- Messages
- 23,635
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
What would 'hide' catch fencing better, an 800mm eq lens at f6.3 or a 600mm eq lens at f4?
At race circuits more and more catch fencing is going up making it a nightmare for photography, and I'm constantly frustrated that I either get a hint of a crisscross pattern across the image, or you lose significant contrast and detail on certain parts of the image. It's been made even worse recently in that they're now putting a second low fence up meaning you can't get right up against the catch fence making it even harder to hide the fence.
Now depending on the light (bright sunshine or overcast) and how far away the car/bike is sometimes it's not visible, but if it's bright sunshine, or the car/bike isn't that far from the fence then it shows, and I get pretty frustrated.
I can't afford, nor am I willing to carry big 600mm f4 lenses, and tbh I've had to downsize due to health issues anyway so am now shooting with m4/3 which of course increases DOF and makes 'hiding' fences even more difficult. So my question is this, what will make more of a difference hiding the fence, focal length or aperture?
The reason for my question is that I have the Panny Leica 100-400mm f4-6.3 which gives the effective FOV of a 200-80mm lens, but even at 800mm eq there are times when there's still a hint of the fence. The other issue with shooting at 800mm eq is that heat haze can often cause a reduction in detail and sharpness. I've been considering the Olympus 300mm f4 (600mm eq), but would this 'hide' the fence any better?
If I use online calculators 400mm (800mm eq) f6.3 gives a slightly shallower DOF than 300mm (600mm eq) f4 and initially I think well clearly the 800mm eq lens will be better at 'hiding' the fence, but then I wondered if it was as simple as this. Is DOF the only determining factor or does simple having a wider aperture disguise it more due to the physics of the way the light bends, similar to how dust spots on the sensor don't sow at wider apertures?
At race circuits more and more catch fencing is going up making it a nightmare for photography, and I'm constantly frustrated that I either get a hint of a crisscross pattern across the image, or you lose significant contrast and detail on certain parts of the image. It's been made even worse recently in that they're now putting a second low fence up meaning you can't get right up against the catch fence making it even harder to hide the fence.
Now depending on the light (bright sunshine or overcast) and how far away the car/bike is sometimes it's not visible, but if it's bright sunshine, or the car/bike isn't that far from the fence then it shows, and I get pretty frustrated.
I can't afford, nor am I willing to carry big 600mm f4 lenses, and tbh I've had to downsize due to health issues anyway so am now shooting with m4/3 which of course increases DOF and makes 'hiding' fences even more difficult. So my question is this, what will make more of a difference hiding the fence, focal length or aperture?
The reason for my question is that I have the Panny Leica 100-400mm f4-6.3 which gives the effective FOV of a 200-80mm lens, but even at 800mm eq there are times when there's still a hint of the fence. The other issue with shooting at 800mm eq is that heat haze can often cause a reduction in detail and sharpness. I've been considering the Olympus 300mm f4 (600mm eq), but would this 'hide' the fence any better?
If I use online calculators 400mm (800mm eq) f6.3 gives a slightly shallower DOF than 300mm (600mm eq) f4 and initially I think well clearly the 800mm eq lens will be better at 'hiding' the fence, but then I wondered if it was as simple as this. Is DOF the only determining factor or does simple having a wider aperture disguise it more due to the physics of the way the light bends, similar to how dust spots on the sensor don't sow at wider apertures?