F2.8 lenses
- Thread starter viper_biker
- Start date
- Messages
- 10,072
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
- Messages
- 1,576
- Name
- Eric Edwards
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Save and get the best , You will never be satisfied with cheap glass. 
- Messages
- 679
- Name
- STEVE WINN
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Viper,
I shot motorsports to a pretty high level.
If you're serious about taking it further then you have to seriously consider f2.8 glass.
2 major reasons why.........
Your biggest issue with motorsport action (regardless of if you're accredited behind the armco or public behind the fences) is the unavoidable clutter you get in the background at race circuits. This ranges from fences, tannoy poles, brightly clothed marshalls, ambulances, bright air catch fences, sponsor hoardings, grandstands etc etc.
Motorsport photography is primarily about capturing the moment when action gets exciting and relating that to your viewer, NOT about showing people that the ambulance in the background that you've inadvertantly caught in the frame is an LDV or a VW and has two occupants.
F2.8 apertures enable you to use Depth of Field to your advantage and completely blur out the annoying background clutter to a nice degree, leaving all the emphasis in your shot on the subject which is where it should be (unless you're intending to show the wide angle environment that the competitors are operating within).
The example below shows a little about what I mean.
The yellow in the right-hand background is a builder's hoarding attached to a half-built house with scaffold poles standing vertically. Normally I would want to avoid this type of cr@p from my shots but unfortunately the wheel-up action happens in the same spot all the time at Oulton's Druids and to move to a spot where that clutter wasn't in the background would mean I wouldn't get the shot...."period".
I know this but you don't because the very shallow depth of field used has obscurred the clutter to a degree where it doesn't detract from the main action. That's f2.8 working for you in a way that F4, F5.6 etc wouldn't.
2nd reason is that the smaller the f-number, the more light you're getting into your camera and more light means you can achieve a higher range of shutter speeds, essential for most motorsport eventualities.
Personally with a 70-300mm lens you don't need a monopod. Save your money. The smaller lenses are not what you'd call hefty - leave that for when you get your 300mm or 400mm f2.8 prime, then you need a monopod!!!!
F2.8 is the way to go, but it's more expensive for a good reason. "No pain, no gain" and "You get what you pay for" at work once again I'm afraid.
If you're not that bothered about the quality of the motorsport shots you produce (which I doubt is the case) then you don't need f2.8 and can save your money. If you are serious, I would save for a f2.8 lens that meets your needs and disregard stuff that you don't really need.
Good luck,
Guy
Great post and I totally agree. I have not long ago purchased a nikon 70-200 2.8 VR and it is tremendous. I do rugby, american football etc and it is brill. I did do a couple of inside Taekwondo tournaments where flash was bannned and now I find myself needing a D700
but with only D300 money.Its all about the Glass
I don't doubt your work Guy, and that is a nice shot. But you have been got
I used to do a lot of motorsport photography (20 years ago) but only as an amateur, and not with anything as nice as the 400 f2.8. Of course you are right, faster glass is great for masking the clutter at circuits (just that example could've been taken with slower glass, even if the glass wouldn't have been as good quality).
fletch5
Pain in the arse
- Messages
- 3,313
- Name
- Dean
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I know that, but he said he didn't like the results (of Bokeh I think) from slower lenses...yet he is using the equivalent of a slower lens in f stop terms to demonstrate that point
But had that lens been an f4 etc, then the f stop would be higher still using the extender resulting in more of the background in focus
I think you'd be better with a fixed lens like the 300 f2.8 (if funds don't allow, the 300mm f4 to start with), and then another lens for walking round the paddock. Since the action in motorsport is mostly predictable, you don't need a zoom for most shots.
OP
- Messages
- 550
- Name
- Gareth
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I can't see how the 70/300 can be called a 'budget' lens. I paid more for that lens than I did for my first D-SLR. I will dare say that eventually, I will get my hands on a Nikon f2.8 lens, but I thought that possibly a used Sigma equivelant would be a good stop-gap between the 70/300 and the 70/200. I'll most likely rent a 70/200 and see how good a piece of glass it is, and no doubt it'll put my 300 to shame
- Messages
- 516
- Name
- Guy Cope
- Edit My Images
- No
I've been trying to get my back ground to blur, like this photo. My question, is the f number of the zoom that helps?
Any advice welcome, any apologies for the rather basic question
Just reread - so lower number better for blurring?
Just to reiterate Mav, small f-number = larger aperture = lower/smaller DOF (depth of field)
Likewise, large f-number = smaller aperture = greater/larger DOF
Smaller f-number means you need less light or can work in duller conditions.
Larger f-number means you need more light and are limited in duller conditions.
An additional consideration is, the greater the distance between your subject and it's background, then the easier it is to blur out the background.
Hope this helps.
You really have to think about what effect and composition you want versus the weather conditions at the time and if they'll allow you to gain that effect. An f2.8 lens quite simply means you have more options open to you which has to be better when doing motorsports.
Guy
No, the f stop you see in the exif is the actual f stop that was set, irrelevant of the extender, so the same f stop could have been set with a slower lens, giving the same effect (albeit less sharp, due to different quality glass).
- Messages
- 516
- Name
- Guy Cope
- Edit My Images
- No
I know that, but he said he didn't like the results (of Bokeh I think) from slower lenses...yet he is using the equivalent of a slower lens in f stop terms to demonstrate that point
I'll see if I have any Nikkor AF-S 400mm f2.8 shots versus Nikkor AF-S 300mm f4 taken from the same location to confirm my point better.
Like I mentioned, that shot was just plucked from one of many. I knew it was taken with the f2.8 but as I don't use exif data I omitted to see I had the 1.4x on thus increasing the aperture.
Gc
fletch5
Pain in the arse
- Messages
- 3,313
- Name
- Dean
- Edit My Images
- Yes
so would the camera with the extender attached let you pick f2.8???
- Messages
- 10,072
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yeah I know, no problem with that.
The 1.4x doesn't increase the aperture shown if the exif data (see examples below), which suggests you must have set that aperture.
Also, was it definitely shot with the f2.8? Maybe your exif data is up the spout, as it says the max aperture of your lens is f4 (and I realise you may not even own such a lens). Have you owned (rented, borrowed) a long zoom?
Yes, you can still pick the lowest aperture, but less light comes into the camera (which the meter recognises immediately).
EDIT - This may depend on TC & Body used. Certainly with the kenco 1.4 and either D70 or D700 you still select f2.8 in AP mode.
Here a couple of examples, just shot with 1.4TC and 50mm f1.8. Check the exif data, and each shot was taken at f1.8 (not shown as one stop slower - f2.5)
D70:
D700:
- Messages
- 516
- Name
- Guy Cope
- Edit My Images
- No
Max aperture of the lens at f4 is probably right (i.e. f2.8 plus 1.4x converter = lost stops from f2.8). To argue your later response to fletch that putting a converter on doesn't affect your camera controls in terms of aperture....It Does, at least on my D2H anyway e.g. If I put a 1.4x or a 2x on my 400mm f2.8 I can never select f2.8 on the camera in any of the camera modes (Shutter, aperture or manual). It always compensates for the lost stop/s as a result of adding a converter to the lens.
I wouldn't have set that aperture purposely......It's too ambiguous (i.e. in no-mans land in terms of the range I use in motorsports). With shots like that I go as low as I can in terms of aperture, unless I've shot in Shutter priority and the camera has dictated the aperture setting for me. I'd need to check the image data to see what mode I took the shot in. I'm guessing it's shutter priority.
Gc
- Messages
- 4,747
- Name
- Adele
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Maybe the exif data is reported in a different way to the D70 and D700.
So this is either a difference between Nikon bodies, or the TC used. I've used the kenko 1.4 - which TCs have you used?
Yes, the exif says it was shutter priority.
- Messages
- 516
- Name
- Guy Cope
- Edit My Images
- No
Joe T
TPer Emeritus
- Messages
- 15,801
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Kenko TCs dont report their presence to the body properly. The camera still thinks it has a f2.8 lens on it. Nikon TCs on Nikon lenses (and also Sigma TCs on Sigma lenses) dont have this issue.
My Sigma TC on my 400 2.8 does the same. I think it means that the shots will come out under-exposed by one stop too?
My Sigma TC on my 400 2.8 does the same. I think it means that the shots will come out under-exposed by one stop too?
- Messages
- 27,793
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It's a £300 plastic-bodied lens, where as the 70-200 f/2.8 is built like a tank and costs £900 more
There really is no comparison between the 70-200 and 70-300 in terms of iq. Rather than buy a Sigma 70-200 I'd suggest having a look at the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 for the same sort of money. It has essentially the same optics as the 70-200 VR but for £600 less
- Messages
- 516
- Name
- Guy Cope
- Edit My Images
- No
Yeah but more often than not you can't control either of those when taking motorsport shots. You have the lens you have and you have the environment you're given (i.e. you can't control how far the bikes/cars are from you or their background or the weather conditions they're in) when you take the shot.
Having the ability to control aperture and DOF makes a huge difference unless of course you like sh|t backgrounds in your shots. Having an f2.8 improves that control even farther.
Gc
Ah, that explains it, thanks.
No it doesn't. Having the TC on reduces the light that gets to the meter, so even if the camera thinks it's still shooting at f2.8, it doesn't matter, because the camera also thinks it's darker.
If you want to compose your subject a certain way (eg, head and shoulders portrait), you can't adjust the DOF with focal length or distance to subject - ie, if you use a longer focal length, you have to move further away to keep the same composition, so they cancel each other out. So aperture is the only thing you can use to change your DOF.