Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2011/11/03
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]That was the case I think with Nikons in the 70's and early 80's. It was best to avoid the faster stuff. But then came computer design and better coatings. And people got smarter! I cound not afford the fast stuff then or even much later. My first lens was a 45mm 2.8 G but it cost a little more than a 1.8 50 I think. -- Mark R. > From: Jim Nichols <jhnichols at lighttube.net> > Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> > Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 23:15:35 -0500 > To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> > Subject: Re: [Leica] 1.8 vs. 1.4!?!? > > You are probably correct, Mark. I don't own any modern fast lenses, but, > going back a couple of generations, I have Pentax Takumars in 50/1.4 and > 55/1.8. The 1.4 Tak has a good reputation, but, in my comparisons, the > 55/1.8 is a sharper lens in actual use, and is one of my favorite old > lenses. > > Jim Nichols > Tullahoma, TN USA > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mark Rabiner" <mark at rabinergroup.com> > To: "Leica Users Group" <lug at leica-users.org> > Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 11:08 PM > Subject: Re: [Leica] 1.8 vs. 1.4!?!? > > >> In quite a few cases you're paying more for a lens which has a larger >> outer >> element giving you more flare than a slower cheaper lighter smaller lens. >> I think in the past ten or fifteen years only its gotten to where you pay >> more for a lens you actually get more. They make sure they make up for >> whatever additional flare you may be getting. >> >> -- >> Mark R. >> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/ >> >> >>> From: John McMaster <john at mcmaster.co.nz> >>> Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> >>> Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2011 03:51:13 +0000 >>> To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> >>> Subject: Re: [Leica] 1.8 vs. 1.4!?!? >>> >>> Usually not just speed differences, often a f1.8 is a superior performer >>> than >>> an f1.4 - with Leica as an exception ;-) DoF, build quality and >>> size/weight >>> are other typical differences.... >>> >>> john >>> >>> ________________________________________ >>> >>> >>> 2/3's as a decimal is 0.6666. >>> 0.7251 - 0.6666 = 0.0585 >>> Cant figure out what fraction that would be. >>> >>> Bottom line a 1.4 is for sure faster than a 1.8 not by an incremental >>> amount >>> like I thought. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Mark R. >>> >>> >>>> From: Quan Tran <quantran101 at gmail.com> >>>> Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> >>>> Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 19:36:00 -0700 >>>> To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> >>>> Subject: Re: [Leica] 1.8 vs. 1.4!?!? >>>> >>>> I found this: http://imaginatorium.org/stuff/stops.htm >>>> >>>> When I select "precised", it show 0.7251 stops >>>> When I select "third", it gave me 2/3 stops. >>>> >>>> -Quan. >>>> >>>> On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 3:32 PM, Mark Rabiner <mark at rabinergroup.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I looked up f 1.8 vs. 1.4 thinking it was between a half and a quarter >>>>> of a >>>>> stop and they are saying its 2/3rds!?!?! Anybody know that that's true? >>>>> >>>>> Where is there a photo calculator that tells you these things?!?!? >>>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Leica Users Group. >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information