... on my D800 is the Nikkor 28-300 f3.5~5.6.

Give the high light-sensitivity (=ISO range, sort of), is there really
much advantage these days in sacrificing convenience (and maybe a few
types and degrees of distortions) for the potentially 'better' overall
quality and low-light/high-speed light-performance of a smaller zoom
range and/or faster lens ?

And is there really much point in a fast lens these days anyway, in
general use ?

geoff

On 14/11/2021 06:19, geoff wrote:
>  ... on my D800 is the Nikkor 28-300 f3.5~5.6.
>
> Give the high light-sensitivity (=ISO range, sort of), is there really
> much advantage these days in sacrificing convenience (and maybe a few
> types and degrees of distortions) for the potentially 'better' overall
> quality and low-light/high-speed light-performance of a smaller zoom
> range and/or faster lens ?
>
> And is there really much point in a fast lens these days anyway, in
> general use ?
>
> geoff

Depends on whether you want to make use of shallow depth of focus for
artistic effect. Not that you necessarily have to pay big money for
that, I have a TT Artisans manual lens for the Fuju-Xs just for that reason.

On 2021-11-14 01:19, geoff wrote:
>  ... on my D800 is the Nikkor 28-300 f3.5~5.6.
>
> Give the high light-sensitivity (=ISO range, sort of), is there really
> much advantage these days in sacrificing convenience (and maybe a few
> types and degrees of distortions) for the potentially 'better' overall
> quality and low-light/high-speed light-performance of a smaller zoom
> range and/or faster lens ?
>
> And is there really much point in a fast lens these days anyway, in
> general use ?

I find these longish zooms are soft towards the long end. DOF can be an
issue too.

Do you actually print your images? How large? (Or crop significantly).

That ultimately shows the benefits or limits of the capture lens.

--
"...there are many humorous things in this world; among them the white
man's notion that he is less savage than the other savages."
-Samuel Clemens

Am 14.11.2021 um 07:19 schrieb geoff:
>  ... on my D800 is the Nikkor 28-300 f3.5~5.6.
>
> Give the high light-sensitivity (=ISO range, sort of), is there really
> much advantage these days in sacrificing convenience (and maybe a few
> types and degrees of distortions) for the potentially 'better' overall
> quality and low-light/high-speed light-performance of a smaller zoom
> range and/or faster lens ?
>
> And is there really much point in a fast lens these days anyway, in
> general use ?

If you don't need full frame you could use an Olympus 14-150 lens (same
range of field of view) and pair with an E-M5 III camera. Total weight
is 699 grams, compared to the 1.8 Kg of your current setup.
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras forum at
https://groups.io/g/myolympus
https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

On 15/11/2021 12:58 am, newshound wrote:
> On 14/11/2021 06:19, geoff wrote:
>>   ... on my D800 is the Nikkor 28-300 f3.5~5.6.
>>
>> Give the high light-sensitivity (=ISO range, sort of), is there really
>> much advantage these days in sacrificing convenience (and maybe a few
>> types and degrees of distortions) for the potentially 'better' overall
>> quality and low-light/high-speed light-performance of a smaller zoom
>> range and/or faster lens ?
>>
>> And is there really much point in a fast lens these days anyway, in
>> general use ?
>>
>> geoff
>
> Depends on whether you want to make use of shallow depth of focus for
> artistic effect.

Yes, I guess that is the unavoidable tradeoff....

geoff

On 2021-11-14, geoff <geoff@nospamgeoffwood.org> wrote:
> ... on my D800 is the Nikkor 28-300 f3.5~5.6.
>
> Give the high light-sensitivity (=ISO range, sort of), is there really
> much advantage these days in sacrificing convenience (and maybe a few
> types and degrees of distortions) for the potentially 'better' overall
> quality and low-light/high-speed light-performance of a smaller zoom
> range and/or faster lens ?

Yes. The AF-P 70 - 300 4.5-5.6E is much sharper with more contrast,
particularly at 300mm wide open. A prime lens is even better. A 28 -
105 has less distortion at the wide end. So-called "super zoom" lenses
always sacrifice quality for convenience. Distortion can often be
corrected but you can't correct for low resolving power.

> And is there really much point in a fast lens these days anyway, in
> general use ?

It depends on your needs. The D800 has decent low light performance but
nothing amazing. If you shoot action or indoor events, a faster lens is
a must-have if you want clean images without motion blur. If it's not
something you find you need then maybe there's not much point for you
personally.

On 2021-11-14, newshound <newshound@stevejqr.plus.com> wrote:
> On 14/11/2021 06:19, geoff wrote:
>>  ... on my D800 is the Nikkor 28-300 f3.5~5.6.
>>
>> Give the high light-sensitivity (=ISO range, sort of), is there really
>> much advantage these days in sacrificing convenience (and maybe a few
>> types and degrees of distortions) for the potentially 'better' overall
>> quality and low-light/high-speed light-performance of a smaller zoom
>> range and/or faster lens ?
>>
>> And is there really much point in a fast lens these days anyway, in
>> general use ?
>>
>> geoff
>
> Depends on whether you want to make use of shallow depth of focus for
> artistic effect. Not that you necessarily have to pay big money for
> that, I have a TT Artisans manual lens for the Fuju-Xs just for that reason.

You *can* do that without fast glass - long lenses as close as you can
get will deliver that too. The 28 - 105 focuses incredibly closely so
at 105 you'd think was shot at 2.8 or wider.

In article <slrnsp4ctu.k07.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
<u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:

> The D800 has decent low light performance but
> nothing amazing.

actually it's quite amazing, especially compared to film, which could
only dream about high iso, resulting in the need for fast expensive
glass.

> If you shoot action or indoor events, a faster lens is
> a must-have if you want clean images without motion blur.

no it isn't.

use auto-iso with a fast enough shutter speed.

In article <slrnsp4d20.k07.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
<u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:

> >
> > Depends on whether you want to make use of shallow depth of focus for
> > artistic effect. Not that you necessarily have to pay big money for
> > that, I have a TT Artisans manual lens for the Fuju-Xs just for that reason.
>
> You *can* do that without fast glass

yep, in software.

> - long lenses as close as you can
> get will deliver that too. The 28 - 105 focuses incredibly closely so
> at 105 you'd think was shot at 2.8 or wider.

that's not always possible, plus it changes perspective and may also
annoy the subject and others nearby.

On 2021-11-15, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <slrnsp4ctu.k07.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
><u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The D800 has decent low light performance but
>> nothing amazing.
>
> actually it's quite amazing, especially compared to film, which could
> only dream about high iso, resulting in the need for fast expensive
> glass.

It's nothing amazing compared to newer cameras or cameras designed for
high ISO performance. How does comparing it to obsolete techonology
that enthusiasts use help?

>> If you shoot action or indoor events, a faster lens is
>> a must-have if you want clean images without motion blur.
>
> no it isn't.
>
> use auto-iso with a fast enough shutter speed.

With a 28 - 300? Good luck with that. Maybe all the professionals
using the 70 - 200 2.8, 85mm 1.8 and 50mm 1.8 for sports and events have
got it wrong and they should use a slow zoom lens at ISO 6400 or beyond.
I'm sure their clients would love that.

On 2021-11-15, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <slrnsp4d20.k07.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
><u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >
>> > Depends on whether you want to make use of shallow depth of focus for
>> > artistic effect. Not that you necessarily have to pay big money for
>> > that, I have a TT Artisans manual lens for the Fuju-Xs just for that reason.
>>
>> You *can* do that without fast glass
>
> yep, in software.

Not the same.

>> - long lenses as close as you can
>> get will deliver that too. The 28 - 105 focuses incredibly closely so
>> at 105 you'd think was shot at 2.8 or wider.
>
> that's not always possible, plus it changes perspective and may also
> annoy the subject and others nearby.

As I said, you can do it without fast glass and your need to have the
last word doesn't change that.

In article <slrnsp4ihn.plt.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
<u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> The D800 has decent low light performance but
> >> nothing amazing.
> >
> > actually it's quite amazing, especially compared to film, which could
> > only dream about high iso, resulting in the need for fast expensive
> > glass.
>
> It's nothing amazing compared to newer cameras or cameras designed for
> high ISO performance. How does comparing it to obsolete techonology
> that enthusiasts use help?

it's more than sufficient for indoor work with a non-fast lens.

even dx cameras do quite well.

> >> If you shoot action or indoor events, a faster lens is
> >> a must-have if you want clean images without motion blur.
> >
> > no it isn't.
> >
> > use auto-iso with a fast enough shutter speed.
>
> With a 28 - 300? Good luck with that.

no need for luck. i've shot theatre and dance with lenses from f/4 to
f/5.6, no issues whatsoever.

> Maybe all the professionals
> using the 70 - 200 2.8, 85mm 1.8 and 50mm 1.8 for sports and events have
> got it wrong and they should use a slow zoom lens at ISO 6400 or beyond.
> I'm sure their clients would love that.

they use those lenses because of generally higher quality results,
weather sealed and/or shallow depth of field.

the clients don't care what lens is used as long as the results are
what they want. they probably don't know anything about lenses or
f/stops or depth of field.

In article <slrnsp4ilk.plt.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
<u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> > Depends on whether you want to make use of shallow depth of focus for
> >> > artistic effect. Not that you necessarily have to pay big money for
> >> > that, I have a TT Artisans manual lens for the Fuju-Xs just for that
> >> > reason.
> >>
> >> You *can* do that without fast glass
> >
> > yep, in software.
>
> Not the same.

that depends on the software.

> >> - long lenses as close as you can
> >> get will deliver that too. The 28 - 105 focuses incredibly closely so
> >> at 105 you'd think was shot at 2.8 or wider.
> >
> > that's not always possible, plus it changes perspective and may also
> > annoy the subject and others nearby.
>
> As I said, you can do it without fast glass

as i said, not always.

try running up to the stage in a theatre during a performance.

> and your need to have the
> last word doesn't change that.

it's not about having the last word.

you're simply wrong. very wrong.

On 2021-11-15, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <slrnsp4ilk.plt.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
><u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> > Depends on whether you want to make use of shallow depth of focus for
>> >> > artistic effect. Not that you necessarily have to pay big money for
>> >> > that, I have a TT Artisans manual lens for the Fuju-Xs just for that
>> >> > reason.
>> >>
>> >> You *can* do that without fast glass
>> >
>> > yep, in software.
>>
>> Not the same.
>
> that depends on the software.
>
>> >> - long lenses as close as you can
>> >> get will deliver that too. The 28 - 105 focuses incredibly closely so
>> >> at 105 you'd think was shot at 2.8 or wider.
>> >
>> > that's not always possible, plus it changes perspective and may also
>> > annoy the subject and others nearby.
>>
>> As I said, you can do it without fast glass
>
> as i said, not always.
>
> try running up to the stage in a theatre during a performance.
>
>> and your need to have the
>> last word doesn't change that.
>
> it's not about having the last word.
>
> you're simply wrong. very wrong.

So you're saying one can't get shallow depth of field with close focus?
You'd better let the macro photographers know; they've been stopping
down and using focus stacking for years. All those photos people have
taken using a Nikkor 28 - 105 or a 200mm f4 must have used software to
achieve the effect, right?

On 15/11/2021 11:53, Incubus wrote:
> On 2021-11-15, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <slrnsp4ctu.k07.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
>> <u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The D800 has decent low light performance but
>>> nothing amazing.
>>
>> actually it's quite amazing, especially compared to film, which could
>> only dream about high iso, resulting in the need for fast expensive
>> glass.
>
> It's nothing amazing compared to newer cameras or cameras designed for
> high ISO performance. How does comparing it to obsolete techonology
> that enthusiasts use help?
>
>>> If you shoot action or indoor events, a faster lens is
>>> a must-have if you want clean images without motion blur.
>>
>> no it isn't.
>>
>> use auto-iso with a fast enough shutter speed.
>
> With a 28 - 300? Good luck with that. Maybe all the professionals
> using the 70 - 200 2.8, 85mm 1.8 and 50mm 1.8 for sports and events have
> got it wrong and they should use a slow zoom lens at ISO 6400 or beyond.
> I'm sure their clients would love that.
>
Quite. The extra light doesn't just let them keep ISO down and speeds
up, it gives them faster and better autofocus which really matters when
you rely on selling pics for a living.

In article <yP6dnbJRz_xFyA_8nZ2dnUU78IOdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>,
newshound <newshound@stevejqr.plus.com> wrote:

> Quite. The extra light doesn't just let them keep ISO down and speeds
> up, it gives them faster and better autofocus which really matters when
> you rely on selling pics for a living.

autofocus works up to f/5.6, and f/8 on some cameras.

In article <slrnsp4k7n.qrv.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
<u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> So you're saying one can't get shallow depth of field with close focus?

nope. i'm saying that it is not always possible.

> You'd better let the macro photographers know;

macro is just one scenario, but even then, getting close is not always
an option.

for more common scenarios, such as portraits, sports, theatre and many
others, it is not possible to get close, nor is it even desirable if it
were.

On 2021-11-15, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <yP6dnbJRz_xFyA_8nZ2dnUU78IOdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>,
> newshound <newshound@stevejqr.plus.com> wrote:
>
>> Quite. The extra light doesn't just let them keep ISO down and speeds
>> up, it gives them faster and better autofocus which really matters when
>> you rely on selling pics for a living.
>
> autofocus works up to f/5.6, and f/8 on some cameras.

The more light the better.

On 2021-11-15, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <slrnsp4k7n.qrv.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
><u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> So you're saying one can't get shallow depth of field with close focus?
>
> nope. i'm saying that it is not always possible.

In fact, this is how the conversation went:

Me: As I said, you can do it without fast glass

You: as i said, not always.

Then: you're simply wrong. very wrong.

So how am I wrong? It's either possible or it isn't. I didn't say it
was always possible, as you keep saying.

> for more common scenarios, such as portraits, sports, theatre and many
> others, it is not possible to get close, nor is it even desirable if it
> were.

As I said, it is possible. I didn't say it is always an option.

For portraits, however, a comparatively slow lens can easily have
shallow depth of field at the closest focus distance if the lens is long
enough. A 200mm f4 or a 300mm f4.5 aren't considered fast but they will
definitely work for portraits if you get as close as the lens allows.

In article <slrnsp4q0e.sq3.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
<u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> So you're saying one can't get shallow depth of field with close focus?
> >
> > nope. i'm saying that it is not always possible.
>
> In fact, this is how the conversation went:
>
> Me: As I said, you can do it without fast glass
>
> You: as i said, not always.
>
> Then: you're simply wrong. very wrong.
>
> So how am I wrong? It's either possible or it isn't. I didn't say it
> was always possible, as you keep saying.

you left out the full exchange:

In article <151120210713426401%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam
<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> > >> - long lenses as close as you can
> > >> get will deliver that too. The 28 - 105 focuses incredibly closely so
> > >> at 105 you'd think was shot at 2.8 or wider.
> > >
> > > that's not always possible, plus it changes perspective and may also
> > > annoy the subject and others nearby.
> >
> > As I said, you can do it without fast glass
>
> as i said, not always.
>
> try running up to the stage in a theatre during a performance.

it's rare that getting close is an option, especially when raising the
iso is easier and maintains perspective.

> > for more common scenarios, such as portraits, sports, theatre and many
> > others, it is not possible to get close, nor is it even desirable if it
> > were.
>
> As I said, it is possible. I didn't say it is always an option.
>
> For portraits, however, a comparatively slow lens can easily have
> shallow depth of field at the closest focus distance if the lens is long
> enough. A 200mm f4 or a 300mm f4.5 aren't considered fast but they will
> definitely work for portraits if you get as close as the lens allows.

those are a bit long for portraits, and getting close is not desirable
because it changes perspective and creeps out the subject.

On 2021-11-15, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <slrnsp4q0e.sq3.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
><u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> So you're saying one can't get shallow depth of field with close focus?
>> >
>> > nope. i'm saying that it is not always possible.
>>
>> In fact, this is how the conversation went:
>>
>> Me: As I said, you can do it without fast glass
>>
>> You: as i said, not always.
>>
>> Then: you're simply wrong. very wrong.
>>
>> So how am I wrong? It's either possible or it isn't. I didn't say it
>> was always possible, as you keep saying.
>
> you left out the full exchange:
>
> In article <151120210713426401%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam
><nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> > >> - long lenses as close as you can
>> > >> get will deliver that too. The 28 - 105 focuses incredibly closely so
>> > >> at 105 you'd think was shot at 2.8 or wider.
>> > >
>> > > that's not always possible, plus it changes perspective and may also
>> > > annoy the subject and others nearby.
>> >
>> > As I said, you can do it without fast glass
>>
>> as i said, not always.
>>
>> try running up to the stage in a theatre during a performance.
>
> it's rare that getting close is an option, especially when raising the
> iso is easier and maintains perspective.

Close with a 200mm or even a 135mm lens isn't all that close.

>> > for more common scenarios, such as portraits, sports, theatre and many
>> > others, it is not possible to get close, nor is it even desirable if it
>> > were.
>>
>> As I said, it is possible. I didn't say it is always an option.
>>
>> For portraits, however, a comparatively slow lens can easily have
>> shallow depth of field at the closest focus distance if the lens is long
>> enough. A 200mm f4 or a 300mm f4.5 aren't considered fast but they will
>> definitely work for portraits if you get as close as the lens allows.
>
> those are a bit long for portraits, and getting close is not desirable
> because it changes perspective and creeps out the subject.

I've seen lots of good portraits taken with 200 and 300mm lenses. 85mm
seems to be the most popular to-day.

On Monday, 15 November 2021 at 12:13:48 UTC, nospam wrote:
> In article <slrnsp4ilk....@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
> <u953...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > Depends on whether you want to make use of shallow depth of focus for
> > >> > artistic effect. Not that you necessarily have to pay big money for
> > >> > that, I have a TT Artisans manual lens for the Fuju-Xs just for that
> > >> > reason.
> > >>
> > >> You *can* do that without fast glass
> > >
> > > yep, in software.
> >
> > Not the same.
> that depends on the software.
> > >> - long lenses as close as you can
> > >> get will deliver that too. The 28 - 105 focuses incredibly closely so
> > >> at 105 you'd think was shot at 2.8 or wider.
> > >
> > > that's not always possible, plus it changes perspective and may also
> > > annoy the subject and others nearby.
> >
> > As I said, you can do it without fast glass
> as i said, not always.
>
> try running up to the stage in a theatre during a performance.

Not sure you're allowed to do that, or it would be a good reason to throw you out.
Well in the UK you would be disturbing the performance and be escorted out.

I tried my camera out at 25600 ISO it was a bit woolly, but not bad considering

> > and your need to have the
> > last word doesn't change that.
> it's not about having the last word.
>
> you're simply wrong. very wrong.

In article <slrnsp4vuj.42n.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
<u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:

> I've seen lots of good portraits taken with 200 and 300mm lenses. 85mm
> seems to be the most popular to-day.

85 is a bit short for full frame. it's ideal for dx.

In article <d1228c24-1089-42a2-b9ff-3dc3930ea9d3n@googlegroups.com>,
Whisky-dave <whisky.dave@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > >> - long lenses as close as you can
> > > >> get will deliver that too. The 28 - 105 focuses incredibly closely so
> > > >> at 105 you'd think was shot at 2.8 or wider.
> > > >
> > > > that's not always possible, plus it changes perspective and may also
> > > > annoy the subject and others nearby.
> > >
> > > As I said, you can do it without fast glass
> > as i said, not always.
> >
> > try running up to the stage in a theatre during a performance.
>
> Not sure you're allowed to do that, or it would be a good reason to throw you
> out.
> Well in the UK you would be disturbing the performance and be escorted out.

exactly the point.

> I tried my camera out at 25600 ISO it was a bit woolly, but not bad
> considering

no need to go that high.

iso 3200 and 6400 are very good, much better than iso 400 film.

On 16/11/2021 12:53 am, Incubus wrote:
> On 2021-11-15, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <slrnsp4ctu.k07.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
>> <u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The D800 has decent low light performance but
>>> nothing amazing.
>>
>> actually it's quite amazing, especially compared to film, which could
>> only dream about high iso, resulting in the need for fast expensive
>> glass.
>
> It's nothing amazing compared to newer cameras or cameras designed for
> high ISO performance. How does comparing it to obsolete techonology
> that enthusiasts use help?
>
>>> If you shoot action or indoor events, a faster lens is
>>> a must-have if you want clean images without motion blur.
>>
>> no it isn't.
>>
>> use auto-iso with a fast enough shutter speed.
>
> With a 28 - 300? Good luck with that. Maybe all the professionals
> using the 70 - 200 2.8, 85mm 1.8 and 50mm 1.8 for sports and events have
> got it wrong and they should use a slow zoom lens at ISO 6400 or beyond.
> I'm sure their clients would love that.

I am referring to a 'standard lens', for day-to-day general photography.

That doesn't preclude me from using my 80-200/2.8 and my 50/1.4 for
anything 'critical' and depth-of-field effects on occasions .

geoff