Is f/4 enough for a zoom lens? Or do you totally have to get

Just buy a prime 80, 100, 135 and maybe 200

you can buy a 135mm f2 for like.. a fraction of that price

>>3113489
f/2.8 on crop or f/4 on full frame is my arbitrary rule.

>>3113492
Why?

>>3113489
I have a 70-200/2.8 that I use mostly at f/4 or more. It is plenty enough on modern sensors.

>>3113523
...I use it on aps-c, not really an issue with modern sensors.

>>3113489
I use my 70-200 f4 a lot

it's a good lens, I use my 135 f2 when I want some mild-telephoto bokeh whoring

What are some reasonably priced 300mm lens for APS-C?

>>3113489
My f4 is sharper wide open than my 2.8 stopped down. Both canon L from same generation.

The f4 gets used much, much more, 2.8 is just too heavy to take out without a definite need.

>>3113918
>>3113932
What do you use it for?

>>3113498
I'm not that guy, but for some reason there has been this thing going around the internet where people are spreading the idea that APS-C sensors get less light than FF with the same aperture. The only difference is perceived depth of field because it's literally just cropped. It doesn't make the image any darker. I don't know who started this nonsense but they must be proud of themselves.

>>3113489
f4 is more than enough. very few people actually live or die by a single stop of light

>>3115007
Oh is this like the sony nigger in the m43 thread arguing that his A7 with an f/4 lens is the same as a m43 lens with f/1.7 because somehow he gets 2 more stops of light even though it is literally the opposite and the m43 gets 2 more stops of usable DoF

>>3115013
i had to read you post several times because you're not making any sense

>>3115014
Retard in the M43 thread says a M43 lens is 2 stops slower than the same f/# full frame lens
Like he says that an f/2 m43 lens is should be compared to an f/4 sony lens because they are the same speed.


My argument would be A. I can get totally fine separation with my 75mm or 45mm lens anyway.

My other argument would be when using a 17.5mm, 20mm, or 25mm I can get the same DoF as a full frame gets 2 stops slower. So when I do street photography I can get the DoF of an f/8 35 mm lens with my 17.5 mm at f/4 but at the same time get 2 stops better light performance. So I get the benefit of having pretty much everything sharp like an f/8 but I also get the increased shutter speed of an f/4 meaning I can get the same frame without jacking up my ISO as the sony with less light.

>>3115017
m43 iso is trash
even last gen full frame delivers clean results at 3200
looks like youre the retard

>>3115017
you're wrong though

>>3115052
I cant stick a full frame in my pocket faggot

>>3115058
How so? For what I use a camera for I don't see any advantages for a full frame that I see with a m43

>>3115061
>m43 in pocket
yeah if you're fucking mchammer maybe

>>3115061
"I don't see any advantages" doesn't mean that the sonyfag was wrong. You have literally not disproved his statement that you stated here >>3115013

>>3115064
His statement was that t/2 of light on a m43 is the same as t/4 of light on a full frame. That isn't true. t/2 is t/2 is t/2 is t/2 no matter what the format t/2 always will have the same amount of light coming in when it comes to exposure

>>3115073
no lol

>>3115062
Not even, It fits in my jacket pocket super well and it fits in my pocket if I wear cargo shorts.

>>3115075
Are you retarded? If I take a Pen F and set it to A mode, ISO 200 and f/16 on a sunny day then it will give me a shutter speed of 1/200

If I take a full frame nikon and set it to A mode, ISO 200 and f/16 on a sunny day then it will give me a shutter speed of 1/200


If I take a full frame hasselblad and set it to A mode, ISO 200 and f/16 on a sunny day then it will give me a shutter speed of 1/200

Exposure is determined by photon per unit of area. Size has no impact on exposure

Getting my 2.8 L is ii has been a game changer for my wedding and event work. It is a bit heavier but fantastic tool. Great for video work as well!
I shoot FF

>>3115077
Lol. And your ISO 200 on m4/3 will come out looking like ISO 50 on 35mm. Just because your meter says X doesn't mean it will create the same image you dumbass.

>>3115081
>>3115077
Actually I made a mistake there, since m4/3 native ISO starts at ISO200 vs 35mm at ISO100. So your image will actually look like ISO25 in FF.

>>3115081
>>3115083
So my image will have 1/4th the noise as a full frame? Nice

>>3115085
Yeah which is why you're wrong here >>3115013

>>3115086
So really m43 is 4 stops better than full frame?

>>3115088
yeah good job mate you solved the problem

>>3115007
mostly motorsport and cars

for motorsport, I use it for panning most of the time, so losing the extra stop is inconsequential, and the lightness is a big plus

>>3115007
you do get less light.

File: 66d.jpg (33KB, 480x375px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 480x375px

>>3115112

>>3115007
I believe it was Tony Northrup. He was already full of himself to start with.

>>3115007
>>3115243
>>3115237
Try putting an F/2 m43 lens on a 35mm camera and see how much light you are missing.

>>3115484
You won't be missing any light compared to the m43 camera, you'll only be seeing vignetting which is an obstruction.

>>3115487
so obstruction isn't a loss of light by your definition? with the same 35mm lens on both m4/3 and 35mm you are literally losing light that could hit a sensor when you go with the m4/3 toy. jesus christ you m4/3 users are dumb.

>>3115500

What does it matter when the light lost falls outside of the sensor? Jesus Christ you trolls are dumb.

File: why do they cuck themselves so?.png (1007KB, 1240x680px) Image search: [Google]

1007KB, 1240x680px

Reminder that m4/3 literally has tons of noise at base 200 ISO (FF 100).
Reminder that m4/3 at 200 ISO (FF 100) is literally worse than an equivalently priced FF at 400 ISO (over 2 stops from with ISO correction).
Reminder that m4/3 tards have no argument.

>>3115484
The exposure setting is the same so I assume it captures the same amount of light.
Also how the hell would a lens know what kind of sensor is behind it?

>>3115705
Are you really this braindead? 35mm always captures more light because that's a design of the sensor and lens. You literally have leftover light if you use a 35mm lens on a m43 camera. That is why speedboosters work.

>>3115705
>>3115946
It captures the same amount of light per unit area, not in total (the field of view changes so "more light" is needed to fill in the rest of the image)

>>3115007
You don't get less light. What you get is deeper depth of field because smaller sensors require wider apertures for more background separation. You also have to consider that crop sensors usually perform at least a stop worse at high ISO so the more light you gather the less you have to raise I SO.

Also, a smaller aperture lens makes the viewfinder darker. These are all good reasons to consider 2.8 over 4, IF you can afford it.

>>3115986

Sounds like you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

>>3115996
Tell me how I'm wrong. I'm dying to hear it.

>>3115999
The dof does not depend on the sensor size, all other things being equal. You get a smaller crop, but the dof is what it is, and only depends on the distance to the subject. Now if you want to get a similar framing with crop vs ff, you have to move further away, that is why the dof is deeper.

>>3115999

Let's say you put a 50mm lens on a full frame camera. Take a photo. Without changing the distance to your subject, mount the same 50mm lens on aps-c. Take a photo. Which one will have a shallower depth of field?

>>3116002
Nope try again

>>3116005
But a 50 on crop has the field of view of a 75mm lens. Put a 35mm on your crop camera and try the same thing then report back to me.

>>3116015

Nope, because homeboy (you?) was comparing the same lens on two different size sensors. We aren't talking about field of view, we're talking about depth of field.

>>3116017
If you want to measure depth of field across varying sensor sizes then you need an equivalent field of view. I didn't say anything about using different lenses and I hope that people don't think lenses are going to work the same exact way regardless of format size.

>>3115506
>being this autistic that you pixel peep this hard

>>3116038
Good argument once again

>>3113489

The answer is: do you primarily shoot indoors or outdoors?

Indoors? 2.8 is better for all lightning situations.
Outdoors? 4.0 is enough.

>>3116024

Lol, no you don't. Circle of confusion is right there in the formula.

The way I see it as an amateur:

- f/1.8 primes (up to 85)

- f/2.8 primes (above 85)

- f/4 constant zooms.

>>3116078
But that's not how you would use the lenses in real life. You can't just force a 75mm equivalent lens into where you would need a 50mm lens.