Applications for using a 300mm f/4

Technically I was thinking about a 2.8, but decided I don't want to spend that amount on this lens.  So falling back to the f/4 as I'll save a grip.  But now I'm trying to decide how often I'll even use that one.  Now I know bird photography will get some love from this lens.  Is something like this even practical for portraits?  I'm guessing outdoor, but will the f/4 do the trick from bokeh standpoint?

Peter Nunez wrote: Technically I was thinking about a 2.8, but decided I don't want to spend that amount on this lens. So falling back to the f/4 as I'll save a grip. But now I'm trying to decide how often I'll even use that one. Now I know bird photography will get some love from this lens. Is something like this even practical for portraits? I'm guessing outdoor, but will the f/4 do the trick from bokeh standpoint?

f/4.0, of course, is meaningless as far as bokeh is concerned.

That's a Sports/Action/Wildlife lens.

I have a Tokina 100-300mm f/4.0 lens, and at 300mm and f/4.0, the bokeh is great, but I'm shooting equestrians, not portraiture.

Razky wrote:

Peter Nunez wrote: Technically I was thinking about a 2.8, but decided I don't want to spend that amount on this lens. So falling back to the f/4 as I'll save a grip. But now I'm trying to decide how often I'll even use that one. Now I know bird photography will get some love from this lens. Is something like this even practical for portraits? I'm guessing outdoor, but will the f/4 do the trick from bokeh standpoint?

f/4.0, of course, is meaningless as far as bokeh is concerned.

How so, can you expound on what sort of experience you have to support this statement?  

Jakov Barnes wrote:

Razky wrote:

Peter Nunez wrote: Technically I was thinking about a 2.8, but decided I don't want to spend that amount on this lens. So falling back to the f/4 as I'll save a grip. But now I'm trying to decide how often I'll even use that one. Now I know bird photography will get some love from this lens. Is something like this even practical for portraits? I'm guessing outdoor, but will the f/4 do the trick from bokeh standpoint?

f/4.0, of course, is meaningless as far as bokeh is concerned.

How so, can you expound on what sort of experience you have to support this statement?  

I believe this is the most widely accepted interpretation of "Bokeh."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh

Razky wrote:

Jakov Barnes wrote:

Razky wrote:

Peter Nunez wrote: Technically I was thinking about a 2.8, but decided I don't want to spend that amount on this lens. So falling back to the f/4 as I'll save a grip. But now I'm trying to decide how often I'll even use that one. Now I know bird photography will get some love from this lens. Is something like this even practical for portraits? I'm guessing outdoor, but will the f/4 do the trick from bokeh standpoint?

f/4.0, of course, is meaningless as far as bokeh is concerned.

How so, can you expound on what sort of experience you have to support this statement?  

I believe this is the most widely accepted interpretation of "Bokeh."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh

I wasn't asking for definition of "bokeh".  Which BTW you may want to read and understand that page that you sent.  I don't think YOU understand that bokeh isn't just with 2.8 lenses.  I was asking about your experience.  Do you have any?  Or you just the type to sling out random opinions and share links to pages that you don't fully understand?  Not trying to be rude, but just trying to understand your angle?  

Jakov Barnes wrote:

Razky wrote:

Jakov Barnes wrote:

Razky wrote:

Peter Nunez wrote: Technically I was thinking about a 2.8, but decided I don't want to spend that amount on this lens. So falling back to the f/4 as I'll save a grip. But now I'm trying to decide how often I'll even use that one. Now I know bird photography will get some love from this lens. Is something like this even practical for portraits? I'm guessing outdoor, but will the f/4 do the trick from bokeh standpoint?

f/4.0, of course, is meaningless as far as bokeh is concerned.

How so, can you expound on what sort of experience you have to support this statement?  

I believe this is the most widely accepted interpretation of "Bokeh."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh

I wasn't asking for definition of "bokeh".  Which BTW you may want to read and understand that page that you sent.  I don't think YOU understand that bokeh isn't just with 2.8 lenses.  I was asking about your experience.  Do you have any?  Or you just the type to sling out random opinions and share links to pages that you don't fully understand?  Not trying to be rude, but just trying to understand your angle?  

I'm thinking that anyone who understands what the word "Bokeh" actually means ought to understand my original comment perfectly. I do not have an "angle," but I do wonder what you're digging for. Something sensible, I would hope.

Bokeh or not Bokeh. That is the question.



Nikon D90, 300mm, f/4.0, 1/500, ISO 250.

Bokeh or not Bokeh. That is the question.




Nikon D90, 300mm, f/8.0, 1/500, ISO 1400

Razky wrote:

Jakov Barnes wrote:

Razky wrote:

Jakov Barnes wrote:

Razky wrote:

Peter Nunez wrote: Technically I was thinking about a 2.8, but decided I don't want to spend that amount on this lens. So falling back to the f/4 as I'll save a grip. But now I'm trying to decide how often I'll even use that one. Now I know bird photography will get some love from this lens. Is something like this even practical for portraits? I'm guessing outdoor, but will the f/4 do the trick from bokeh standpoint?

f/4.0, of course, is meaningless as far as bokeh is concerned.

How so, can you expound on what sort of experience you have to support this statement?  

I believe this is the most widely accepted interpretation of "Bokeh."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh

I wasn't asking for definition of "bokeh".  Which BTW you may want to read and understand that page that you sent.  I don't think YOU understand that bokeh isn't just with 2.8 lenses.  I was asking about your experience.  Do you have any?  Or you just the type to sling out random opinions and share links to pages that you don't fully understand?  Not trying to be rude, but just trying to understand your angle?  

I'm thinking that anyone who understands what the word "Bokeh" actually means ought to understand my original comment perfectly. I do not have an "angle," but I do wonder what you're digging for. Something sensible, I would hope.

I'm convinced you don't understand photography.  Prove me wrong without posting some link to Google or wherever.  Actually don't worry about it.  I know the answer already.  

TCav wrote: Bokeh or not Bokeh. That is the question.

Nikon D90, 300mm, f/4.0, 1/500, ISO 250.

Love that compression!!!

I suggest you rent one for a weekend or week and get some time with it.  Then if you like it, buy it.  

+1 I was going to say the same thing.  Rent one and play around with it for a week or two and see if you are even going to like the lens.  

Perfectly good bokeh at f4 300mm.

Those of you with this lens, how often are you actually getting out and using the lens?