|
|||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 232
|
I'm considering adding a 50m prime lens to my Sony. Just based on f stops, how much more light does a 1.4 offer vs. a 1.8? I know there is a formula, but I am just curious how much more light the 14 offers.
|
|
|
|
| Sponsored Links |
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,787
|
I could be wrong but I think its 2/3 fstop difference between the 1.8 and 1.4 with the additional benefits of shallower depth of field of the 1.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Oakville, ON
Posts: 84
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Bangor,North Wales
Posts: 2,670
|
An f/1.4 lens (wide open) pulls in quite a bit more light than an f/1.8 lens (wide open).
Something of the region of 50-60% more light- which is quite a bit..! |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 12,253
|
An aperture of f/1.4 lets in twice as much light as an aperture of f/2.0 (which lets in twice as much light as an aperture of f/2.8, etc., etc., etc.) An aperture of f/1.8 is about 1/3 stop larger than f/2.0, and an aperture of f/1.6 is about 1/3 stop larger than that.
These are all approximations, of course. The actual values are irrational numbers. For instance, f/1.4 is actually f/1.414213562373095... (or the square root of 2.) On the other hand, f/2.0 is really 2.0.
__________________
Last edited by TCav; Jun 29, 2012 at 5:26 AM. |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Hay River Township, WI
Posts: 2,512
|
The f/1.8 will let 1.65306122448979.. times as much light through than f/1.4. (The ratio of 1.8 squared to 1.4 squared.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Extreme Northeastern Vermont, USA
Posts: 3,529
|
Another way to think of it is to do the math, and you come up with an effective aperture of around 28mm for the f/1.8 lens, and about 35mm for the f/1.4. Then do the rest of the math on your checkbook and decide if the difference in light gathering is worth the difference in price.
brian |
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,243
|
You should also be looking at other considerations. For example, Canon has a 1.8 and 1.4 as well. The 1.4 is built better, focuses faster and has better bokeh.
The bokeh is probably the biggest thing you want to look into if you're considering the lens for shallow DOF and not just low light. The aperture blade design may likely be different as well. |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 232
|
Well, I have Sony and I am pondering how much better their 1.4 is vs. their 1.8. I suspect enough to warrant the price difference
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,091
|
Right idea, but you reversed the lenses. And, as TCav noted, f/1.8 and f/1.4 are rounded off numbers, so it makes little sense to carry the math out any further than two digits. FWIW
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|