Maybe we don't need more than f/2 after all?

Started Mar 22, 2012 | Discussions thread
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Flat view
Senior MemberPosts: 2,584Gear list
Maybe we don't need more than f/2 after all?
Mar 22, 2012

I just read an interesting article from in which they claim that faster aperture lenses (pretty much anything brighter than f/2) give you dramatically diminishing returns in terms of the increase in light because of the way digital image sensors and microlenses work.

In other words, they claim the light gains moving from f/2.8 to f/2 are more dramatic than the increase from f/2 to f/1.4

My initial response was, "Whatever." But the more I think about it, the more this article seems to fit with arguments that Olympus lens designers have been making for the last decade ... and this might have a lot to do with why Olympus hasn't been jumping on opportunities to make 4/3 lenses that are faster than f/2.

Having said all that, I still lust after f/1.2 lenses ... but maybe there isn't a real point to extremely fast glass on digital cameras other than shallow DOF.

This might also partially explain why I seem to get just as many keepers with my E-1 and 50mm f/2 macro as I do with my E-P3 and Pansonic/Leica 25mm f/1.4 when shooting in available low light.

 JJJPhoto's gear list:JJJPhoto's gear list
Sony RX1 Sony SLT-A99 A3000 Sony a77 II Tamron SP AF 60mm F/2 Di II LD IF Macro +6 more
Olympus E-1 Olympus PEN E-P3
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Flat view
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow