Would it be your 300mm or 400mm

[KIPAX]

and if your camera doesn't give you the same values then there is something wrong with it. Must be because its a Nikon

and you say you didnt attack gary..

 

[ksapwaff]

Please do

I'd love to Gary, I really would but I can't let this one slide unfortunately All the metering references above were EXAMPLES so you could see what I mean by exposure. They weren't meant to be taken literally as I can't imagine too many people running onto a pitch with a lightmeter!

You've gone off on a bit of a tangent now as well. I know that light changes will mean different exposure settings. Thats pretty obvious and on sunny/partly cloudy days it can be a nightmare exposing if you are sitting in the wrong place due to shadows etc. as you mention. Personally I try and sit where the sun is fully at my back or straight in front of me. This way the player is either fully front or back lit so you can use Manual again. I really don't like using anyting auto on the camera but thats my choice of course. However this is not always practical as where you sit is pre-determined by the venue and if I can't sit where I prefer then I have to use auto modes on occasion but I find them ridiculously poor at getting exposures correct due to back/front/side lighting changining all the time and bright/dark backgrounds throwing everything out. Anyway, this is neither here nor there and has nothing to do with the original issue which is whether focal length changes your exposure settings. And it doesn't. The only thing that affects exposure is light. And you have even said it yourself above about different lighting conditions. Focal lenght does NOT affect exposure settings. It affects field of view and depth of field.

So lets get back to that again. I'm going to have another go at explaining it. I know you're probably not going to listen anyway and thats your choice but it can be for the benefit of others who do not fully understand as well.

I've given a few examples above already and they all still stand. I've thought of another example for you that might help explain it a little better.

You have two guys at a game, one with a 300mm and the other with a 400mm. The guy with the 400mm decides to stand about 5m behind the guy with the 300mm. Their field of view is now pretty much the same when they take a shot of a player as in the photos are identical pretty much.
So if the 300mm guy had an exposure setting of 1/640 at f2.8 and ISO1000 to make a correct exposure what do you think the 400mm guy had on his camera? I would hazard a guess that it would be 1/640 at f2.8 and ISO1000 as well!! Why is this? Because they are taking an identical exposure. You could get a guy with a 24mm to go up and stand beside the footballer and take a shot and his settings would be the same once his field of view was the same.

Now if you are taking different photos to each other then of course obviously the exposure settings would be different as they are different photos. Two guys taking pics from the same place, one with a 300 and the other wwiht a 400 would result in different pics and therefore different exposures. But that has nothing to do with focal length. For example if you took a shot of the footballer in the sun at 300mm then you would have a much different exposure setting if you took one of him under the shadow of the stands. However this was with the same 300mm lens. But thats not why the exposure settings were different it's because the light was different.

Same thing with the 300 and 400 on the pitch. The field of view to each other is different so that will result in different exposures. They don't let in any more or less light than each other though as an f2.8 lens will let in the exact same amount of light as any other f2.8 lens in the world. That is an actual fact. That is what aperture means. How much light it lets in and f2.8 is f2.8 no matter what way you look at it.

I mentioned earlier that photography was the capture of light. You said it wasn't strictly true. But it is. There are no if's ands or buts about that. Your camera takes the reflected light from a subject that you want to expose onto it's sensor through the lens. The amount of light that gets in is based on your shutter speed and aperture setting. No matter what lens you have on your camera, the same amount of light will get in if it's set to 1/200 and f8.0 to expose the subject. Thats another actual fact.

Now if you change your focal length to 24mm from 300mm then you have a new decision to make as you are now taking a new photo. It's the same as pointing the 300mm in a different direction completely. You now have to take into account the crowd, stands, sky, floodlights so you are taking an entirely different photo. So what do you expose for? Well if you choose anything other than the footballer then your settings will be different but if you wish for the footballer to be exposed correctly then the settings will be identical to the 300mm settings. Again, there are no if's ands or buts about that. Your camera takes the reflected light from a subject that you want to expose onto it's sensor through the lens and the light falling onto the footballer is the same. If the camera is in auto mode then it hasn't a clue what you want to expose correctly so makes a guess based on the field of view. This is why it's different. Not because of the focal length. Point the 300 in two different directions and you'll get two different exposure readings. Again, nothing to do with the focal length. All to do with reflected light onto your camera sensor.

I know it can be difficult to put your thought in writing in the tone meant but I didn't mean any offence to you or anyone else by any of the posts above and I still don't but there are at least 3 people on this thread who are making incorrect decisions based on what you have said and there isn't much point people reading incorrect information when they are trying to learn. If you still don't believe me then let google be your friend.

Please do

I will now

 

[KIPAX]

back to the original question.. I replied yesterday and cant see my reply.. gremlins?

I recently took the very expensive step of going from 300 to 400.. still got the 300 as i wanted to be sure first.. junior foottball (small pitches) and ice hockey with the 300 would suffer.

But the 400 is great... its also easier to use and capture peak moments because everyhting moves slower the longer your focul length (does that need explaining?)

The change only has one downside (apart from hevier to lump about) .. At some grounds I work the lighting is so poor that I just about manage f2.8 iso6400 and a 320 shutter... this just works on a 300 lens with admittedly a low keeper rate... However the same conditions with a 400mm lens makes the keeper rate almost impossible.

The 300 is great when shooting from sideline as you can frame both goals.. the 400 is an end position lens for sure as twisting from left to right is a bit silly and your too close.

Lots of ups and down but as I ahve the choice right now of 300 or 400 then the 400 wins..

 

[snapzz]

Lots of ups and down but as I ahve the choice right now of 300 or 400 then the 400 wins..

Unless you need the 300 and you will just as soon as you get rid of it! :bang:

 

[KIPAX]

Unless you need the 300 and you will just as soon as you get rid of it! :bang:

I know

Because the price of lens are steady and this is mint worth 2.7k .. I could just keep hold in case needed...2.7k in the bank could get picked at.. dunno.. still all packed up waiting for me to type a letter for canon.. sending it off for the pre sale once over..

 

[Gary Coyle]

I'd love to Gary, I really would but I can't let this one slide unfortunately All the metering references above were EXAMPLES so you could see what I mean by exposure. They weren't meant to be taken literally as I can't imagine too many people running onto a pitch with a lightmeter!

You've gone off on a bit of a tangent now as well. I know that light changes will mean different exposure settings. Thats pretty obvious and on sunny/partly cloudy days it can be a nightmare exposing if you are sitting in the wrong place due to shadows etc. as you mention. Personally I try and sit where the sun is fully at my back or straight in front of me. This way the player is either fully front or back lit so you can use Manual again. I really don't like using anyting auto on the camera but thats my choice of course. However this is not always practical as where you sit is pre-determined by the venue and if I can't sit where I prefer then I have to use auto modes on occasion but I find them ridiculously poor at getting exposures correct due to back/front/side lighting changining all the time and bright/dark backgrounds throwing everything out. Anyway, this is neither here nor there and has nothing to do with the original issue which is whether focal length changes your exposure settings. And it doesn't. The only thing that affects exposure is light. And you have even said it yourself above about different lighting conditions. Focal lenght does NOT affect exposure settings. It affects field of view and depth of field.

So lets get back to that again. I'm going to have another go at explaining it. I know you're probably not going to listen anyway and thats your choice but it can be for the benefit of others who do not fully understand as well.

I've given a few examples above already and they all still stand. I've thought of another example for you that might help explain it a little better.

You have two guys at a game, one with a 300mm and the other with a 400mm. The guy with the 400mm decides to stand about 5m behind the guy with the 300mm. Their field of view is now pretty much the same when they take a shot of a player as in the photos are identical pretty much.
So if the 300mm guy had an exposure setting of 1/640 at f2.8 and ISO1000 to make a correct exposure what do you think the 400mm guy had on his camera? I would hazard a guess that it would be 1/640 at f2.8 and ISO1000 as well!! Why is this? Because they are taking an identical exposure. You could get a guy with a 24mm to go up and stand beside the footballer and take a shot and his settings would be the same once his field of view was the same.

Now if you are taking different photos to each other then of course obviously the exposure settings would be different as they are different photos. Two guys taking pics from the same place, one with a 300 and the other wwiht a 400 would result in different pics and therefore different exposures. But that has nothing to do with focal length. For example if you took a shot of the footballer in the sun at 300mm then you would have a much different exposure setting if you took one of him under the shadow of the stands. However this was with the same 300mm lens. But thats not why the exposure settings were different it's because the light was different.

Same thing with the 300 and 400 on the pitch. The field of view to each other is different so that will result in different exposures. They don't let in any more or less light than each other though as an f2.8 lens will let in the exact same amount of light as any other f2.8 lens in the world. That is an actual fact. That is what aperture means. How much light it lets in and f2.8 is f2.8 no matter what way you look at it.

I mentioned earlier that photography was the capture of light. You said it wasn't strictly true. But it is. There are no if's ands or buts about that. Your camera takes the reflected light from a subject that you want to expose onto it's sensor through the lens. The amount of light that gets in is based on your shutter speed and aperture setting. No matter what lens you have on your camera, the same amount of light will get in if it's set to 1/200 and f8.0 to expose the subject. Thats another actual fact.

Now if you change your focal length to 24mm from 300mm then you have a new decision to make as you are now taking a new photo. It's the same as pointing the 300mm in a different direction completely. You now have to take into account the crowd, stands, sky, floodlights so you are taking an entirely different photo. So what do you expose for? Well if you choose anything other than the footballer then your settings will be different but if you wish for the footballer to be exposed correctly then the settings will be identical to the 300mm settings. Again, there are no if's ands or buts about that. Your camera takes the reflected light from a subject that you want to expose onto it's sensor through the lens and the light falling onto the footballer is the same. If the camera is in auto mode then it hasn't a clue what you want to expose correctly so makes a guess based on the field of view. This is why it's different. Not because of the focal length. Point the 300 in two different directions and you'll get two different exposure readings. Again, nothing to do with the focal length. All to do with reflected light onto your camera sensor.

I know it can be difficult to put your thought in writing in the tone meant but I didn't mean any offence to you or anyone else by any of the posts above and I still don't but there are at least 3 people on this thread who are making incorrect decisions based on what you have said and there isn't much point people reading incorrect information when they are trying to learn. If you still don't believe me then let google be your friend.




I will now

You are correct but only if you spot meter and can keep the metering point/focus point exactly where you want it and only then will you correctly expose your subject every time even with different focal length lenses, however there is massive risk of blowing out or underexposing the foreground and background

i use dynamic/evaluative simply because i cant guarantee the above scenario with quickly shifting subjects, other subjects moving in front of my subject or shifting available light and thats when shooting in Aperture priority you see the shift in shutter speed at different focal lengths, because the available light seen by the cameras meter is affected by the FOV which is different between 300 and 400mm