File :-(, x, )
f stop Anonymous
in yalls opinion do you find there is a dramatic difference between 1.8 and 2.8 f stop. as in: is paying more for a lower f stop worth the money (28-50mm lengh lenses)

also http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials.htm good intro info
>> Macheath !8b4g0BkNZg
If you're interested in very low DOF work, I suppose it's worth it.

Just don't buy a lens with goatse aperture and then wonder why "ZOMG MY PICS IS OUTTA FOCUS"
>> Anonymous
when you say soft you mean a short DOF?
>> Anonymous
>>244485
he means shallow, but is too fucking newfag to know the proper terms
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>244485
No, he means soft. At wide apertures, lenses tend to be softer, even at the planes where they're in focus. I.e., things'll be a little bit less sharp than if you stop it down a bit.

>>244497
>he means shallow, but is too fucking newfag to know the proper terms
So yeah, good job mocking someone else while not knowing what you were talking about.
>> Anonymous
>>244503

short DOF = newfag for shallow DOF

WELCOME BACK TO /p/ ISN'T IT ABOUT TIME FOR YOU TO QUIT AGAIN, YOU FAT, BEARDED VIRGIN?
>> Anonymous
>>244507
do you feel empowered mocking me for using the word "short instead of "shallow"? does that make you feel good? hmm? did you get a prize? anyway thanks to the rest of you for your insite and patient explanations
>> Anonymous
Just a bit of opinion here, but the minor softness from being wide open at 1.8 or 1.4 is preferable to the MAJOR softness from a longer shutter speed when shooting handheld. Proper focusing isn't all that hard, especially with a camera with DoF preview (although the lens is wide open anyway, so no preview needed), and failing that, modern AF systems should be able to focus perfectly. What little inherent softness you get is minor if you're shooting handheld.
>> Anonymous
>>244599
I don't know what kind of paralyzed hands you have but when I shoot at 1.4/5000 my pics have so much shake they look like your mom's chicken.
>> Anonymous
>>244641
wat