2.8 vs 5.6 at 200mm?

L

loplyg

Messages
379
Name
Rich
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi folks,

I'm trying to decide between a 70-200/2.8 or a 70-300/5.6, through my own testing I've concluded I don't need the 2.8 speed (due to high ISO on D700) but it's harder to make a call about DOF.

Can anybody who owns a 200/2.8 be kind enough to post a couple of shots illustrating the difference between DOF @ 200mm 2.8/5.6?

I've ran tests using a 50mm but the focal length makes a difference obviously so it doesn't really help.

Thanks folks,
Rich
 
Here's two pictures from the same job - similar subject matter - which might help you - EXIF is intact.

These were taken with the 80-200mm AF-D f/2.8 - no VR!!

1AW_1120.jpg



1AW_1189.jpg


I would say get the 2.8 - much better lens - you can always close it down - if you get a 5.6 lens - then you're stuck with that!
 
You're talking about two different lenses. There is more to the difference than focal length and aperture.

The 70-200mm at f5.6 will be a lot sharper than the 70-300mm at f5.6. Another thing that MUST be taken into consideration is the whole image quality, colours etc will be superior on the 70-200mm.
 
The 70-200 is generally considered to be a 'better' lens, no matter who makes it - as one of the 'staple' lenses for most users, more R&D costs go into those than the lesser-purchased ones (as a general rule of thumb).

A current-generation Nikon or Canon 70-200 f/2.8 will be head and shoulders above any 70-300...and a fair bit better than most 3rd-party 70-200's as well...
 
Even Canon's 70-200 f/4s are widely regarded as being completely and utterly ass-spankingly superb.

Why would anyone want to put a 70-300 on a superb professional camera body like the D700?
 
trencheel303 said:
Why would anyone want to put a 70-300 on a superb professional camera body like the D700?
Click to expand...

'cause for the money (about 1/3rd of the cost) the Nikon 70-300 is a cracking lens & nice and light. However, I agree with you its just not in the same league as the 70-200 which is the far better choice for the d700
 
I went from the 70-300 VR to the 80-200 f/2.8 and the difference in sharpness and colour rendition is night and day. It always puzzles me why people spend £1000 or more on a camera body and then stick cheap glass on it, surely the whole point in buying a "good" camera is to see better results?
 
That's a very good point - the 'old' 80-200 f/2.8 is a fantastic lens...
if you don't actually need the VR facility and can stand a slight 'clunkiness' with the AF-action, then it's something to consider - only the twin-ring version though - one-touch zooms are horrid and should be burned as an affront to the gods...
 
By 'one touch zoom' do you mean Push n' pull, Rob?
Freakin' horrible things, they are...
 
Whilst agreeing with the comments there are a lot of folk that cannot afford/justify the cost of these lenses but love photography just as much as you or I.

£1627 against £427 (WHE)........if you can afford that great but please don't keep thrusting down the throats of members that are on tight budgets, how do you think it makes them feel?
 
I'm aware of the general difference in quality but that doesn't concern me really, the 70-300 is more than adequate in that respect. The only thing I need to decide on is how much the extra subject isolation is worth to me (ie is it worth £1100), which is impossible to say without a few side-by-sides... Thanks for the help so far though.
 
As noted above there is more to dof than just aperture. The distance to your subject will make a bigger impact. You'd have less dof if the subject is 10' away with an aperture of f5.6 (0.24 feet) than if shooting at f2.8 with the subject 15 feet away )0.28 feet).

Subject distance is therefore very important - what is really important though is the times when you need to shoot at ISO3200 in a dark church and still only get shutter speeds even at f2.8. With 4x more light and therefore 4x faster shutter speed, the 70-200 2.8 is the one I'd want (well i have the canon version).

If you shoot for pennies, get the cheap lens. if you shoot for pounds get the 2.8. No point putting yourself in a position where your equipment is letting you down and even with the superb D700, putting relatively cheap glass on the camera is asking for that.

just my 2c

JD
 
Bazza155 said:
Whilst agreeing with the comments there are a lot of folk that cannot afford/justify the cost of these lenses but love photography just as much as you or I.

£1627 against £427 (WHE)........if you can afford that great but please don't keep thrusting down the throats of members that are on tight budgets, how do you think it makes them feel?
Click to expand...

I do agree with this, but 'tight budget' and 'D700' aren't two things I would generally put together in the same sentence, thought or breath... and the OP has just admitted in the post below yours that quality doesn't bother them that, so again I am now completely confuddled as to why they've even bought a D700 in the first place :shrug:

I know we're going off topic here but if quality isn't really an issue why buy a D700 or why put crap (comparitively) glass on a good camera body??? Why even buy a DSLR if quality is not paramount... :gag:
 
I know we're going off topic here but if quality isn't really an issue why buy a D700 or why put crap (comparitively) glass on a good camera body??? Why even buy a DSLR if quality is not paramount... :gag:[/QUOTE]

If image quality is so important why are people buying 35mm cameras, when there are better formats out there for most types of photography, I think it is because all of us are on a budget. and if you are looking for quality on a 35mm budget why buy a zoom when a fixed lens is far better?
 
EOS_JD said:
As noted above there is more to dof than just aperture. The distance to your subject will make a bigger impact. You'd have less dof if the subject is 10' away with an aperture of f5.6 (0.24 feet) than if shooting at f2.8 with the subject 15 feet away )0.28 feet).

JD
Click to expand...

Glad that was pointed out. :thumbs:

Purchase according to your budget or save. No point in arguing about 'crap' and 'great' glass as it is purely down to the photographer using it.
 
Bazza155 said:
Whilst agreeing with the comments there are a lot of folk that cannot afford/justify the cost of these lenses but love photography just as much as you or I.

£1627 against £427 (WHE)........if you can afford that great but please don't keep thrusting down the throats of members that are on tight budgets, how do you think it makes them feel?
Click to expand...

Hey Barry - if you can't afford it - get a proper job, mate.

People ask what is 'the best lens', 'Best lens on a budget' 'best lens for £50' etc and I generally say what's what...
In this instance the lenses mentioned are the best bet - an 80-200 f/2.8 can be picked up relatively cheaply if you look around...
Here's a nice one in Portugal I found for you in the space of about 20 seconds:
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Nikon-AF-Zoom...es_CameraLensesFilters_JN&hash=item19bcb425ce

No-one is pushing anything down anyone's throats...

Photography is an expensive habit - if the decent kit is beyond your means, well then I feel for you, but that doesn't alter the fact that good-quality equipment is expensive and good-quality kit is what I'll continue to recommend to those who seriously want the best...
 
Hi guys,
Thanks for all the replies, but we're getting a bit off topic here.

For what i intend to use this particular lens for sharpness and contrast isnt the end of the world - i mainly use the cam for other things entirely - the only thing im really interested in is the difference in DOF at 200mm between 5.6/2.8.

Obviouslly it depends on subject distance and quite obviouslly it will be significantly shallower on the 2.8 - im just looking for some comparisons to help me weigh up.

I may have to hire or lend one by the looks of it.
 
EOS_JD said:
As noted above there is more to dof than just aperture. The distance to your subject will make a bigger impact. You'd have less dof if the subject is 10' away with an aperture of f5.6 (0.24 feet) than if shooting at f2.8 with the subject 15 feet away )0.28 feet).
Click to expand...

What focal lengths are these figures for? I thought that it was magnification that made a difference, so that for the lens 15 feet away, a focal length of 1.5 times the one used at 10 feet would be needed to give (nearly enough) the same framing.
 
Arkady said:
Here's a nice one in Portugal I found for you in the space of about 20 seconds:
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Nikon-AF-Zoom...es_CameraLensesFilters_JN&hash=item19bcb425ce
Click to expand...

Collection in person is the only delivery option available, from Portugal? :naughty:

I agree with everyones comments; if you want professional looking pictures with good DOF, sharpness etc. you really have to bite the bullet and shell out so to speak. I own a 80-200 2.8 AF-D and its a stunning lens, certainly worth every penny. :thumbs:
 
EOS_JD said:
As noted above there is more to dof than just aperture. The distance to your subject will make a bigger impact. You'd have less dof if the subject is 10' away with an aperture of f5.6 (0.24 feet) than if shooting at f2.8 with the subject 15 feet away )0.28 feet).

Subject distance is therefore very important - what is really important though is the times when you need to shoot at ISO3200 in a dark church and still only get shutter speeds even at f2.8. With 4x more light and therefore 4x faster shutter speed, the 70-200 2.8 is the one I'd want (well i have the canon version).
Click to expand...

How did you get the figures please - I managed to use this to replicate but is there a common formula?

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

Ta
 
Bazza155 said:
members that are on tight budgets
Click to expand...

No-one is on a tight budget - think of it as a different time scale - and it is worth the wait! Keep saving and you'll be glad you did!
 
mr_pants said:
What focal lengths are these figures for? I thought that it was magnification that made a difference, so that for the lens 15 feet away, a focal length of 1.5 times the one used at 10 feet would be needed to give (nearly enough) the same framing.
Click to expand...

200mm

Yes magnification is correct. My point is that if you shoot at f5.6 you would need to be 5' closert to the subject to get a roughly similar dof.

The OP wanted to isolate the subject so he would need to be closer. I wasn't talking about the same image because that as you are intimating would not work.

The nest bet is the 2.8 no doubt and it will always be able to have a shallower dof than the 200 in a comparable composition.

However if we stand say 15' away with both lenses at max zoom, the 2.8 lens will have 0.28ft or dof and the 5.6 lens will have 0.24ft dof.

So similar but obviously the 2.8 is likely to have a nicer bokeh and will permit 4x the shutter speed (which is a huge advantage) - also it's likely to be sharper too at f5.6.
 
Arkady said:
Hey Barry - if you can't afford it - get a proper job, mate.

Photography is an expensive habit - if the decent kit is beyond your means, well then I feel for you, but that doesn't alter the fact that good-quality equipment is expensive and good-quality kit is what I'll continue to recommend to those who seriously want the best...
Click to expand...

Whilst Bazza155 comment may not have been relevant to the original poster, who is considering the 70-200/2.8, I don't think that was a nice reply to someone's concerns over the cost difference between the two lenses. Not many will disagree that quality costs money, and this is especially the case with lenses, but to tell someone to get a 'proper job' when they voice concerns over costs was not nice. The point could have been made, if you needed to make it, with a little bit more tact.

I generally like your posts Arkady, but this was just a bit much imho.


awp said:
No-one is on a tight budget - think of it as a different time scale - and it is worth the wait! Keep saving and you'll be glad you did!
Click to expand...
People are on tight budgets, especially in the current financial climate, and will buy their equipment when they can. It is easy to say save for the quality, but depending on people's personal circumstances that could be a very long time. Better to get something to take pictures with rather than waiting for that ultimate bit of kit that will give you the quality you may crave imho.

trencheel303 said:
I know we're going off topic here but if quality isn't really an issue why buy a D700 or why put crap (comparitively) glass on a good camera body??? Why even buy a DSLR if quality is not paramount... :gag:
Click to expand...

Again, someone dissing someone for suggesting, or even having, lower than top quality equipment.

Is quality the only reason to get a DSLR?
Could it also be the versatility of a DSLR system? Could it be the enjoyment of just using the camera? Could it be having a system that gives you the most control over your photography? Could it be that someone wants a 'full frame' camera?

There are many reasons to buy the equipment you buy, the specific reasons are up to the individual.

Give advice by all means, but try not to assume and judge.
 
loplyg said:
Hi guys,
Thanks for all the replies, but we're getting a bit off topic here.

For what i intend to use this particular lens for sharpness and contrast isnt the end of the world - i mainly use the cam for other things entirely - the only thing im really interested in is the difference in DOF at 200mm between 5.6/2.8.

Obviouslly it depends on subject distance and quite obviouslly it will be significantly shallower on the 2.8 - im just looking for some comparisons to help me weigh up.

I may have to hire or lend one by the looks of it.
Click to expand...

I think you're misunderstanding depth of field, and the factors affecting 'subject isolation'.

Depth of field is controlled by f/number and magnification (image size) not by focal length directly. It's focal length and subject distance, so if you take two pictures, a portrait maybe, one with your 50mm lens and then move back with a 200mm lens so that the subject remains the same size in the viewfinder (same magnification) then the DoF will be the same, f/number for f/number (that DoFmaster link is very good for checking these things).

However, as a result of the greater distance, the field of view at 200mm will be much narrower. There will be much less background visible, less clutter and distractions so that, even though the DoF is the same, the visual impression of subject isolation is much greater.

It's a the combination of both shallow depth of field (at f/2.8) and narrow field of view (at 200mm) that makes the subject stand out more.
 
Not sure if this is totally relevant but I have a sigma 70-300 on my 50d. It is a lens I originally bought to use on a much cheaper body, my 300d. I have been upgrading my lenses but have only upgraded my wide angle and my 17-55mm to date.

After using my upgraded mid range and wide angle lenses I detest using the 70-300 :( The colours are washed out and the focus is soft when I compare it to my upgraded lenses. It's a really big difference. I can't wait to upgrade this lens to a 70-200 f/4 or f/2.8...

I known you say you only care about dof and blur but I seriously recommend you try both lenses out as there is so much more to it.

Ymmv
Dub
 
Jim B said:
Collection in person is the only delivery option available, from Portugal? :naughty:

I agree with everyones comments; if you want professional looking pictures with good DOF, sharpness etc. you really have to bite the bullet and shell out so to speak. I own a 80-200 2.8 AF-D and its a stunning lens, certainly worth every penny. :thumbs:
Click to expand...

:gag:...the point being they come up quite frequently and at a decent price...:lol:
 
EOS_JD said:
200mm

Yes magnification is correct. My point is that if you shoot at f5.6 you would need to be 5' closert to the subject to get a roughly similar dof.

The OP wanted to isolate the subject so he would need to be closer. I wasn't talking about the same image because that as you are intimating would not work.

The nest bet is the 2.8 no doubt and it will always be able to have a shallower dof than the 200 in a comparable composition.

However if we stand say 15' away with both lenses at max zoom, the 2.8 lens will have 0.28ft or dof and the 5.6 lens will have 0.24ft dof.
Click to expand...

I agree with you that DOF will, indeed, be shallower, but the picture won't be the same. The framing won't be the same. (as you have already acknowledged. The rest of this, you already know). For the same framing, generally, DOF comes down to aperture. I've heard in numerous podcasts and the like that shallow DOF is easy to get; just get up close with a long focal length. That would be fine if you only wanted a shallow-DOF picture of someone's nose, rather than head-and-shoulders.

Sorry, it's been a bit of a gripe of mine for some time.
 
boyfalldown said:
'cause for the money (about 1/3rd of the cost) the Nikon 70-300 is a cracking lens
Click to expand...

You'll generally get better results on a £1500 lens on a £500 body than you will with a £500 lens on a £1500 body.

So, if cost is the issue, spend on the lenses, not the body.
 
Kaouthia said:
You'll generally get better results on a £1500 lens on a £500 body than you will with a £500 lens on a £1500 body.

So, if cost is the issue, spend on the lenses, not the body.
Click to expand...

I know - but I was simply saying for sub £500 the latest 70-300 is hard to beat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top