hookit 0 #1 May 13, 2002 I recently bought a Canon Rebel 2000 camera and I'm looking to get a lens. I plan on using it to take pics of tandems as well as random other jumps as they come up. I've spoken with the camera flyers at the dz and the lens of choice seems to be a 28mm. I've looked around a bit and there seems to be quite a price range as far as 28mm lenses go. My question is whether or not it's worth it to shell out the extra bucks (quite a few extra I might add) for a lens with a larger aperture (1.8 rather than 2.8). The camera guys I spoke with didn't have any experience with different lens types so I'll pose my questions here. Will the lens with the larger aperture provide a crisper image since it allows more light to enter? Will I be more likely to be able to get good quality blow-ups of pics taken with a lens with 1.8 aperture instead of the 2.8 aperture? Is it true that the lens with the larger aperture will have a smaller depth-of-field which is in focus? If so would I be better off with the 2.8 because it would be a bit more 'forgiving' on the range (especially with things like RW big-ways)?I know that's quite a few questions so thanks in advance for any advice.Blues,Trey Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #2 May 13, 2002 QuoteMy question is whether or not it's worth it to shell out the extra bucks (quite a few extra I might add) for a lens with a larger aperture (1.8 rather than 2.8).I'm going to repost a little bit I wrote a while back about f-stop.**********f-stop controls depth of field. Depth of field is the amount of area closer or further away from the camera that is in "acceptable" focus from the point that is in the sharpest focus.If you wanted to make a photo with everything in focus from the closest object all the way to the horizon, then you'd need a very small f-stop.This confuses people so pay attention here. The higher the f-stop number, the smaller the opening and greater the depth of field.Opening the f-stop to a smaller f-stop number, will allow more light into the camera, but will decrease the depth of field.f-stop and exposure time are inter-related. Closing the f-stop one full stop requires you to double the exposure time for the same amount of photon to hit the film and be exposed at the "same" light level.By playing f-stop against film speed and exposure time, you can create motion blurs or throw the background out of focus.Please see attached photo for an example of a photo taken with a longer exposer and wider f-stop.Notice that the subject in the photo is in fairly sharp focus, but the background is pretty much out of focus. This draws attention away from the background and toward the subject.**********All of the above said, a faster lens is sometimes useful. However, for the majority of skydiving photos, you won't need a very "fast" lens.With 100 ASA film, shot at 1/500th of a second, during the majority of the day (2 hours after sunrise to 2 hours before sunset), you'll wind up using f-8 or thereabouts.If you also wanted to use this lens in lower light conditions, there may be an advantage to getting a 1.8 lens. However, you could also shoot higher speed film or shoot longer exposures or a combination of both. For instance, shooting 200 ASA film and slowing down to 1/250th of a second would give almost the exact same results with the 2.8 lens as shooting the same scene with 100 ASA, 1/500th and a 1.8 lens.quadehttp://futurecam.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hookit 0 #3 May 13, 2002 Wow. Thanks for the feedback. I'll probably keep it simple at this point and go for the 2.8.Now I have another question. Canon makes a 28:2.8 (I believe that's the correct notation) lens which sells for $170 and Contax makes a 28:2.8 Carl Zeiss Biogon T lens which sells for $500. Do you think I, as an amateur photographer, would even notice the difference in picture quality between the two lenses? If so do you think it would even come close to justifying triple the price of the lens?Thanks again,Trey Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #4 May 13, 2002 I think you'd have to be doing some very critical and technical work to justify the price difference.The less expensive lens is definately capable of taking magazine quality photographs. I've used it.quadehttp://futurecam.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #5 May 13, 2002 Hey there Trey, good to see you again at the weekend.....The other thing to think about is the level of abuse your lens may experience...check out this, its Simon Ward, one of the UK's leading camera fliers. Its from a gnarly Herc exit....CyaD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #6 May 13, 2002 And poor Brent Finleys abused Cannon EOSCyaD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #7 May 13, 2002 Now wouldn't that just break your heart if you'd spent the extra dinero on a kick ass lens????CyaD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hookit 0 #8 May 13, 2002 QuoteNow wouldn't that just break your heart if you'd spent the extra dinero on a kick ass lens????Hey there, Dave! It was great seeing you out at the dz again! Thanks for posting the pics. Very good point.Blues,Trey Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
