Why in the hell would anyone want a variable aperture lens, especially

File: sigma-apo200-500mm-f28-400-1000mm-f56_2199.jpg (277KB, 800x412px) Image search: [Google]

277KB, 800x412px

Someone once made a lens of this type an f/2.8
Here's how big it was. The SHEER SIZE and BLEEDING COST are the primary reason.

Because real photographers go out and take pictures with lenses that meet their requirements. Such requirements as sharpness, AF speed, focal length coverage, and not being constant aperture for the sake of being so.

Also, the 200-400/4 is a $5000 lens. And by your logic, the Nikon 200-500/5.6 is a better lens than the AF-S 80-400. It's better... at price. And very good, at that.

>>2913568

ALMIGHTY BIGMA

How were they able to keep the 70-200 2.8 at a reasonable size? Do you need enormous glass past 200mm for a zoom? (especially if it's constant aperture)

>muh bokey

kys, my man

>>2913566
>Why in the hell would anyone want a variable aperture lens

Would a straight f/5.6 be better in your opinion?

>>2913593
Yes, you need twice the glass for a 400mm to achieve a given aperture that a 200mm. (This is technically not fully correct, but it's correct enough for the level of discussion here).

File: 1258368997.jpg (133KB, 821x315px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 821x315px

>>2913598
Or what about a nice prime?

>>2913600
You need (give or take) 4X the glass.

>>2913600
>>2913603

Ahhh okay. This lens makes sense then. TY for explaining without telling me to kill myself, y'all a good rowdy bunch, /p/

>>2913603
Depends on if you're talking radius versus area, but yeah.

>>2913593
Yes m8, that's basic fucking math right there.

>>2913566
4.5-5.6 isn't even that bad honestly, if I were a sport or wildlife photographer I'd use it, I mean I'd prefer the 70-200 but if I needed the 400mm i wouldn't have an issue

>low light
>telephoto

File: Canon_EF_400_2.8.jpg (828KB, 2048x1365px) Image search: [Google]

828KB, 2048x1365px

>>2913601
>not posting the almighty 400mm f2.8

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5D Mark II
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop 7.0
Photographer	Photographer
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2011:07:03 21:38:23
Exposure Time	1/90 sec
F-Number	f/9.5
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/9.5
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Partial
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	100.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2048
Image Height	1365
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2913730

Awww yeah, my go-to lens (Nikon, though).

>>2913730
>no 200/2
I love me some chodes.
>>2913566
You can pony up for a 200-400/4L if you want though, even comes with a 1.4x TC built in. Pretty trick lens. Just because it's variable aperture doesn't mean the lens is of a poor quality.

That's why Canon makes the 24-105/4L.

>>2913566
>Why in the hell would anyone want a variable aperture lens, especially one that costs $2,000?
because it goes from 100mm to 400mm
the only other canon zoom that goes up to 400mm costs 5 times this one, and while I don't have a 2x multiplier nor the last version of the 100-400 to make a proper comparison, I'd say it's plausible that the 100-400 has better IQ than the 70-200 with the 2x multiplier

>>2913566
>Why in the hell would anyone want a variable aperture lens, especially one that costs $2,000? I

Yeah, you would sure like the 100-400mm F5,6 more just because it is "constant aperture". Sure, you would never benefit of those 2/3 of stop, you really need constant speed more.

>>2913566
>Kind of surprised canon sells L glass with this characteristic
the original version wasn't even weather sealed and was a giant dust pump. It was a lot cheaper though and still extremely sharp.

File: xf100t400-firstlooks-4.jpg (104KB, 700x467px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 700x467px

>not shilling for this

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-T10
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7 (Windows)
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	75 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	100 dpi
Vertical Resolution	100 dpi
Image Created	2016:01:16 02:23:26
Exposure Time	1/80 sec
F-Number	f/1.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	2500
Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Brightness	-5.9 EV
Exposure Bias	-1.3 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2914826
No self respecting Fuji shooter would buy it, it doesn't go with their preferred Fuji fashion slim messenger bag and tight jeans.
Also no self respecting Fuji shooter goes outside of a city center let alone close to wildlife and sports are too loud and agressive for their girly tastes.

>>2914831
yes because i photograph to be fashion

>>2914831
>That beta projection

Did a Fujibro cuck you?

>>2914831
Get raped by a fuji lens in your sleep recently?

There's barely a difference between those aperture values and when you're out actually using the lens you would never notice the difference anyway.

These kinds of lenses are workhorses, the reason they didn't change the aperture between versions is because they can look at the sales figures and the role that focal length has within their L range of glass and know that people don't need the constant aperture more than the weather sealing they added for example

Stop being such a gear fag please

>>2916522
>There's barely a difference between those aperture values and when you're out actually using the lens you would never notice the difference anyway.
What? No.

>>2916525
Well I've only ever seen that particular lens on photojournalists and for the long shots they would be using it for the aperture difference would be negligible.

Please tell me good example of where f4.5 would be very different from 5.6. Even the dof at 400mm can't be miles apart

>>2916536
The difference doesn't come in depth of field, because yeah, super teles are very rarely used at minimum focus distance and wide open aperture.

The difference, which is HUGE, is the effect on exposure. That's 2/3 of a stop that you lose in either ISO (which if you're shooting super tele, you're often already shooting a higher ISO to get a faster shutter speed) or on shutter speed. That's enough to lose an otherwise good shot to noise or motion blur. This is similar to why people are happy to use a 1.4x teleconverter on a f/2.8 lens (like a 70-200mm), but not quite so happy to use one on a f/4 variant. It's also part of the reason that 2x teleconverters are tools of a last resort.

Remember, none of the triangle settings just has a single effect on an image, nor can you change one without changing at least one more.

>>2916566
>shooting with a shitty camera where upping the iso by 2/3 a stop leads to degraded image quality

found your problem

Ok, what's the deal with this thread actually? I'm lost

>>2916722
Missed that part where you're already often shooting at your camera's limit? I mean, you are aware that every camera has an upper limit to its useable ISO, right?

>>2916727
F5.6 @ 3200 will give you high shutterspeeds in pretty damn low light. would be more than sufficient for shooting sports under stadium lighting, performances under stage lighting, or capturing a bird in flight at dusk/dawn. when the hell do you need to freeze far away action in situations darker than that?

>>2916737
1/125 f/5.6 ISO3200 is just EV 7 negroid...that's not a "high" shutter speed by any means.

Love that fucking lens. I recently upgrade from the Mark 1. Worthy every penny and then some.

>>2913566
Because canon marketing allows their brand loyalists to spread their anuses for inferior gear

File: 20160430-IMG_6390.jpg (196KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 1000x667px

>>2916782

Still on Mk1 but can't afford to go better.

Paid $625 from Keh after a discount code, probably my favorite lens to use. Even though the push pull looks weird it's really nice for air shows/birds IMO.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 60D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.6.1 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/5.7
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	120 dpi
Vertical Resolution	120 dpi
Image Created	2016:09:04 02:25:52
Exposure Time	1/1000 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Shutter Priority
ISO Speed Rating	250
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Exposure Bias	0.7 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	400.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>paying 5 figures for muh bokeh when you already get stupid bokeh due to the long focal length

what are you evne doing

the 100-400L ii is pretty damn popular from what i see

not surprised some 4chanian is being contrarian about it

>>2916867
dem chemtrails

File: RWEGT3-Live-4.jpg (408KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

408KB, 1000x667px

>>2914831
Guess I'm not a self-respecting Fuji shooter, 'cause I shot this the other day.

Not that the Fuji is much of a serious sports body, though. I was using a 7D2 with the 100-400 for all of that, and the Fuji was mostly for pit shots etc.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 7D Mark II
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.4 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/5.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:08:21 20:45:23
Exposure Time	1/100 sec
F-Number	f/9.0
Exposure Program	Shutter Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/9.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	200.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: DSCF1736-Edit.jpg (516KB, 1000x667px)

516KB, 1000x667px

>>2917698
aw fuck I clicked the wrong thumbnail.

Also, I really want to try Fuji's 100-400 and see how it is. People seem to like it, and it's shockingly light for what it is. (I've handled one in the store but nobody local has a rental one that I can take to an event.)

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-Pro2
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.4 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	210 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:08:24 20:43:44
Exposure Time	1/100 sec
F-Number	f/9.0
Exposure Program	Shutter Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/9.0
Brightness	7 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	140.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2917697
>chemtrail
>chem

...

That lens is a F5,6 lens. They could make it constant aperture, but then you would be cheated from having a wider F4,5 at the short end.

It will make you feel better I guess? But you would still be cheated.

>>2913566
You're right, Anon.

f/5.6 is much too small.

You should totes get a solid f/2.8

https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/details/lenses/ef/super-telephoto/ef-400mm-f-2-8l-is-ii-usm

>>2919585
>135.8 oz.
>3850g
I hope nigga lifts

>>2919587
My heaviest lens is 3kg.

Shooting with it does feel like working out.
Even if all my photos are shit I still build up some muscles yeah.

File: c1.jpg (131KB, 683x1024px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 683x1024px

What exactly are the uses for this focal length? it isnt long enough for birds/wildlife, and it isnt short enough for general use.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi

>>2919641
Sports

>>2919641
400mm (even 300mm) is plenty long for wildlife on APS-C, let alone MFT.

>>2919719
true, didnt think of that, I have a ff sensor

>>2919641
>400mm
>isnt long enough for birds/wildlife

What lens you got then, senpai?

File: Sigma_72A109_120_400mm_f_4_5_5_6_DG_APO_741755.jpg (348KB, 2500x2500px) Image search: [Google]

348KB, 2500x2500px

>that feel when I bought my first professional-looking lens

I'm scared to actually take it anywhere in case it breaks or I drop it or someone tries to take it.

>>2920415
Then why have it?

>>2920415
>professional looking
>worried it will break
Smegma, ladies and gentlemen.

>>2913605
don't forget to kill yourself

microcontrast

>>2920415
>my first professional-looking lens
>professional-looking

All of Sigma's lenses besides the art series look like turds.

>>2920748
Yet are all the same inside, also the EX stuff will look the same after a year or two. The Art lenses look like shit after 6 months.

>>2920415

The Sigma finish always fucking triggers me.

File: Monster_vs_400mm.jpg (43KB, 432x320px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 432x320px

>>2920748
The Sigmonster doesn't look too shabby.

>>2913566
If you want weather sealing and don't want to carry around other lenses maybe?

Maximum aperture is far less important these days except as an artistic touch, ISO speeds are insanely high these days anon.

>>2921122
I have the EX 20 f/1.8 and the crinkle finish on that lens is very nice anon. Not as nice as Canon's baked enamel finish but still nice.

Nothing beats lacquer though...

>>2921061
Way back in 1994 when I was in high school I saved my shekels for a telephoto lens for my Canon Rebel which I had received as a gift. Being poor at the time, I decided to save some money and get the Sigma 70 or 75-300 lens which was being pushed by the fucking camera sales people at the time. I was using it with extension tubes to shoot some macro and heard this "tonk" from inside the lens and it wouldn't focus any more.

A quick inspection down the business end of the lens showed that one of the elements was held in place by a ring of sticky tape!

Took me a long time to get over the Sigma Stigma but I eventually bought that 20 f/1.8 and it's been good to me. Manual focus action is good if a bit awkward when switching from AF to MF.

Still I would avoid the shit-tier Sigmas and Tokinas like the plague.

>>2913566
>why does canon not make a 100-400 2.8

because physics, you stupid motherfucker

>>2917698
>Not that the Fuji is much of a serious sports body, though.
Plenty of iconic sports photos were shot with gear that you don't typically see in the hands of sports shooters. One of the greatest NFL photographers shot with Pentax 67's and Leicas IIRC and never used autofocus. Forget his name though.

>>2921990
You're more than kinda dumb.

>>2921989
>and Tokinas

Tokinas are generally nice, though with their metal barrels.
It's tamron that builds their lenses out of the same shit Sigma does.