1.2/ 1.4 /1.8
Jun 1, 2014 18:31:12 #
what is the difference and what is the math? {if any] what is fastest? and when to use each?
any help would be appreciated!!
any help would be appreciated!!
Jun 1, 2014 18:32:30 #
Jun 1, 2014 18:40:46 #
1.2 would be the fastest, used in very low light situations.
Would probably be expensive. 1.2 more expensive than 1.4 than 1.8.
Wide open all used in low light or when you want to blur back ground.
Would probably be expensive. 1.2 more expensive than 1.4 than 1.8.
Wide open all used in low light or when you want to blur back ground.
Jun 1, 2014 18:42:20 #
Wikipedia has a good, if somewhat technical explanation of f-stops. Check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number. It's the ratio of the focal length to the diameter of the elements (entrance pupil where the diaphragm is located. If a lens was capable of f/1.0, the diameter of the internal elements would be equal to the focal length. If it was f/2.0 the diameter would be 1/2 the focal length. As the wikipedia article states "it's a dimensionless number which will vary based on the focal length of the lens.
Jun 1, 2014 18:42:31 #
lighthouse
Loc: No Fixed Abode
redhogbill wrote:
what is the difference and what is the math? {if any] what is fastest? and when to use each?
any help would be appreciated!!
any help would be appreciated!!
I assume we are talking F/stop.
They control how much light comes in and they control your depth of field.
1.2 lets in more light and has a shallower depth of field.
You use the one that gives you the amount of light and the depth of field that you want in your image.
It is often a trade off, but sometimes you have all options open to you and it is a conscious decision.
Jun 1, 2014 19:07:50 #
redhogbill wrote:
what is the difference and what is the math? {if any] what is fastest? and when to use each?
any help would be appreciated!!
any help would be appreciated!!
If you're talking f1.2, you must be talking Canon, no?
SS
Jun 1, 2014 19:18:20 #
Canon had an f/.95 50mm lens when they were still using the old breech lock mount.
Jun 1, 2014 19:31:31 #
...I see 1.4/1.8 on Nikon lenses, was wondering which was better? of course I could go by price , just was not sure what the different is!!
thanks for the help so far
thanks for the help so far
Jun 1, 2014 19:39:03 #
The 1.4 is about 1/3 stop faster than the 1.8 and about twice as expensive. The "G" lenses are $216.95 for the 1.8 & $439.00 for the 1.4. There is also a "D" series that is about half the cost. Generally speaking, there isn't enough difference between them to justify the cost.
Jun 1, 2014 19:56:45 #
Jun 1, 2014 20:05:50 #
The one thing I'll add is usually the faster lenses tend to be better engineered and built, with MUCH better quality optics.
In other words, for a given manufacturer, the 50mm f/1.8 lens will be aimed towards enthusiasts and the f/1.4 to professionals, with prices, build quality, and ESPECIALLY perform to reflect the differences.
In other words, for a given manufacturer, the 50mm f/1.8 lens will be aimed towards enthusiasts and the f/1.4 to professionals, with prices, build quality, and ESPECIALLY perform to reflect the differences.
Jun 1, 2014 20:11:21 #
lighthouse
Loc: No Fixed Abode
CHOLLY wrote:
The one thing I'll add is usually the faster lenses tend to be better engineered and built, with MUCH better quality optics.
In other words, for a given manufacturer, the 50mm f/1.8 lens will be aimed towards enthusiasts and the f/1.4 to professionals, with prices, build quality, and ESPECIALLY perform to reflect the differences.
In other words, for a given manufacturer, the 50mm f/1.8 lens will be aimed towards enthusiasts and the f/1.4 to professionals, with prices, build quality, and ESPECIALLY perform to reflect the differences.
Yes this is generally right.
But the 50mm F/1.8 are interesting to compare brands on.
The Nikon D version is built like a little tank with good optics and the Canon version is a piece of plastic junk with good optics.
And the Nikon D is also much more robust than the Canon F/1.4.
Jun 1, 2014 20:13:18 #
Jun 1, 2014 20:42:19 #
>> Canon had an f/.95 50mm lens when they were still using the old breech lock mount.
Wasn't that just the S series for Canon 7 / Leica? Magnificent beast, an ex RAF officer I met had one on a Leica...
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/lens/s/data/50-85/s_50_095.html
History is fascinating stuff...
I have the FL 55mm f/1.2 with the Ed Mika conversion for EOS. Tons of light, very limited DOF and great bokeh...
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/lens/fl/data/19-85/fl_55_12.html
Great creative effects lens.
Wasn't that just the S series for Canon 7 / Leica? Magnificent beast, an ex RAF officer I met had one on a Leica...
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/lens/s/data/50-85/s_50_095.html
History is fascinating stuff...
I have the FL 55mm f/1.2 with the Ed Mika conversion for EOS. Tons of light, very limited DOF and great bokeh...
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/lens/fl/data/19-85/fl_55_12.html
Great creative effects lens.
Jun 1, 2014 21:16:43 #
You're right. I was thinking it was newer. Camerapedia.com says it was a 39mm screw mount.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.