File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
For people who have shot with all three, on digital where really fast ISO speeds are possible, how much difference in practice is there between f/2, f/1.8, and f/1.4? How important is that extra fraction of a stop or full stop?

Pic sadly unrelated.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS MacintoshImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2004:12:12 09:26:05Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width296Image Height207
>> Anonymous
depends on iso performance too. some cameras fair better than others if you have to underexpose with high iso. so then the less you underexpose by the better, etc etc. it just depends.
>> Anonymous
Unless you feel you are hurting for it, it's not worth it. People who do need it tend to realise it while they are working.
>> Anonymous
from f/1.4 to f/2 is a one stop difference
>> Anonymous
Lower the better.
Think, your taking a picture in low light, would you rather be shooting a a 15th of a second or an 8th second?
>> Anonymous
>>89897
Well, of course. But I'm looking at two lenses, one f/2 and the other f/1.4. They're both great, but I'm personally more drawn to the look of the f/2, and I'm trying to see if I'll need the extra stop. The 1.8 I just threw in there for future reference, if I'm ever deciding with one of those thrown in.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
just remember that regardless of what you go with, make sure the focus is correct. Depth of field at the narrow end will punish you for missing the subject.
>> Anonymous
A third of a stop and a stop respectively. Image Stabilisation is usually worth 2-3 stops when handheld, which is why I have a Sony Alpha with a 50/1.4 as my 'holy shit, there's no fucking light' backup.
>> Anonymous
A third of a stop and a stop respectively. How important that is should be obvious if you know how to expose an image. If you don't, read moar Ansel. Image Stabilisation is usually worth 2-3 stops when handheld, which is why I have a Sony Alpha with a 50/1.4 as my 'holy shit, there's no fucking light' backup.
>> Teus !QbSstcPD6U
hard to say. any aperture wider than f/2.8 requires a great deal of attention to work with.

lets say you shoot with a 50mm f/1.4 lens. at f/1.4 you will have some vignetting and softness, most of it will be gone at f/2-f2.8.

a 50mm f/1.8 will start to get sharp at f/2.8-f4. a 50mm f/1.2 will be useable at f/2.

next to that you have to watch out you focus properly. the faster the lens, the smaller the DOF. a 50mm f/1.4 wide open will give less DOF than the 50mm f/1.8 wide open, and you'll need to focus properly. when you stop down to f/2, the f/1.4 will have better focus than the f/1.8

when it comes to high ISO, resolution of your sensor/film drops so you can get away with wider apertures (the drop in sharpness will not be so visible), just watch out for vignetting and flare. you can get away with a good 50mm at f/2 or f/2.8 on ISO800 easily, if you focus properly
>> Anonymous
>>89960
actually the 1.4 is sharpest at 1.4 not f/4.
thats the laws of physics and also its why nobody sells a lot 50mm f/4 lenses
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>90092
Nothing in this reply is true.