modify that statement just a tad and make it much more acceptable:

shooting wide open [b]all the time[b] is nothing more than a beginners folly

I doubt anyone will argue that shooting WO is never a good thing, but many will argue that shooting WO is often a bad thing.

Perhaps a suitable analogy would be carpentry, no carpenter would use the same saw for every cut, that is why there are many types of saw.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 04, 2015 8:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
There is nothing wrong with shooting wide open if you intend too. I just sold an old car after my mom...

Shot with 50mm @0.95


PostPosted: Wed Nov 04, 2015 8:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Would be interesting to see half stop down or more, in my experience even half stop improve photo a lot and not really visible in bokeh, don't need to increase ISO much higher etc, this is true for most lenses what I could try.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 04, 2015 10:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I fully agree and the bokeh can also improves in quality in some cases.

Last edited by memetph on Wed Nov 04, 2015 10:28 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed Nov 04, 2015 11:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
uhoh7 wrote:
kuuan wrote:
cooltouch wrote:

I am very tired of the argument that shooting wide open is nothing more than a beginners folly.


Did someone here say that? Smile


Uhoh, you managed to hack up kuuan's post to make it appear that I wrote that. I did not. Not only that, but it was largely taken out of context with the rest of what kuuan wrote. And I find myself agreeing with the whole of what he had to say.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 05, 2015 3:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
uhoh7 wrote:
kuuan wrote:

I am very tired of the argument that shooting wide open is nothing more than a beginners folly.


Did someone here say that? Smile

I think everyone should shoot however they please, but lenses are sometimes discussed solely in terms of wide open performance, which I guess if you are only going to shoot it WO, makes sense, but in truth there is almost no lens, even the 200/2 mentioned above which is designed to only shoot WO, aside from some special one. I have 100 lenses, none are designed for only wide open. So I like to learn all about the lens, not just one aspect. They look so different as you go through the stops. At they do not all look the same at f/8.

But for subject separation it's worthy of note the DOF of a 50mm at at 3 feet is only 6 inches. So at close range there is no need for a fast aperture to separate a subject. That's not to say shooting at f/1.4 at a meter is something I would never do. I do it too much Smile

I'm guilty as anyone of overdoing the wide open in my own photography, and now I try to choose the aperture based on the DOF I want. Smile

But there is always the urge to "open it up", it's like a gas pedal in the car LOL.


I agree with everything you wrote here, also what Ian wrote, including that me too I had been using wide open more during the first years of playing with manual lenses than I do now, agreeing with Pontus' point of this thread.
and I acknowledge that here, in this discussion, nobody has said that shooting wide open is but a beginner's folly. I am happy to acknowledge that some who have repeatedly saying or meaning that for some 2 years hopefully by now not only have refined their wording but somewhat changed their views.
I believe that actually we all pretty much agree anyways, we just emphasize different angles to make a certain point Wink

Michael sorry for the mishap of Uhoh to make appear my quote as your's, your post had been so smooth and didn't deserve that! And thank you for backing up what I tried to express nevertheless Smile


PostPosted: Thu Nov 05, 2015 3:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Although it's still a very interesting thread I think it's also full of misunderstandings. Wink

I just want to make sure that I made my point clear that I have nothing against shooting fully open and I do that as well, depending on the circumstances. However, it's IMHO sometimes or even in many cases better for the overall picture quality to stop down a little bit, even if a nice bokeh is the main target. Furthermore I don't see any sense (for me) to use super fast tele lenses wide open.

Michael explained a good reason for him being a sports event shooter. I don't shoot at sporting events, I never found a reason why I should buy a 300/2.8 lens and I am happy to use my 300/4 lens instead which is additionally much more handsome and portable. I will not use even this lens fully open if the available light allows it. BTW, at a shooting distance of 20 m the difference of DOF is only 0.3 m (F2.8 vs. F4). For closer subjects much less. At 50 m apprx. 1 m.
I have to admit that some pictures shot with a 300/2.8 lens fully open are looking very impressive. It's certainly not easy to achieve that, particularly as we are talking about MF here.
I also gave an example where the slower lens is superior in picture quality over the faster more expensive lens at same aperture, though that may be an exception. I don't know.

Finally everybody should use whatever makes one happy, i.e. super fast or rather slow lenses either fully open or stopped down. I just wanted to share my personal opinion.

Cheers,


PostPosted: Thu Nov 05, 2015 6:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thomas, after spending what was a fairly brutal day at an airshow a couple of weekends ago, insisting on carrying my Tamron 300mm f2.8 to use with my NEX 7, I can relate to what you're saying. By the end of the program, that Tamron felt like it weighed a ton. But I brought it because it was my only 300mm prime and I know from past experiences that if one is shooting a prime at an airshow, 300mm is best. 400mm can be a bit too much for some situations and 200mm is almost never enough. So, I bit the bullet and dragged that heavyweight with me.

Even though I shot the air show with the lens set at f/8 or f/11, I rationalized that this f/stop range was where this lens was the sharpest. So I never really had the opportunity to use it wide open. But if I had it to do all over again, I'd much prefer to have taken the Tamron SP 300mm f/5.6 or an optic of equivalent quality. The first couple of times I attended that air show, I used my EOS DSLR with the EF 75-300 f/4-5.6 zoom, which is nothing special -- or so they say. But I could count the rivets on the aircraft I shot with that supposedly cheapo Canon zoom. But if I'm gonna continue to use my NEX with a lens of 300mm or so focal length, then I will have no choice but to use an MF lens, since, far as I know, Sony doesn't make an AF lens for the NEX cameras that reaches out to 300mm.

Now, I realize this doesn't specifically address the topic of why one would want to shoot with a fast lens wide open. But it does address the topic of why one would want to shoot with a fast (and superior) optic stopped down. Because, in many cases, these fast lenses provide better pix when stopped down than their slower counterparts. Not always, but often enough for it to be taken into account.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 05, 2015 9:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Michael, I have to admit that the price for the Sony 300/2.8 of 6.000 Euro new and the Minolta version of 2.000 Euro used is also something to consider for me as I don't use such a lens that often. I have several different 300 mm lenses but I didn't compare them up to now. My best one is the Minolta 300/4 APO G which is still around over 1.000 Euro used and if used on my FF body it's additionally offering AF functionality which I find very useful for such a lens. The picture quality is excellent and more or less identical to the faster sibling at same apertures, even if used fully open. Wink
In your case the only possibility would be the 6.000 Euro version PLUS AF adapter if we are talking Sony AND AF......
Alternatively my slower "budget" version from Minolta.

BTW, my Minolta Rokkor MD 300/4.5 is not the best Minolta lens and in comparison the Rokkor 200/4 is by far superior, even if used on the Minolta 2x converter which gives you 400/8.

My first 300 mm lens was an old rather slow Tamron Adaptall one and this lens was really rather crappy (for my taste). So I never tried any other Tamron tele lens again. The only Tamron lens I have is the contemporary AF 90/2.8 macro one which I consider to be one of the best lenses on earth. Especially if you consider the price. Wink
Most probably there are nowadays some other Tamrons around which would be worth to consider as well. I don't know. Your pictures from the Airshow are looking very good, though I don't know how your lens performs fully open. Anyway, I am already more than well served at 300 mm as explained.

Last edited by tb_a on Thu Nov 05, 2015 9:44 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Nov 05, 2015 9:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Dear Thomas and Michael,
Regarding 300mm, my best compromise is pentax A*300/4 (or M*300/4, I have both). Both are good at f4, but a bit better stopped down, not as big/heavy as the Tamron 300/2.8.
Regarding 400mm, I use nikon ais 400/5.6 ed, sharp at f5.6, very light focus mech and easy to track object on the move.

Your airshow photos are awesome Smile


PostPosted: Thu Nov 05, 2015 9:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
kuuan wrote:
uhoh7 wrote:
kuuan wrote:

I am very tired of the argument that shooting wide open is nothing more than a beginners folly.


Did someone here say that? Smile

I think everyone should shoot however they please, but lenses are sometimes discussed solely in terms of wide open performance, which I guess if you are only going to shoot it WO, makes sense, but in truth there is almost no lens, even the 200/2 mentioned above which is designed to only shoot WO, aside from some special one. I have 100 lenses, none are designed for only wide open. So I like to learn all about the lens, not just one aspect. They look so different as you go through the stops. At they do not all look the same at f/8.

But for subject separation it's worthy of note the DOF of a 50mm at at 3 feet is only 6 inches. So at close range there is no need for a fast aperture to separate a subject. That's not to say shooting at f/1.4 at a meter is something I would never do. I do it too much Smile

I'm guilty as anyone of overdoing the wide open in my own photography, and now I try to choose the aperture based on the DOF I want. Smile

But there is always the urge to "open it up", it's like a gas pedal in the car LOL.


I agree with everything you wrote here, also what Ian wrote, including that me too I had been using wide open more during the first years of playing with manual lenses than I do now, agreeing with Pontus' point of this thread.
and I acknowledge that here, in this discussion, nobody has said that shooting wide open is but a beginner's folly. I am happy to acknowledge that some who have repeatedly saying or meaning that for some 2 years hopefully by now not only have refined their wording but somewhat changed their views.
I believe that actually we all pretty much agree anyways, we just emphasize different angles to make a certain point Wink

Michael sorry for the mishap of Uhoh to make appear my quote as your's, your post had been so smooth and didn't deserve that! And thank you for backing up what I tried to express nevertheless Smile


Oh jeez, my bad Sad

Please both of you accept my apology Smile I thought something looked amiss but I was loosing consciousness and failed to correct it, and also to realize the larger context of Kuuan's post, instead focusing on a single sentence.

I do see posts often misunderstood on forums, RFF can be crazy with all sorts of feathers ruffled just in how one member interpreted another. I do it in real life too.

But I have to blame it all an Ian because I was so tired from marshaling my defense of f/11 stars, in the face of his withering skepticism. Wink

I was utterly diffracted. Smile


PostPosted: Thu Nov 05, 2015 10:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
hoanpham wrote:
Regarding 300mm, my best compromise is pentax A*300/4 (or M*300/4, I have both). Both are good at f4, but a bit better stopped down, not as big/heavy as the Tamron 300/2.8.
Regarding 400mm, I use nikon ais 400/5.6 ed, sharp at f5.6, very light focus mech and easy to track object on the move.


I have the older sibling, the Super Takumar 300/4 which is also rather handsome and portable. Your newer versions are the better ones....
For 400 mm, if needed at all (I have 500 mm anyway), I use the 200 mm lens in combination with the converter or my MFT camera instead. Wink
I play around with the different sensor formats (FF, APS-C and MFT) to find the best combination for tele shooting. That may also be a way out to cope with the different circumstances for other folks as well. An additional body may be less expensive than an additional lens in that class.

Last edited by tb_a on Thu Nov 05, 2015 10:27 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Nov 05, 2015 10:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I accept fully, my share of the blame for the misquote.

Nice to see a bunch of guys mutually working something out instead of letting it cause an argument. Smile


PostPosted: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Michael, just in case you are interested as to how my MAF 300/4 is performing as MF-lens on APS-C FULLY OPEN at F4 (on Ricoh GXR-M):



100% crop:



I like the bokeh, though it's ONLY F4.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 05, 2015 3:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
... in many cases, these fast lenses provide better pix when stopped down than their slower counterparts. Not always, but often enough for it to be taken into account.


Thank you for more confirmation that faster lenses perform better than slower lenses when both are stopped down to the same aperture.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 05, 2015 3:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
... Nice to see a bunch of guys mutually working something out instead of letting it cause an argument. Smile


Whoo Turtle Happy Dog


PostPosted: Thu Nov 05, 2015 5:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
..
Nice to see a bunch of guys mutually working something out instead of letting it cause an argument. Smile


cheers! (one of my ) today's wide open shots Smile
Untitled by Andreas, on Flickr, Topcor-S f2/5cm, Sony A7


PostPosted: Thu Nov 05, 2015 5:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
There's a great depth to that image because of the smooth oof transition down the side of the rose. Really nice work!


PostPosted: Thu Nov 05, 2015 6:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
tb_a wrote:
Michael, just in case you are interested as to how my MAF 300/4 is performing as MF-lens on APS-C FULLY OPEN at F4 (on Ricoh GXR-M):

I like the bokeh, though it's ONLY F4.


Nice shots, Thomas. Yes, I'm aware that one can get quite good bokeh out of a somewhat slower lens if conditions are right. Here's a shot I took with my Canon nFD 200mm f/2.8. The reason why the background is so out of focus is because it was quite far away.



The bokeh look somewhat busy, though, but that's because the background was very busy. It was the side of a rocky hill. Still, I think it does a decent job of separating the subject from the background.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 4 of 7