Useing my analog lens on my digicam?Is an f2 better than an f4?

[splaash]

I read a lens blog where it said it dosnt matter if you use a f.95 lens or f4 lens if they are both good lenses a digi cam will compensate

Should i buy a f2 lens when an f4 costs a third or half the price and is very good quality up to f4

Would it be a saving or mistaken saving

[venchka]

A multivariable question with a multivariable answer.

The answer is: It depends.

Go back to the blog. Cut and paste the actual quote AND the author here. then maybe we can make an informed decision on the advice from a blog. Usually quite suspect if you ask me.

What digital camera and what lenses are you talking about? We need more input.

Wayne

[stratcat]

f/2 is not better than f/4, just like 50mm is not better than 135mm. As the above poster said, it depends what you want to do.

The blog author maybe refers to the fact that f/4 let's 1/4 as much light through as f/2 but pumping up the ISO in the digital camera can compensate for that.

However, light throughput is just one side of the story: depth of field, contrast, lens size and weight, flare propensity... are, among other things, affected by changing aperture.

[Speedfreak]

Originally Posted by splaash

I read a lens blog where it said it dosnt matter if you use a f.95 lens or f4 lens if they are both good lenses a digi cam will compensate

Should i buy a f2 lens when an f4 costs a third or half the price and is very good quality up to f4

Would it be a saving or mistaken saving

With increasingly usable high ISO we have today lens speed matters only for depth of field.

If you want to maximize the effect of selective focus you need the fastest lens possible. If you prefer to stop down anyway to improve overall sharpness just get the slower lens.

[splaash]

I was useing a Nikon 135mm f2.8 on a Sony NEX 5 or a Nikon 80-200mm f4 zoom
Or an f4 Leica on my Russian 111c

I will look for the quote Quickly its in hear?
file:///C:/Users/portable/AppData/Roaming/Mozilla/Firefox/Profiles/uoks3bm7.default/ScrapBook/data/20111206150217/index.html

Or hear
file:///C:/Users/portable/AppData/Roaming/Mozilla/Firefox/Profiles/uoks3bm7.default/ScrapBook/data/20111206150217/index.html

Not very helpful but the quote was from the second link??errr i read it a while back while checking out a lens

Anyway it was from this site (the second i think)and he said the (for exanple)80-200mm f4 zoom is pin sharp and excellent value S/H which it is.Ive since found i prefer prime lens on analog and zoom on digi generaly

[venchka]

You didn't paste the links correctly. No worries.
Use the hardware that pleases you.

Wayne

[River Dog]

f4 is often better, even with a f2 lens

[venchka]

Originally Posted by River Dog

f4 is often better, even with a f2 lens

Better is somewhat relative. I know what you mean. Everything just "firms" up when you stop down a bit.
However, an f/2.0 lens will ALWAYS be better at f/2.0.

Wayne

[peterm1]

I am not sure what it means to say that a digicam will compensate. This does not ring true to me. The major determinant of how good your images are 9apart from your ability etc) is the quality of the lens.

So it does depend a lot on lenses.

Faster lenses are harder to design than slower lenses. And they need many more lelements inside them to compensate for all of the abberations asscoiated with having the faster maximum speed. In general that means a slower lens will give you a good image much cheaper than a faster lens - so long as you do not NEED a faster lens. The faster lens will give more flexibility - e.g. ability to shoot in darker conditions without going to a higher ISO setting.

But today f2 is not all that fast for many lens types (e.g. prime lenses in the 50mm range where its the norm.)

I cnanot answer which is better though. You need to be specific abotu which lenses you are comparing. Then we may be able to give an opinion.

[raid]

I find the results from my 85/1.4 very pleasing on my micro 4/3 camera. I use this lens only wide open since the aperture mechanism is broken. The oof rendering at 1.4 is very nice looking.

[splaash]

f1.4 i will have to start savinganyone want to buy a Nikon 80 200mm F4 zoom?Or F4------

[venchka]

A Nikkor 85/2.0 in LTM mount + an LTM adapter will be a lot cheaper than an 85/1.4 and the photos will look just as nice.
As for your f/4.0 lens and low light and not so good photos: Pushing the envelop obviously. That is a big heavy lens. If the shutter speed goes down, the wiggles show up.

Wayne

[Pherdinand]

f/2 is always better than f/4 (just by adding extra choice in the settings). Absolutely.

The next question is, though, is f/2 worth the extra pain over f/4, and THAT is indeed case dependent.

[splaash]

By analog i mean a lense without auto focus or motors to stabilise the lens.

I bought a couple of good lens which fully open are f4 they make pin sharp images (except my f4 300mm)but as the light fades and i step up the asa(sony NEX5N)the end result is not as good,sharp,as when i remain at 100/200 asa with my f2 or f2.8 lens

Or is it just me and at times my to light weight tripod that the fault?I like saving lots of money buying an f4 lens when the same focal length same make with f2.8 or f2 might cost 150€ more

On the point on "analog" i find the old manual focus lens used on my sony NEX 3 often can be focused and image take while my NEX-5N with its auto focus cant focus or takes to long as with the 30mm NEX macro lens

Sony have a great focus ing aid which is fast but far slower than when the autofoucs dose work

Is f4 a good idea or saving in the wrong place the F4 lens works very well but there seem to be many times a faster lens would be better????So perhaps i should just sell my F4 lens es and buy faster ????I dont know

If i could get equal quality at say 800asa as 100asa then it would be fine im sure the camers very good but it dose seem to give less sharp results at 800asa???