On 2021-11-15, geoff <geoff@nospamgeoffwood.org> wrote:
> 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 .

This was your original question:

"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 ?"

You didn't mention day-to-day photography, otherwise I would have
restricted my answer to some types of distortion being difficult if not
impossible to fix and shorter zooms/prime lenses resolving more detail
and having more contrast.

On Monday, 15 November 2021 at 16:44:27 UTC, nospam wrote:
> In article <d1228c24-1089-42a2...@googlegroups.com>,
> Whisky-dave <whisk...@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.

There was , as the leaf shock in the wind and it was in shadow , I'd had prefered a slightly high shutter speed
and a bit more DoF for other smaller insects I was trying to take photos of.

The F16 versions was a bit too whoolly so I just kept this version.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/whiskydave/51625283461/

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

but sometimes not quite good enough.
I wouldn't complian if I could get a decent ISO of a million+ or so. ;-)
But I'd prefer an ISO of a billion+ :-), one day maybe .

But geoff is right even though _I_ refer to this sort of thing as MY standard day to day photography
with my camera whereas my standard day-day snaps are done with my iPhone7.
Like pictures of a cats and people and standard stuff.

Am 16.11.2021 um 14:13 schrieb Whisky-dave:
> There was , as the leaf shock in the wind and it was in shadow , I'd had prefered a slightly high shutter speed
> and a bit more DoF for other smaller insects I was trying to take photos of.
>
> The F16 versions was a bit too whoolly so I just kept this version.
>
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/whiskydave/51625283461/

Hmmmm.... F4 wouldn't have had sufficient DOF?

Alternatively, you could have used a flash.
--
Alfred Molon

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

On Sunday, 14 November 2021 at 01:19:14 UTC-5, 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

Worst aspect of most long zoom designs is the mushy long end. This also makes no sense because if you examine most people's
images, they use a lens like that mostly for reach. The companies if possible should err on the side of focal length.

>
> Worst aspect of most long zoom designs is the mushy long end. This also makes no sense because if you examine most people's
> images, they use a lens like that mostly for reach. The companies if possible should err on the side of focal length.

Someone posted many years ago that the majority of shots with zooms is
not randomly distributed FL wise but full short or full long.

Caused me to examine my habits and lo and behold he was not perfectly
right, but truer than not.

The higher the zoom ratio the harder it is to make the lens equally
sharp end to end. Why holy trinity lenses have zoom ratios less than
3:1 rather than the out there 4:1 of a 75:300.

My 80-200 f/2.8 remains one of my favourite and sharpest lenses along
with the 28-70 f/2.8. Of course my 135 f/1.8 and 100 f/2.8 macro are
fantastic ffl's. Don't use the 20 or 50 much. Always wanted a nice 85
f/ 1.4mm for portraiture but the 28-70 was "good 'nuff" or when there
was room for it, the 100.

Sold the 300 f/2.8 a long time ago. (Didn't use it enough).

--
"...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

On 2021-11-18, RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, 14 November 2021 at 01:19:14 UTC-5, 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
>
> Worst aspect of most long zoom designs is the mushy long end. This also makes no sense because if you examine most people's
> images, they use a lens like that mostly for reach. The companies if possible should err on the side of focal length.

This is what Nikon did with the AF-P 70 - 300 4.5 - 5.6E. It's a
remarkable lens - sharp wide open at every length with four stops of
image stabilsation but definitely resolves more detail at 300mm than 70
if you view at 100%. It has weather sealing as well.

I paid about £200 less for it by buying a grey market import.

On Wednesday, 17 November 2021 at 17:18:34 UTC, Alfred Molon wrote:
> Am 16.11.2021 um 14:13 schrieb Whisky-dave:
> > There was , as the leaf shock in the wind and it was in shadow , I'd had prefered a slightly high shutter speed
> > and a bit more DoF for other smaller insects I was trying to take photos of.
> >
> > The F16 versions was a bit too whoolly so I just kept this version.
> >
> > https://www.flickr.com/photos/whiskydave/51625283461/
> Hmmmm.... F4 wouldn't have had sufficient DOF?
>
> Alternatively, you could have used a flash.
> --
> Alfred Molon
>
> Olympus 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras forum at
> https://groups.io/g/myolympus
> https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

Not very practical as I didn't have one.
Also I don't like flashing at insects or anyone/thing else. :)