Notices
The Basement Non-Honda/Acura discussion. Content should be tasteful and "primetime" safe.

DSLR krew v. newlenspics

Thread Tools
 
Old Jan 13, 2009 | 04:45 PM
  #21  
scotttharobot's Avatar
scotttharobot
Thread Starter
beer here
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,278
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by R_Squared
do you not need as large of an aperture for wide-angle lenses? I figured the max aperture would be larger than f/4. :thinking:
not really.

Depth of field is sort of hard to accomplish with wide angles, as you are traditionally capturing many subjects within a scene, and having them all in focus is traditionally desirable.

i'm a low light nut, as I don't have an external flash, and prefer the look of natural lighting. I was pretty hesitant buying a slow lens, but remember, exposure is a blend of ISO, Aperture, and shutter speed.

being a lens, we can get rid of ISO as a part of the equation. the lens has nothing to do with ISO. so, the elements of exposure that still apply are aperture and shutter speed.

traditionally, with mid-range zooms and such, the only way for a lens to be a low light performer (without optical stabilization of some sort) is to have a fast aperture (f/2.8 or better, for example).

applying the rule of 1/focal length for a minimum shutter speed to minimize camera shake, wide angles shine. at 10mm (with the 1.5x crop factor, 15mm on a DX body), shutter speeds of 1/15 sec are enough to eliminate most camera shake. this rule really makes sense when you're at 300mm, trying to keep the image stable. longer focal lengths require shorter shutter speeds.

so, therefore, the slower aperture (f/4-5.6) is negated by the focal length, allowing for slower shutter speeds.
Reply
Old Jan 13, 2009 | 04:47 PM
  #22  
scotttharobot's Avatar
scotttharobot
Thread Starter
beer here
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,278
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by airon
looking at the tokina 11-16 myself right now
that's originally what I was planning on. however, i realized that I don't really need 2.8 for a wide angle lens, and that's a pretty limited range.

the 11-16 is ~$569, and I just checked today, and the 10-20 is $421 @ amazon.

I'm convinced I have an updated version... doesn't look like any of the other 10-20's i've seen. performance seems to be enhanced as well.
Reply
Old Jan 13, 2009 | 04:56 PM
  #23  
Chefboiali's Avatar
Chefboiali
scrotal surge
 
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 15,460
Likes: 0
From: Cali
Default

Great shots!!!!

I shot table shots at events with a wide angle. 17mm. I have 6 of the 12 people at the table get up and stand behind the others. The edges get a little distorted, but it sure helps due to not having enough room to step back due to being in a packed ballroom turned dining room.
Reply
Old Jan 13, 2009 | 04:59 PM
  #24  
dj02's Avatar
dj02
click click
 
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 23,651
Likes: 0
From: cali
Default

Originally Posted by airon
looking at the tokina 11-16 myself right now
tamron 10-24 f3.5 $479
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...4_5_Di_II.html
Reply
Old Jan 13, 2009 | 05:03 PM
  #25  
R_Squared's Avatar
R_Squared
LEVEL UP
 
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 11,426
Likes: 1
From: Indianapolis
Default

Originally Posted by scotttharobot
not really.

Depth of field is sort of hard to accomplish with wide angles, as you are traditionally capturing many subjects within a scene, and having them all in focus is traditionally desirable.

i'm a low light nut, as I don't have an external flash, and prefer the look of natural lighting. I was pretty hesitant buying a slow lens, but remember, exposure is a blend of ISO, Aperture, and shutter speed.

being a lens, we can get rid of ISO as a part of the equation. the lens has nothing to do with ISO. so, the elements of exposure that still apply are aperture and shutter speed.

traditionally, with mid-range zooms and such, the only way for a lens to be a low light performer (without optical stabilization of some sort) is to have a fast aperture (f/2.8 or better, for example).

applying the rule of 1/focal length for a minimum shutter speed to minimize camera shake, wide angles shine. at 10mm (with the 1.5x crop factor, 15mm on a DX body), shutter speeds of 1/15 sec are enough to eliminate most camera shake. this rule really makes sense when you're at 300mm, trying to keep the image stable. longer focal lengths require shorter shutter speeds.

so, therefore, the slower aperture (f/4-5.6) is negated by the focal length, allowing for slower shutter speeds.
thanks for clearing that up for me man. :thumbup:
Reply
Old Jan 13, 2009 | 06:26 PM
  #26  
airon's Avatar
airon
AARONNOJIMA.COM
 
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 8,559
Likes: 0
From: Elk Grove, Ca AOL/AI
Default

Originally Posted by dj02
cool ill look into it, i might be able to get that lense through work, i had a friend who has the tokina though and loves it, but i will see, just been feening to get somewhat a wide angle for a while. i might wait till tax time though to see if i can get just the nikon :rick:
__________________
"Dreaming is how the strong survive....."
"Am I dying to live, or living to die?"
Reply
Old Jan 13, 2009 | 06:51 PM
  #27  
scotttharobot's Avatar
scotttharobot
Thread Starter
beer here
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,278
Likes: 0
Default

daamn... balla.
Reply
Old Jan 13, 2009 | 06:52 PM
  #28  
shirley's Avatar
shirley
CBOTY 2010
 
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 34,786
Likes: 0
From: MI
Default

hey that boats on top of that building h:
Reply
Old Jan 13, 2009 | 07:01 PM
  #29  
R_Squared's Avatar
R_Squared
LEVEL UP
 
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 11,426
Likes: 1
From: Indianapolis
Default

Originally Posted by JessTD
hey that boats on top of that building h:
what are you smoking?
Reply
Old Jan 13, 2009 | 08:33 PM
  #30  
white_n_slow's Avatar
white_n_slow
it's my D in a B
 
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 24,787
Likes: 1
From: Your Mom's House
Default

WOAH...

Those pictures just unearthed a memory from the depths... I went to that greenhouse/botanical gardens/whatever-the-hell-you-call it when I was like 3 or 4. I had totally forgotten about that :loco:
Reply



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:24 AM.