Hi
Some times I see photos taken with a 55-300mm or 70-300mm and the picture has a very nice depth of field, while when I read articles it says that you lens must have an f of about 2.8 to get that strong DOF.
The 55-300 or 70-300 are f 4.5 .
And is the 70-300mm a good lens for sports that can give a good DOF shots from distance .
Thanks ....
Nikon 2.8 Lens
Started by macthelion, Apr 11 2012 05:41 PM
5 replies to this topic
#2
Cee Dhinjan
-
- Members
-
- 9 posts
Newbie
- Gender:Male
- Interests:Landscape Photography<br />Portrait Photography
Posted 16 April 2012 - 01:18 AM
The smaller the f-number, the narrower the depth of field. So f/5.6 will give you a greater depth of field than f/2.8. In other words, you'll see more things in focus either side of the focal point at f/5.6 than at f/2.8.
Now, the thing to note about telephoto lenses with focal lengths above 200mm... they naturally provide a narrow depth of field so you don't need them in an f/2.8. Besides these are very expensive going well up to a few thousand dollars. So a telephoto of 300mm at f/4 or 400mm at f/5.6 is fine.
The only benefit that an f/2.8 has is better bokeh and the ability to use in lower light. Don't spend $10,000 buying an f/2.8 telephoto.
Check this one out : http://www.the-digit...ens-Review.aspx
Now, the thing to note about telephoto lenses with focal lengths above 200mm... they naturally provide a narrow depth of field so you don't need them in an f/2.8. Besides these are very expensive going well up to a few thousand dollars. So a telephoto of 300mm at f/4 or 400mm at f/5.6 is fine.
The only benefit that an f/2.8 has is better bokeh and the ability to use in lower light. Don't spend $10,000 buying an f/2.8 telephoto.
Check this one out : http://www.the-digit...ens-Review.aspx
#3
macthelion
-
- Members
-
- 3 posts
Newbie
Posted 20 April 2012 - 07:59 PM
QUOTE (Cee Dhinjan @ Apr 16 2012, 02:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The smaller the f-number, the narrower the depth of field. So f/5.6 will give you a greater depth of field than f/2.8. In other words, you'll see more things in focus either side of the focal point at f/5.6 than at f/2.8.
Now, the thing to note about telephoto lenses with focal lengths above 200mm... they naturally provide a narrow depth of field so you don't need them in an f/2.8. Besides these are very expensive going well up to a few thousand dollars. So a telephoto of 300mm at f/4 or 400mm at f/5.6 is fine.
The only benefit that an f/2.8 has is better bokeh and the ability to use in lower light. Don't spend $10,000 buying an f/2.8 telephoto.
Check this one out : http://www.the-digit...ens-Review.aspx
Now, the thing to note about telephoto lenses with focal lengths above 200mm... they naturally provide a narrow depth of field so you don't need them in an f/2.8. Besides these are very expensive going well up to a few thousand dollars. So a telephoto of 300mm at f/4 or 400mm at f/5.6 is fine.
The only benefit that an f/2.8 has is better bokeh and the ability to use in lower light. Don't spend $10,000 buying an f/2.8 telephoto.
Check this one out : http://www.the-digit...ens-Review.aspx
Thank you for the info ...
#6
Wedding Photographer Sydne
-
- Members
-
- 4 posts
Newbie
Posted 28 October 2012 - 05:15 AM
I agree with Cee Dhinjan posts, F2.8 is ideal for portrait work, you can buy some great Nikon lenses with f2.8 stops. You will need to work our what sort of shooting you are going to do. Do a google search in what you are really wanting then start checking prices. We have picked up lenses on E-bay before but use it with caution cheers
Reply to this topic
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
