f2.8 or f4? #f28vsf4 #sony2470gmii #sony2070f4g

@joker87th

Ай бұрын

2.8

@bobstevens5202

21 күн бұрын

​@@joker87thf1.4 boi

I used f2.8 for night street photography. 1 stop light makes a huge difference to boost the shutter speed.

@wordlv

7 күн бұрын

With a zoom?

This applies well to Full-Frame, but not so much APS-C users. An f/4 or slower zoom lens on APS-C would be the equivalent depth of field of f/6 or worse on Full-Frame, which is...useless. 2.8 zooms are very achievable on APS-C without becoming expensive or heavy, and as such almost all manufacturers (at least in E-Mount) are making 2.8 zooms for APS-C cameras. Correct me if I'm wrong, but nearly all f/4 zooms on E-Mount are fairly outdated lenses, with the exception being one recent Sony E 10-20mm f/4 PZ G lens.

@philippeneault7047

19 күн бұрын

The recent 20-70 F4 G lens seems to be well reviewed everywhere

@lomelyo

14 күн бұрын

What the heck are you talking about an APS-C is a crop sensor not a crop depth of field. What you say makes absolutely 0 sense.

@EvanA.

14 күн бұрын

@@lomelyo look up "equivalency". It's an important topic for crop sensor users.

2.8 comes in handy for Astro as well. Definitely depends on what you intend to use the lens for.

The main reasons to consider between 2.8 and 4.0 Zoom Lenses are : Size and Weight. 2.8 and 4.0 for bokeh is not really that apparent. There's a difference but it is subtle. The size and weight difference however are way much more apparent.

@NOlimitsON

2 ай бұрын

Agreed

well said and enjoyed your examples..great videos!!

@NOlimitsON

2 ай бұрын

Thanks mate) stay tuned)

For me f2.8 is an obligation. For lowlight, example night bar. For indoor or night sporting events, shutter speed between 1/800 and 1/1250, 6400 ISO maximum... f2.8 is the minimum, f1.8 allowing you to lower the ISO further.

I use a full frame 24 to 105 F4 for weddings and a 50mm 1.8 for more creative shots and low light situations. I’ve never had an issue nor have I been left wanting a better set up. My camera also has crop modes if I need a bit more reach than 105.

Hmmm I would still choose that 2.8 over a 4 it might be one stop but when your right up in the 6400, 12800 iso range you are now talking 25600 iso on the f4

Exactly, nice video and examples! Got me the 20-70 and the 70-200 macro for all around and hiking. Great combo! Also have the 85mm f1.8. Might add the 14mm GM for astro and architecture soon. Way to go! ✌️

@NOlimitsON

2 ай бұрын

Thanks mate) stay tuned)

I will be traveling to London in a week and have recently ordered the Sony 20-70mm F4 lens to pair with my Sony A7IV camera. I am also packing my 35mm f/1.8 lens, although I doubt I will use it much; it's just a precaution. I also own a Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 lens, but I have decided to leave it behind due to its size, weight, and comparatively lower image quality. Having previously owned the 20-70mm F4 lens, I observed that the photos taken with it were significantly sharper compared to those taken with the Tamron 28-75mm. I regret returning the 20-70mm F4 in the past, which is why I have reordered it. This time, it is definitely going to be a keeper. Regarding the F4 versus F2.8 aperture debate, I always step down to capture more background in my travel shots. Blurring the background doesn't make much sense for travel photography. For video, I typically use an aperture of F8 for the same reason. In terms of low-light performance, the Sony A7IV excels in this area. With a bit of noise reduction using Lightroom AI, a low-light shot at ISO 6400 can be as clean as one taken at ISO 1600 with an f/1.8 lens.

@NOlimitsON

9 күн бұрын

Agreed 100%

right on. I have a 50-400 zoom f4.5-6.3. Tried it indoors for some talking head at 135. At f5.6 the background blur was wonderful. Surprised. I have a bunch of fast primes, but this was so lovely!

@NOlimitsON

2 ай бұрын

Thanks mate)

Tried 2 copies of the 24-70 GMII. Both were tilted. Exchanged for 20-70 F4 and 35GM 1.4. Much prefer that combo. I might be temped by the upcoming 24-70/F2 though!

@NOlimitsON

2 ай бұрын

🤝

I've been using an F4 24-70 on every job I got and my clients are really happy with photos I provide. A good F4 lens can create great images and also nowadays sensors got so good in low light that it does not really matter if its F2.8 or F4. If i want depth of field I always go with a 50 1.8.

Took 20-70mm f4 and 35mm f1.4 on Disney world trip last month. Outside general walking around I used the 20-70 and indoor and night time I used 35mm f1.4. Love the wide end of 20mm to capture family picture where I can just hold my camera with my one hand. F4 is good enough and take more sharp picture of my daughter and my wife together where my wife tends to ou her face behind my daughter 's head. With f2. 8 most likely one of the face will be out of focus. Love the reach of 70mm and using a7r5 I can crop in more during the post processing. That's my experience anyways. I do have tamron 28-75mm f2.8 also but 20mm on wide have alot of benefit in my opinion

@NOlimitsON

Ай бұрын

Great combo)) stay tuned!

That 1 stop can make a big difference if you shoot fast moving subjects like moving vechicles or sports in low light situations. At 1/500 it will be blurry but at 1/1000 it will be sharp.

I prefer primes 1.4 or 1.8 just because I can keep the ISO much lower than 2.8 or F4. On my A7RV you can already see some noise kicking in at ISO 320 and I set the max at ISO 6400

I had 20-70mm f4 but exchanged it to a 16-35mm PZ and looking for a 85mm f1.8 prime. I gues this will be a good combo for me. Yes i love f4 lens. 😊

I bought two f4 zooms and my 2.8’s are now collecting dust. They are so much lighter and optically fantastic even wide open at f4. I completely agree with your reasoning. In low light situations you need more than 2.8 so best to use a fast prime.

@NOlimitsON

2 ай бұрын

Exactly mate)) thanks) stay tuned!

I have the Tamron 20-40 and 35-150, I've tried sony 24-70gm2 and 20-70, both are good lenses but I never thought I would be impressed by the 20-70. It's truly a fascinated lens.

@NOlimitsON

Ай бұрын

Agreed

But which would you prefer? A smaller portable sharper super popular Sigma 18-50mm f2.8, or a heavier similarly priced lesser sharp Sony f4 18-105mm?

@NOlimitsON

2 ай бұрын

You always need context. It highly depends on what you use it for. There is no 100% right or wrong choice. I’d say for my particular needs the sigma would fit a bit better

@drsayan

2 ай бұрын

@@NOlimitsON Most of my use scenario would be photography on an apsc body, hence I too would prefer the sigma 2.8 18-50 any day. One hell of a lens it is.

It's nice to listen to a person who really knows his shi* !!!! Great tutorial !!! Subscribed !!!

@NOlimitsON

Ай бұрын

Thanks mate) I appreciate it))

GREAT CONTENT

@NOlimitsON

2 ай бұрын

Thanks mate)) stay tuned)

No need to convince me, a while ago I made the choice you recommend (for aps-c): I bought the Sony f4 18-105mm in stead of the Tamron f2.8 17-70mm

@NOlimitsON

2 ай бұрын

Wise choice)

@nightdonutstudio

2 ай бұрын

I do think for apsc you need at least f2.8 if not f1.8. The low light is two stop worse than zve1.

@NOlimitsON

2 ай бұрын

@@nightdonutstudio sigma 18-35mm f1.8 is the best choice for an apsc 😉

@pasarbunul4149

Ай бұрын

I did the opposite, i got tamron 17-70 instead of sony 18-105 because i love the sharpness, contrast and color of tamron.

f/2.8 zoom lenses, at the very least, have one more stop of light when it's necessary, especially when using film or older digital camera where you can't change film speed on the go or can't set ISO really high and not risk having image quality dropped, also it's easier for camera to autofocus and a lot easier when manual focus as well. Even though I don't really shoot at aperture wider than f/5.6 in most situation but sometime it's need just to be able to shoot picture handheld.

@NOlimitsON

2 ай бұрын

Cmon mate, this video is definitely not about film cameras 😂😂

@sophustranquillitastv4468

2 ай бұрын

@@NOlimitsON I understand but I still think failsafe is still a failsafe. Shooting film is just one example but DSLRs and mirrorless especially the older model have limited range of ISO that can produce acceptable image quality. There are some situation when shooting indoor or at night when even using highest ISO acceptable for the camera or sometime the highest the camera can offer without go to extended range and at f/4 the shutter speed still a stop short from high enough to shoot handheld even with image stabilization (which I think should not be slower than 1/15 or 1/8 for really wide angle lenses because even if that kind of shutter speed might still within the claimed capability of image stabilization it will likely be too much for image stabilization to compensate).

what about tele photo lenses ( i mean 70-200mm), will there also be so little difference beetween f2.8 and f4 ?

@NOlimitsON

2 ай бұрын

Same))

Folks, f2.8 is necessary if you are shooting events where you cannot set up lights freely as you will spoil the mood like a conference, a wedding, a run and gun situation, you using a camera that doesn’t give you a 12,800 native ISO and many more. Bottomline is, listen to the requirements of your clients and work and then decide if you will survive with the f4 or you will need a f2.8.

@NOlimitsON

Ай бұрын

It always depends on the particular needs and use cases as I said in the video) to me - f4 zoom is totally fine. If I’m in lowlight - I pick an f1.8 prime

All my zooms I run at a minimum of f/5.6

i can prove your wrong on this. i shoot in gym or sport event where if you do not have F/2.8 or better good luck get good quality pictures. since lighting so bad you need F/2.8 or even 1.8 lens.

@NOlimitsON

2 ай бұрын

You proved yourself wrong saying that you need f1.8 )) those are the conditions where you need to witch from a zoom to a fast prime - that’s exactly what I said in the video)

Showing differences in ISO in well lit environments is not that helpful. People think ISO = Noise. And the reality is that lack of light = Noise.

@NOlimitsON

2 ай бұрын

I new someone is gonna say it)) watch this video then and make your own conclusion about the 1 stop of light difference - Cleaner image at ANY ISO! The Secret technique! kzread.info/dash/bejne/lo2pmtemnZuzetI.html

@lomelyo

Ай бұрын

@@NOlimitsON I agree with the premise of the video. Although I'll still buy 2.8 lenses and lower :P. My opinion was that having a side by side in low light is the best way to showcase noise.

You defo gotta a point here.

@NOlimitsON

2 ай бұрын

Thanks mate) stay tuned)

@dougmorato

2 ай бұрын

@@NOlimitsON what would you say for the same comparison but for APSC lenses? Is there a clear difference between 2.8 and 4?

Ёр Инглиш из вэри гуд, бро 👍

@NOlimitsON

Ай бұрын

Спасибо)

I can't fully agree with you. It's not always about being a bokeh junkie. You are neglecting many scenarios that a shooter may find themselves in that WILL require a faster zoom. I shoot on Sony APS-C cameras and run n gun at many events that happen at night or in low light. I can tell you straight out my 18-105 f4 zoom got useless very fast. Sometimes you can use a video light but it's not always practical especially when you don't want to drawing attention to yourself. In this case my sigma 18-50 f2.8 and 50mm f1.8 were life savers. Even still I'm looking at Sirui and Viltrox 1.2 lenes or adapting the sigma 18-35 f1.8 for more flex ability for an up coming festival event that starts at dawn. Capturing it with natural light is very important. When you have to shot at high frame rates is another example. Granted this is not often but again I've found myself in situations with low light again where I was glad to have a f 2.8 zoom in my kit.

@NOlimitsON

2 ай бұрын

I said “for my particular use case” - of course there are different scenarios.

So according to you we can shoot in night with f4 and difference in 2.8 and f4 are similsimilar...😆😆😆

@NOlimitsON

Ай бұрын

According to me, if you are in a lowlight situation - pick an f1.8 lens. A quote from the video

2.8 is not required at all.