Lens for the D60
- Thread starter Dennis
- Start date
- Status
StreetShooter
Senior Member
I think you may have hit the nail on the head, with regard to the misunderstanding.
Victor probably means a large DOF, and Jed may be thinking he means a shallow DOF.
There I go, putting words in people's mouths and my foot in my own....
Victor probably means a large DOF, and Jed may be thinking he means a shallow DOF.
There I go, putting words in people's mouths and my foot in my own....
I certainly hope so.
I don't think Victor ever said a 5.6 lens will do what a 2.8 lens cannot do.
He said: "Well, true that the 2.8 lens can handle low light as well as the IS lens but it's at the expense of DOF."
And then: " Well, I can easily handhold and shoot at f8 or smaller aperture at the 135mm end on a dim day but i dun think so if I were to use the the f2.8 non IS lens. I will hit the sweet spot of the lens that much easier and get better DOF at the same time. "
My original question, which I've asked three times without reply from him, as a direct question, is where shooting at 135mm at f8 will succeed where the f2.8 will fail because of "better" DOF. As I've already indicated the sweet spot argument is nonsense, as is this idea of "better" DOF. Which with telephoto lenses, generally less is better. And while there are instances where maybe you might want extensive DOF, my question is, how will changing from f2.8 to f5.6 save the situation. As I said earlier, there is substantial difference with wide angle lenses, but with telephotos, there is very little DOF to gain except to reduce the out of focus blurr.
Victor is saying (and he has a valid point) that IS is useful in those situations (like handheld landscape photography) where you need extra stability without having to lug a tripod along.
Does he really? Then how come he also says: "mmm...we dun need IS on wide angles do we ? They are inherently holdable at slow shutter speed."
The thing is his argument is inconsistent and morphing all the time. If he really just wants maximum sharpness (for DOF purposes) without having to lug a tripod along, then how come he doesn't see the need for IS in wide angles? And furthermore, as CK has already pointed out, IS won't get you to f16 during the twilight hour anyway that Victor talks about.
We're not talking about how large an aperture you can get, but how low a shutter speed you can get away with, without a tripod. Much as I like my 1.8 and 2.8 lenses, I have to agree that the 28-135 IS will do the job better FOR THE SITUATION DESCRIBED BY VICTOR. Like he said, sometimes background blur and motion freeze is not what you're after.
There are cross arguments going on too. Victor also said that he wouldn't touch a 200/5.6. Or any other telephoto with only a f5.6 maximum aperture, not without a tripod. Which he won't get. My argument is why he won't touch one. If you have the light to shoot a 35mm lens at f16 with or without IS, it still means there's enough light to use a 200mm lens at f5.6. Which brings me back to my original question which I've asked three times and am still waiting for an answer for. How many situations are there where 2 stops in a telephoto, be it f5.6 over f2.8 or f11 over f5.6 in this case, will save a shot for DOF where the wide aperture shot would fail? Very, very few. And as I said, the reverse on the other hand is painfully true, many shots would be vastly improved by shooting at f2.8 as opposed to f5.6, or f5.6 as opposed to f11.
If you really want to milk the DOF from a telephoto you need to be on f22 or smaller, and even then it's difficult. IS is not going to get you there.
But at f16, the 5.6 lens with IS will outperform a 2.8 lens without IS, if we are talking handheld and no tripod. I personally hardly use a tripod, I find it a pain, so I know where he's coming from. Jed thinks that there's no substitute for a tripod at f16 if you want true sharpness. More power to him. To each his own.
I have no problems with this point. Except as above I've pointed out, that's not what Victor's pushing across. At any rate, good luck to the lazy landscape hour. IS buys you 2 stops more of DOF. Great.
And you won't find me straying far beyond f5.6, because at f16 I will probably see large blobs of dust originating from my dirty CMOS.
What I you talking about? If you don't trust me to know my way around an argument, or about grasping the intricacies of IS use for landscape photography, then at least trust me on this. Use your lens at f16 if you want to. Dust on your CCD will not be an issue at all.
StreetShooter
Senior Member
OK I'll take your word on that.
TIME OUT! The Ang Moh doth speak
Dennis
In all honesty I'd suggest you go along to a few shops and try out on a D60 the various lenses you've short listed, buy a CF card and then go and scrutinise the results on a PC monitor at a minimum, or better yet print them at 8x10" and view them as prints. This way you will be able to see for yourself which lens is best suited to your needs and budget.
I'd also look at a much wider lens if you can afford it, given the 1.6x multiplier you really will need to get down to 20mm or shorter to get any real wide angle effect with a digital camera.
Victor
What exactly is your point? Your comments are all over the place and aren't rational at all.
Dennis
In all honesty I'd suggest you go along to a few shops and try out on a D60 the various lenses you've short listed, buy a CF card and then go and scrutinise the results on a PC monitor at a minimum, or better yet print them at 8x10" and view them as prints. This way you will be able to see for yourself which lens is best suited to your needs and budget.
I'd also look at a much wider lens if you can afford it, given the 1.6x multiplier you really will need to get down to 20mm or shorter to get any real wide angle effect with a digital camera.
Victor
What exactly is your point? Your comments are all over the place and aren't rational at all.
Very hot and interesting debate! Yup, I'd have to side on Jed about the usefulness of f/5.6 at 135mm by providing a greater DOF compared to f/2.8. Here're more of my arguments:
When using the 135mm end, you tend to shoot the following:
1. Close range indoor sports.
2. Portraiture.
3. Compressed distant landscape.
4. Close range subjects such as animals.
In all these instances, at f/5.6, you're gonna lose out to f/2.8, with a slight possible exception in No.4.
For No.1, you need to freeze action. f/2.8 or even f/2 will do the job that leaves the f/5.6 IS steadying shake from your hands but not freeze the action.
For No.2, you'd usually want good background blur or shallow DOF. f/5.6 is clearly not gonna do the job.
For No.3, the lens is set to infinity. (Assuming your subjects are all infinitely far away.) DOF in f/2.8 or f/5.6 is apparently similar.
No.4, is what Victor might want to argue the 28-135 can do which the f/2.8 cannot. But then again, at 135mm, the gain in DOF at f/5.6 compared to f/2.8 is hardly worth commenting at all. Put your cam on tripod and go all the way to f/22. See the difference!
Ok, here's my personal experience. If I want to blur the background as much as possible, I use fast lenses. Or if I want max DOF, you can't beat using a tripod and going all the way down to f/16 or f/22. Not that I don't use any apertures in-between, but the moment I feel my hands are not gonna make it, and I want extensive DOF, I use the tripod or some support. Simple. There are no compromises or excuses.
I think in general, users of 28-135 IS should not kid themselves that they can handhold and yet obtain large DOF. What you are probably doing is to lie to yourself that you can do away with the tripod. In fact, I've seen pictures taken by my beginner friends using this lens and I note a good number of blurred shots. When I asked them what's the speed, some went as low as 1/8 s at f/5.6 close to 135mm end! If you do that, you are just pushing your luck too far and lying to yourself on the real function of the IS. I don't see how IS helps much in your DOF here also. Without the IS, you'd be forced to use a tripod and stop down. Then you can talk about DOF and sharp images.
I certainly don't think it was Canon's original intention to tell you IS is for you to put your tripod away. IS is to help you in instances where handshake could be a problem. For eg, you are on a moving train or ship. IS is not a function that transforms you into a hero moving around without a tripod and yet claim you can get large DOF.
I don't understand how people can shy away from the tripod. Yes there are instances where you want to move around light or situations where carrying a tripod is inconvenient. But to put it away just bcos you own an IS lens??? I seriously doubt your photo quality and I think you're having a misconception about IS.
When using the 135mm end, you tend to shoot the following:
1. Close range indoor sports.
2. Portraiture.
3. Compressed distant landscape.
4. Close range subjects such as animals.
In all these instances, at f/5.6, you're gonna lose out to f/2.8, with a slight possible exception in No.4.
For No.1, you need to freeze action. f/2.8 or even f/2 will do the job that leaves the f/5.6 IS steadying shake from your hands but not freeze the action.
For No.2, you'd usually want good background blur or shallow DOF. f/5.6 is clearly not gonna do the job.
For No.3, the lens is set to infinity. (Assuming your subjects are all infinitely far away.) DOF in f/2.8 or f/5.6 is apparently similar.
No.4, is what Victor might want to argue the 28-135 can do which the f/2.8 cannot. But then again, at 135mm, the gain in DOF at f/5.6 compared to f/2.8 is hardly worth commenting at all. Put your cam on tripod and go all the way to f/22. See the difference!
Ok, here's my personal experience. If I want to blur the background as much as possible, I use fast lenses. Or if I want max DOF, you can't beat using a tripod and going all the way down to f/16 or f/22. Not that I don't use any apertures in-between, but the moment I feel my hands are not gonna make it, and I want extensive DOF, I use the tripod or some support. Simple. There are no compromises or excuses.
I think in general, users of 28-135 IS should not kid themselves that they can handhold and yet obtain large DOF. What you are probably doing is to lie to yourself that you can do away with the tripod. In fact, I've seen pictures taken by my beginner friends using this lens and I note a good number of blurred shots. When I asked them what's the speed, some went as low as 1/8 s at f/5.6 close to 135mm end! If you do that, you are just pushing your luck too far and lying to yourself on the real function of the IS. I don't see how IS helps much in your DOF here also. Without the IS, you'd be forced to use a tripod and stop down. Then you can talk about DOF and sharp images.
I certainly don't think it was Canon's original intention to tell you IS is for you to put your tripod away. IS is to help you in instances where handshake could be a problem. For eg, you are on a moving train or ship. IS is not a function that transforms you into a hero moving around without a tripod and yet claim you can get large DOF.
I don't understand how people can shy away from the tripod. Yes there are instances where you want to move around light or situations where carrying a tripod is inconvenient. But to put it away just bcos you own an IS lens??? I seriously doubt your photo quality and I think you're having a misconception about IS.
- Status
