The short answer is yes, most of the time, as long as I have a good flash and a modern FF sensor (5DIV) where I am comfortable at higher ISO.Originally Posted by Dave Throgmartin
For the longer answer, let me break down the times when I want a faster aperture: 1) Family functions, usually indoor in regular sized rooms and pretty poor lighting; 2) staged events such as official photo shoots, and 3) nightscapes. Next, fast apertures primarily give you extra light and an effect (a more shallow depth of field= better separation, stronger and often better bokeh).
For family functions, I usually shoot f/2.8-f/5.6 (usually f/3.2), 1/125-1/200, and ISO 2000 with a directional flash mounted on the camera (I tend to bounce in the direction of a window, otherwise ceiling). The higher ISO takes the pressure off the flash and I find that ISO 2000 tends to give a very well balanced image with pleasant shadows. I have found is that the two stops from f/2.8 to f/1.4 simply is not enough "extra" light to shoot without a flash and that the dof gets so shallow that I often miss moments or the images doesn't tell the story of the scene because only a few eyelashes are actually in focus (unwrapping gifts only means so much if the gift is all blurry). Also, here the flexibility of the zoom is really appreciated as the scene is usually shifting quickly.
For staged events, I am usually shooting the 50 Art at f/1.4 to f/2.0 when I want a very powerful effect, then 70-200 f/2.8 II and the 100 L Macro if I want to be close (babies, etc). For example, I recently did some family member senior pictures. Almost all the favorites were from the 50 Art. Here the extra "effect" from the faster aperture was apparent. But, I could take a lot of pictures, and it was controlled. But, what has interested me in reading/watching, and in very controlled settings (ie studios), portrait photographers are usually not using fast apertures. They are f/5.6 to f/11 and are using subject/background distances to create the effect. So, fast glass is great, but not as necessary as you might think (some might take offense to this opinion).
For nightscapes, again, here I can easily justify a faster prime over the f/2.8 lenses. I can get good nightscapes at f/2.8, but here an extra stop or two of light saves you from running your exposure so long that you get star trails. Also, sensor noise at 1/125-1/200 of a second really isn't much for scenario 1....but it can be an issue for a 10-30 second exposure. So, cranking ISO is less of an option, granted, I still do it. But, I do not have a fast prime for nightscapes as I do not often get a chance for good nightscapes. If I ever did, you can bet a wide fast prime would end up in my bag.
I am sure others have different experiences or maybe different philosophies, but that is where I ended up. I do keep in the back of my mind something Rick (HDNitehawk) has written on the subject, something to the extent that his families favorite pics were often taken on the 24-70 II, but HIS favorites were often when he slowed down to use a faster prime.
So, I find having the 50A a great compromise. I do occasionally throw it on during family events. There is absolutely a significant difference in the feel of the pictures from the faster aperture vs my f/2.8 zooms and that is much appreciated for staged shots.
But, if I had to only have two lenses, it would be my two f/2.8 zooms, the 24-70 II and 70-200 f/2.8 II. Thankfully, I do not have to only have two lenses.
I hope that helps. Let me know if you have any other questions or if you want me to expand on something else.
Brant
Reply With Quote