When I first started shooting dslr video I was using a tamron 17-50mm vc lens and I loved it. That was until I got a 50mm 1.8 lens and I went shallow dof crazy. Recently after bringing the tamron back into the picture and seeing the 50mm side by side with it I started to see that the tamron looked a whole lot sharper and clearer. I started reading around and found that most people like to keep their f stops between a 2.8-4.0 range. Im starting to like 2.8 more than 1.4 and 1.8 as I get a good amount of dof and my image is sharp. What do you guys usually use?
What f stop do you guys like to keep your lenses at?
- Thread starter dtjohns1
- Start date
Jordan Scott Price
Veteran
It varies from shot to shot to shot. Wide-open apertures are sometimes prone to producing a softer image, but not on all lenses. Generally the best performance a lens will give you is in the mid f-stops. But no one worth their salt only uses wide apertures and shallow DOF for their serious shooting.
Yea im definitely starting to see that now. I think people equate shallow dof to professionalism but dont realize that that is not always the case. Im learning that you have to be able to get a feel for what works best in each situation ur in instead of always going for a shallow dof in every shot.
I light to a minimum of f4. If I want to open wider, I'll ND. Very rarely this year have I shot wide open. I can't have all the extra softness, The look is overkill now, and f4 is more practical, and that I am now over my year-long fetish and phase of shooting without lights (reflectors etc) I'm back to lighting for f4. I like to keep my lenses most of the time between f5.6 and f8, but my maximum unless my main character is thinking so hard or going through some heavy shiz, is f4.
2.0 would be my shallow setting, on a 1.2 lens, and 2.8 stays with me for 1.4's and 1.8's and 2.0's.
Also, If I use f4 on my kit lens, my bokeh is round. If I use 2.8 on my prime with a max of 1.2/1.4, my bokeh is a polygon. I have that choice.
Choices increase once I fired up the bulbs again. It was plain stupid to think that I could get away with an image in low-light. Even if some cams can, I just much prefer to light with bulbs a day or two in advance, just to have the option of higher f-stops (and lower ISO's).
My f-stop was a slave to my light. Now that the bulbs are back, I am lighting to my desired f stop, and that would be 4/5.6/8. rare exceptions of 2.0.
T
2.0 would be my shallow setting, on a 1.2 lens, and 2.8 stays with me for 1.4's and 1.8's and 2.0's.
Also, If I use f4 on my kit lens, my bokeh is round. If I use 2.8 on my prime with a max of 1.2/1.4, my bokeh is a polygon. I have that choice.
Choices increase once I fired up the bulbs again. It was plain stupid to think that I could get away with an image in low-light. Even if some cams can, I just much prefer to light with bulbs a day or two in advance, just to have the option of higher f-stops (and lower ISO's).
My f-stop was a slave to my light. Now that the bulbs are back, I am lighting to my desired f stop, and that would be 4/5.6/8. rare exceptions of 2.0.
T
Disco Robo
Well-known member
For indoor narrative work I'll light for 2.8 at an ISO of 400 at night and f2.8-4.0 at an ISO of 200 for day, I have a t2i. I find that if I go much higher in stop or lower in ISO practicals become fairly useless and the light becomes much harder to control and setup time takes much longer. I can light an interior scene with 2-3 lights if I balance the practicals beforehand. I just shot 23 pages with 72 setups(including jib and dolly shots) in 2 days in one location. It would never have been possible if I was moving 6-8 lights, flags, and reflectors every time the shot list called for a new setup, did I mention I was DP/Gaffer/Head Electrician/Dolly Grip and 2nd AD. The downside is that splits become impossible but it's easier to rack than it is to relight.
Another thing for consideration is that on most non-staged indoor shoots with crop sensor cams you'll shoot a lot at 20-35mm, closeups aside, at these focal lengths you'll want to lose some of the depth of field. Then again if I had an awesome production designer, Lucky Number Sleven comes to mind, I'd probably shoot everything at f8 or 11.
Another thing for consideration is that on most non-staged indoor shoots with crop sensor cams you'll shoot a lot at 20-35mm, closeups aside, at these focal lengths you'll want to lose some of the depth of field. Then again if I had an awesome production designer, Lucky Number Sleven comes to mind, I'd probably shoot everything at f8 or 11.
PerroneFord
Deals in Lead
As others have said, it varies. But for narrative where I am controlling the light, I light to F4 at ISO 320. I find this a nice light level to work at with adequate light for everyone, without anyone struggling to see, and no one getting red eyed from super bright lights on them all day.
Purely from a look perspective, I like to be at F2.8 to F5.6 most of the time. F2.8 on an S35 (or APS-C) sensor is PLENTY shallow for nearly all purposes. On a portrait lens, it's just enough to get both eyes and the full face in focus. On a shorter lens, it's enough to get both characters in focus and soften the background.
I'll caveat this by saying that if I am on a slower lens, I will shoot it wide open for the bokeh and adjust other parameters accordingly.
Purely from a look perspective, I like to be at F2.8 to F5.6 most of the time. F2.8 on an S35 (or APS-C) sensor is PLENTY shallow for nearly all purposes. On a portrait lens, it's just enough to get both eyes and the full face in focus. On a shorter lens, it's enough to get both characters in focus and soften the background.
I'll caveat this by saying that if I am on a slower lens, I will shoot it wide open for the bokeh and adjust other parameters accordingly.
Ben_B
Veteran
Because the primes are cheaper, sharper, produce a more pleasing image, are cheaper, you COULD shoot super low light if you had to, and are cheaper.
PerroneFord
Deals in Lead
Well,
For a few reasons. First is that fast primes tend to be better built than zooms. They have less distortion and other problems.
Second, you can't always control your lighting. And in those instances, having some fast glass is indispensable.
Third, I tend to buy older primes. And these feel infinitely better than modern zooms or primes. They are constructed better and with better materials. Though optically, they may not be as good or as neutral.
Fourth, fast glass tend to be of larger diameter. This is helpful in focusing as the larger diameter allows more precision in focus rotation.
Fifth, larger glass tends to be heavier, this adding mass to cameras that desperately need it.
If you feel better ordering a few zooms and calling it a day, have at it. I've got some zooms and use them. I prefer primes, but that's just me. And I prefer fast glass so when I have to shoot in venues like I did this weekend with 5FC on the floor on Saturday, and 2 foot candles on the Sunday, I can get my images without a ton of noise and banding.
For a few reasons. First is that fast primes tend to be better built than zooms. They have less distortion and other problems.
Second, you can't always control your lighting. And in those instances, having some fast glass is indispensable.
Third, I tend to buy older primes. And these feel infinitely better than modern zooms or primes. They are constructed better and with better materials. Though optically, they may not be as good or as neutral.
Fourth, fast glass tend to be of larger diameter. This is helpful in focusing as the larger diameter allows more precision in focus rotation.
Fifth, larger glass tends to be heavier, this adding mass to cameras that desperately need it.
If you feel better ordering a few zooms and calling it a day, have at it. I've got some zooms and use them. I prefer primes, but that's just me. And I prefer fast glass so when I have to shoot in venues like I did this weekend with 5FC on the floor on Saturday, and 2 foot candles on the Sunday, I can get my images without a ton of noise and banding.
David G. Smith
Steak Knife Member
How fast are you talking Perroneford? I just used a f1.4 50mm Nikkor, pre-AI, that I recently picked up and that sucker is amazing. I swear it makes light. Yeah, I like the vintage primes also.
PerroneFord
Deals in Lead
I find that my Nikon 50mm F1.4 at ISO 400 sees about as well in the dark as I do. At ISO 800 it is seeing better than I can with my naked eye. At least in light between 2 and 10FC.
I would absolutely LOVE to have a 2/3" sensor camera with F1.2 glass in front of it for my current application.
Jordan Scott Price
Veteran
A special on nocturnal animals for the discovery channel?
Why would you want a smaller sensor and faster glass? Greater depth of field while still being able to film in low light?
PerroneFord
Deals in Lead
Bngo.
My current most common filming application has me filming in darkened arenas (Sunday was 2-3 footcandles on the floor) where I am trying to cover action 50ft deep from a fixed position. I NEEDED to be filming at F1.4 or F1.8, but was at F2.0 to get some semblence of depth. I was 15ft from the closest position.
Royal PITA. The venue I was at on Saturday was closer to 8-10FC and I was able to use F2.8-F4 on that floor and mostly cover the distance I needed reasonably. I just didn't have the light on Sunday. If I could have opened up to F1.4 with a smaller sensor like on my EX1, I would have been in business. But the F2.0 would have necessitated nearly a 1600 ISO on the EX1, and on that 1/2" sensor that's NOISY.
Jordan Scott Price
Veteran
I see. That's cool. I never think about sensor size for my own projects these days because I only have one camera. I find myself referring to this thing a lot:
http://www.dmcphotoblog.com/storage/2000px-Sensor_size
PerroneFord
Deals in Lead
I have APS-C, 1/2", and 1/3" (SD) to chhose from. I find myself choosing APS-C nearly all the time, 1/3" nearly never, and 1/2" when I have the light AND need decent camera sound.