question about big primes..

amadeus

having buyers remorse on my 300 mm F2.8 prime I bought last year. meaning I wish I'd have bitten the bullet and gotten the 400....not that it matters but I use Nikon on a D4. its occurred to me that a lens is just another magnifying glass. you can see things better than you can with your naked eye.

so my question kind of is, when comparing a 300 prime to a 400, is the extra 100 mm just a little more reach so to speak, or is the bigger prime "magnifying" the image exponentially higher/bigger/fatter/deeper than the 300. that may not make sense but it does to me. when my noon photog friends at work ask, how can you spend that much money on a lens, I tell them, when you watch a baseball game and you see all the photogs with these big lenses, there is a reason for that. we know they take a "better" image, but I'm curious how much "better" (more magnified?) of an image would a 400/500/600 take than my 300, and I do sometimes use my 1.7 TC and get nice results with and without the TC. I'm just jonesing for what I don't have....

any input appreciated.



ps. I shoot mainly outdoor action (dirt bikes) and since you read this far, one of my wildlife shots using the 300 with the TC just cos I like sharing it. helps when you have an eagles nest 5 minutes from your house. who knew?


:scratch:hotfood:click:deadhorse:devbobo:s85

kdog

Not exponential, it's linear. So you're not going to see a huge difference in switching to a 400. BTW, would you get a 400 f/2.8? That's a HUGE lens. Do you find yourself needing f/2.8 a lot? If not, you can save yourself a lot of money and size/weight by going to f/4 or even f/5.6 lenses.

Usually f/2.8 primes take TCs really well, as you've discovered. And 1.7x is a pretty big jump. The other way to get a big jump in magnification is switch to a crop body. I shoot Canon, but I think Nikon's crops are 1.5, right? So now add a TC 1.7 to that, and you've really got some pulling power, and a hell of a lot cheaper than a larger prime lens. So I'd try that before dumping the 300. That's a really super-versatile lens, and it's nice to be able to use that shorter focal length (as opposed to a 400/500/600) and super shallow DOF when you need it. Then if you still feel like you're coming up short you can then you can think about upgrading. But it's usually only wildlife photographers that need that kind of reach.

amadeus

kdog wrote: »

Not exponential, it's linear. So you're not going to see a huge difference in switching to a 400. BTW, would you get a 400 f/2.8? That's a HUGE lens. Do you find yourself needing f/2.8 a lot? If not, you can save yourself a lot of money and size/weight by going to f/4 or even f/5.6 lenses.

Usually f/2.8 primes take TCs really well, as you've discovered. And 1.7x is a pretty big jump. The other way to get a big jump in magnification is switch to a crop body. I shoot Canon, but I think Nikon's crops are 1.5, right? So now add a TC 1.7 to that, and you've really got some pulling power, and a hell of a lot cheaper than a larger prime lens. So I'd try that before dumping the 300. That's a really super-versatile lens, and it's nice to be able to use that shorter focal length (as opposed to a 400/500/600) and super shallow DOF when you need it. Then if you still feel like you're coming up short you can then you can think about upgrading. But it's usually only wildlife photographers that need that kind of reach.

thanks. thats exactly the input I was looking for. I wouldn't get rid of the 300 its perfect for motocross but it always bothered me that I didn't consider the 400 more. I'm to the point where spending money at B&H is part of life and I do it willingly and price tags are a mere formality. Not that I've got $11K to spend on a whim but if I felt like the 400 was a holy grail I'd get it tomorrow. I justify my spending on camera gear as a good way to keep me off a dirt bike and in one piece.

Its good to know the difference is linear and not exponential. I do need to consider things other than 2.8 primes and things other than Nikon (Sigma)...

and a good laptop to post process with. and a nice big monitor. and fish eye. and a.....:devbobo

puzzledpaul

Another aspect to consider is the number of pixels on subject ... and this is related to the square of the focal lengths because it's an area.

So, everything else being equal,and starting with the monster

800mm gives 64 pixels on subject
700mm = 49
600mm = 36
500mm = 25
400mm = 16
300mm = 9
200mm = 4
100mm =1

So,switching from a 300 to a 400 is giving you 16 instead of 9 ie starting to sniff round the edges of double.

(In the same way that adding a 1.4 to anything doubles the number of pixels on target, everything else staying constant)

pp

amadeus

puzzledpaul wrote: »

Another aspect to consider is the number of pixels on subject ... and this is related to the square of the focal lengths because it's an area.

So, everything else being equal,and starting with the monster

800mm gives 64 pixels on subject
700mm = 49
600mm = 36
500mm = 25
400mm = 16
300mm = 9
200mm = 4
100mm =1

So,switching from a 300 to a 400 is giving you 16 instead of 9 ie starting to sniff round the edges of double.

(In the same way that adding a 1.4 to anything doubles the number of pixels on target, everything else staying constant)

pp

thanks but you've totally lost me?

puzzledpaul

Well, let's assume you can borrow a 600mm from somewhere to mess around with.

Initially set your cam up with the 300, focus on a static target, and take a pic.
Then swap the 300 for the 600 and take another pic of the same target from the same position.

The 600 will magnify subject matter to double the height / width of 300 ...so an area in the original 300 shot that was 100px x 100px will be rendered in the 600 shot as 200px x 200px.

Since area is the product of width x height

100 x 100 = 10000 pixels
200 x 200 = 40000 pixels

So, a subject that was previously described with the 300mm by 10000 pixels is now being described (with the 600mm) by 40000 pixels ...ie a factor of 4 ...even though its 'only' double the width and height.

The figures in my previous post can be used to give other comparative differences (the 300 v 600 ex shows a 36 v 9 ratio...or 4:1,as in the example in this post)

Swapping your 300 for what I typically use (a 500) gives a ratio 9:25 ...or, put another way, if we were shooting the same target from the same position, using the same body, I'd be getting nearly 3 times the number of pixels describing the subject that you would with your 300mm.

Dunno if this helps?

pp

amadeus

puzzledpaul wrote: »

Well, let's assume you can borrow a 600mm from somewhere to mess around with.

Initially set your cam up with the 300, focus on a static target, and take a pic.
Then swap the 300 for the 600 and take another pic of the same target from the same position.

The 600 will magnify subject matter to double the height / width of 300 ...so an area in the original 300 shot that was 100px x 100px will be rendered in the 600 shot as 200px x 200px.

Since area is the product of width x height

100 x 100 = 10000 pixels
200 x 200 = 40000 pixels

So, a subject that was previously described with the 300mm by 10000 pixels is now being described (with the 600mm) by 40000 pixels ...ie a factor of 4 ...even though its 'only' double the width and height.

The figures in my previous post can be used to give other comparative differences (the 300 v 600 ex shows a 36 v 9 ratio...or 4:1,as in the example in this post)

Swapping your 300 for what I typically use (a 500) gives a ratio 9:25 ...or, put another way, if we were shooting the same target from the same position, using the same body, I'd be getting nearly 3 times the number of pixels describing the subject that you would with your 300mm.

Dunno if this helps?

pp

it does. but confused. kdog said the magnification was linear but you're kind of telling me the 500 will triple the magnification of my 300mm?

amadeus

and why is the Sigma 500mm only $5K when the Nikon is (they have 2) $8K and $10K.

I kind of know but any input on this lens appreciated..

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/380705-USA/Sigma_184306_500mm_f_4_5_EX_DG.html


when compared to this lens..

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/520642-USA/Nikon_2172_AF_S_Nikkor_500mm_f_4G.html

puzzledpaul

amadeus wrote: »

it does. but confused. kdog said the magnification was linear but you're kind of telling me the 500 will triple the magnification of my 300mm?

kdog is correct, magnification is linear ... in so much that a 600 will produce an image that's double the height (and width) that your 300 will ...but it's because that linear magnification is applied along both axes, that area (or pixel count) comes into play.

Re 300 / 500mm ... all I'm saying is that that a 500 will nearly triple the number of pixels on subject - compared with a 300.

The linear magnification is 500/ 300 = 1.66 ..ie the 500 image is 1.66x wider /higher than the 300mm image.

1.66 x 1.66 will produce the same ratio as 25 /9 (ignoring rounding error) , because that's how the 1.66 was obtained (500/300)

pp

amadeus

puzzledpaul wrote: »

kdog is correct, magnification is linear ... in so much that a 600 will produce an image that's double the height (and width) that your 300 will ...

does that mean that if you had a 300 and a 600 on identical bodies shooting from the same spot at the same settings, that when you compared the images you'd see much more subject in the image from the 600, like if you were shooting from a mountain top and were looking down on open landscape, you'd see twice as much landscape, and you'd see things in the image from the 600 that weren't on the image from the 300?

puzzledpaul

amadeus wrote: »

does that mean that if you had a 300 and a 600 on identical bodies shooting from the same spot at the same settings, that when you compared the images you'd see much more subject in the image from the 600, like if you were shooting from a mountain top and were looking down on open landscape, you'd see twice as much landscape, and you'd see things in the image from the 600 that weren't on the image from the 300?

You'd 'see' a wider vista of landscape with the 300 compared with the 600, but you'd see more detail in the shot taken with the 600 because there'd be 4 times as many pixels describing the details in the 600 shot,compared with the 300 shot.

The 600 would only give you a quarter of the view (area) that the 300 would.

pp

amadeus

puzzledpaul wrote: »

You'd 'see' a wider vista of landscape with the 300 compared with the 600, but you'd see more detail in the shot taken with the 600 because there'd be 4 times as many pixels describing the details in the 600 shot,compared with the 300 shot.

The 600 would only give you a quarter of the view (area) that the 300 would.

pp

well that's confusing but I like what I'm hearing. your webpage, both home tab, and about, have pics of a goose? and a white swan? landing on water. what lens were they taken with?

puzzledpaul

500 f4 used for both shots.
Goose pic using a 1.6 crop body, Swan with a 1.3 crop body (as I use Canon)

If you an say exactly what you find confusing, we might be able to clarify further?

pp

Mitchell

Sounds like a case of coveting something you don't have for no reason.

What are you missing now with your 300mm setup? It likely gives you plenty of reach for MX and is easier to use and lighter to carry than a 400mm. Just throw on the TC (which work great on my 300mm) if you want some quick extra reach.

Consider a D500 if you want to get into birding.

amadeus

puzzledpaul wrote: »

If you an say exactly what you find confusing, we might be able to clarify further?

pp

I guess its confusing that the 300 will have a larger coverage of unlimited subject, (landscape only for purposes of debate)) but the bigger lenses will have more pixels.

But that is good to hear as it kind of confirms what I was thinking might be the case with the big mega primes, that they provide "more" picture than my 300.

I wouldn't mind spending the money but if reach is all I'm buying I wouldn't be as interested, as it would become harder to work with shooting motocross, at least that is my perception.

But if more detail is what I'm buying, I'm a lot more interested in a bigger prime. thanks for all the input it has been helpful.

puzzledpaul

As a Nikon shooter, I'd have thought that renting / trying something like the fairly new 200 - 500mm or the good 'ol standby of many people, the 200 -400mm f4.

Whilst I've no experience whatsoever of shooting your subject matter, a decent (quality) zoom has many things to commend its use in some situations.

pp

amadeus

puzzledpaul wrote: »

As a Nikon shooter, I'd have thought that renting / trying something like the fairly new 200 - 500mm or the good 'ol standby of many people, the 200 -400mm f4.

Whilst I've no experience whatsoever of shooting your subject matter, a decent (quality) zoom has many things to commend its use in some situations.

pp

I have the Nikon 70-200 zoom. Seemed nice at the time and it is but when you are looking to win a long drive contest you don't grab the 5 wood. I'm looking for epic shots. Right place right time is a start but go big or go home seems to be the general idea when you watch the photogs at a big event. I'm not saying the 300 is a bad lens and can't produce an epic shot it can, as can the 70-200. I'm considering bigger primes because they are there. And there are reasons they are. I'm comfortable sacrificing the flexibility of a zoom for the intensity the primes bring. I already spent $2500 on the 70-200 and it doesn't get a whole lot of use. Always the 300. Now I want the next level. As you said renting is probably a good idea, I might go that route. And I might stick with the 300 for now as well, just exploring options and feedback like yours is again much appreciated.

amadeus

amadeus wrote: »

I'm considering bigger primes because they are there. And there are reasons they are.

amadeus

amadeus

amadeus

Geico Honda rider Justin Bogle Unadilla 2015 coming off coming down a very steep hill looking to see if anyone is coming to get acquainted...

amadeus

If there is more detail to be had in here, I want it...

Mitchell

Do you really think you will tote around a 400mm, f2.8 lens for MX? I doubt it. Perhaps you should rent one before buying.

I'm not sure what you are trying to demonstrate with the bald eagle photo. Are you suggesting you would get even closer with a 400mm for that shot? How about a TC which goes nicely on the 300mm, f2.8? You should pre-order a D500 if you want to stay at f2.8 with your 300mm.

amadeus

Mitchell wrote: »

Do you really think you will tote around a 400mm, f2.8 lens for MX? I doubt it. Perhaps you should rent one before buying.

I'm not sure what you are trying to demonstrate with the bald eagle photo. Are you suggesting you would get even closer with a 400mm for that shot? How about a TC which goes nicely on the 300mm, f2.8? You should pre-order a D500 if you want to stay at f2.8 with your 300mm.

I have a 1.7 TC and the eagle shots are taken with it. I only post them because I like them I'm not trying to demonstrate anything.

I'm not interested in shooting with a FX lens on a DX camera it makes no sense to me I want more image not less thats why I have FX bodies.

With regards to lugging big lens around, why not. I watch guys wad it up on a regular basis, carrying a 10 pound lens/camera combo seems pretty cushy in comparison so yes I think I will tote a big prime around should I pull the trigger on one.

puzzledpaul

amadeus wrote: »

If there is more detail to be had in here, I want it...

Well, using the figures already mentioned in this thread, if this'd been taken with a 400 rather than the 300, you'd have 16 rather than 9 pixels describing the details.

The obvious downside is that you'd 'see' less of the scene, and thus - in some circumstances - have composition issues?

I wonder if it might be an idea to 'imagine' what your pics would look like if they'd been taken with a 400 rather than a 300, by viewing them thro' a 'virtual frame' in PS - sized to the equivalent view a 400 would give you?

This might give you some idea of what pic elements / composition you'd have lost, in exchange for the greater detail?

pp

Mitchell

amadeus wrote: »

I'm not interested in shooting with a FX lens on a DX camera it makes no sense to me I want more image not less thats why I have FX bodies.

That's a pretty naive and foolish statement. I used to think that way after I switched to FX years ago, but you are wrong. Look around and read on some real photography web sites (fred miranda, etc...) where better photographers than you and I are drooling at the thought of finally being able to add a high quality DX body back into their stable for the extra reach provided.

Don't be an FX snob and unnecessarily buy a new, expensive and heavy lens without doing your homework.

amadeus

Mitchell wrote: »

That's a pretty naive and foolish statement. I used to think that way after I switched to FX years ago, but you are wrong. Look around and read on some real photography web sites (fred miranda, etc...) where better photographers than you and I are drooling at the thought of finally being able to add a high quality DX body back into their stable for the extra reach provided.

Don't be an FX snob and unnecessarily buy a new, expensive and heavy lens without doing your homework.

I'm doing my homework with this thread and google. From what I've gathered a FX lens on a DX body is a compromised image. I want the best image possible. If that makes my thought process naïve and foolish to you you're certainly entitled to that opinion. Adding reach at the cost of resolution is not the best image possible in my opinion. If I happen to be at the right place at the right time for a once in a life time shot I'd hate to think it could have been better with a different camera lens combo if it is one that is within my means to possess. Guys are spending $10K on a set of forks for their race bikes. Then they need a shock. Then they dump $20K on an engine which is good for a few races or less before it needs a rebuild. Next season they need a new bike.

I can live with a $10K once in a life time lens purchase all things considered. I'm 59 and don't have all that many racing seasons left. Somewhere out there is the most incredible motocross picture that will ever be taken and it hasn't been taken yet and my goal is to take it and when I do as far as I'm concerned the rider or riders in it will have made it that. Not me. But I will take credit for having had the best possible club in my bag to have gotten it. Right now for me its the 300 prime, but everyone is always looking for a bigger driver for a reason.

Mitchell

amadeus wrote: »

I'm doing my homework with this thread and google. From what I've gathered a FX lens on a DX body is a compromised image.

Where did you read that rubbish? Wonderful images have been made shooting FX glass on DX bodies. Don't you remember all those years we only had DX digital bodies before the introduction of the Nikon D3? Yes, we were all shooting cropped sensors on our Nikon D2X bodies using FX long lenses for years. The images were fantastic and graced the covers of many magazines (even MX publications)!!

Try asking your questions on a site with knowledgeable photographers. Try Fredmiranda.com or even Nikoncafe.com

amadeus

Mitchell wrote: »

Where did you read that rubbish?

Fredmiranda

pathfinder

While it is true that a longer lens will bring objects closer, nothing beats getting closer to your subject. I really doubt that lens focal length by itself necessarily makes for better images.

If I can shoot wildlife with 200mm rather than 400 or 600mm, the images will be higher quality because there is less dust and moisture in the path from the subject to the lens. I have lots of images shot with a Canon 500 f4 IS L prime that are impaired because of the dust or moisture or swirling of the air itself due to solar heating. I can even show you frames blurred due to air currents at noon in February in Yellowstone National Park. It was near 0 degrees, but the air was stirring due to the sunshine on the snow. It is worse in Africa at noon or southern California. This is very rarely, if ever, noticed with 200mm or even 300mm lenses. Because the air column is shorter.

While I have several long lenses, 200-400, 150-600, 300-800, 500 f4, 100-400mm I strongly prefer to shoot with 200 or 300mm at the most, IF I can get close enough.

With motocross, are you really so far away you need 400mm+ lenses that often?

Most of my motorcycle shots are shot with less than 100mm - https://pathfinder.smugmug.com/Vehicles-and-Various-Things/Motorcycles/Very-Boring-Rally-II-Duluth-8/

For birds in flight or for wolves in Yellowstone, yes you will probably need 500mm +. You will also need a heavy tripod and a Wimberley gimbal mount. If you are talking about shooting 400+mm handheld, without a tripod or other support, your image quality will be limited, not by the optics, but the the camera movement.

Long lenses are great to have, but I hate to have to use them. They require special technique to use effectively for maximum image quality.

I frequently use travel zooms when wandering about or riding motorcycles. Can't beat a 16-300mm zoom with no chromatic aberration these days.

amadeus

pathfinder wrote: »

While it is true that a longer lens will bring objects closer, nothing beats getting closer to your subject. I really doubt that lens focal length by itself necessarily makes for better images.

thanks for the constructive and on topic feedback. sounds like you're not quite sure (like me) if the big primes offer anything more than reach, and thats what I'm trying to come to an understanding of. yes 400 would be a tad long for MX but I don't feel like it would be a hindrance. It is nice to be on a track and be able to cover multiple points on the track from one spot, which you obviously couldn't do with a shorter lens if you were right in a turn or on a jump etc with a sub 100mm lens. I do like working close and have done a lot of it but when you grab the driver you don't head for the putting green right? it all comes back to my original question of does a BIG prime provide a "better" image than a smaller one and from puzzledpauls posts, I'm thinking the answer is yes. I don't know if I'm quite ready to drop $11K on a 400 2.8 but the 500 and 600's not being 2.8 are cheaper and a tad more intriguing at that price. $11K plus tax is serious coin but like I said a lot of people dump a lot of cash on boats, snowmobiles, bikes, etc. so..why not. But I'm far from ready to buy. But I could be persuaded...

thanks again for the feedback.