Is a lens with f/2.8 *really* needed?

  • Thread starter Thread starter *em*
  • Start date Start date
E

*em*

Guest
If you were shooting a HS football game at twilight/night would you *really* need a lens with f/2.8? That's what everyone keeps telling me, but I've been told there were alot of things I couldn't do with with my camera that I've pulled off.

Be honest: Is it *really* necessary? Or could I get by with an f/3.5 or f/4?

The reason I ask is because I am need of a lens in a hurry and I don't have time at the moment to save up for something better. This would just be a temporary lens until I could afford a better one.
 
When compared to f/3.5 or f/4, no. f/3.5 is two thirds of a stop slower, f/2.8 gets you two thirds of a stop faster shutter speed. Depending on the level of sensitivity your camera is capable of, two thirds of a stop in ISO is not significant enough to make any difference - honestly. But, camera manufacturers have to sell fast lenses for top dollar, and people who buy them have to justify their purchase - so there you go. f/1.4 makes more of a difference, that's 2 stops faster than f/2.8 and can make a difference. But, there are no telephoto lenses over 85mm (typically) that are that fast. So, you're not missing anything. f/2.8 is overrated, in my opinion. If you have a slower telezoom, you can still get good results if you can bump your ISO to get a decent shutter speed.
 
Back
Top