1.4 versus 1.8

Hi

I am looking to upgrade to an lx7 or xz-2, but I am not too sure about the lenses, 1.4 for the lx7 and 1.8 for the xz-2, everywhere I look, it say bright lenses specially for night shots (my favorite) and for landscape (also my favorite kind of shooting aside of kids running around).

Now, for real life pictures, what would be the difference between those two type of lenses?, I am looking for pics sample to give an idea, I could go for the rx100 for better image resolution, but not now.

Any advice would be welcome

Thanks

Robin

1.4 vs 1.8 is half a "stop" brighter. In some cases that means the lens is bigger and/or costlier.

Half a stop is crucial if you are fighting for breath but makes not much compared to say 2 or 3 stops advantage

--



Ananda
Rate your own photo yourself:

http://anandasim.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/anandas-10-point-photo-critique-rating.html
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6861540877/a-compilation-of-tips-for-beginners
http://anandasim.blogspot.com/
http://gplus.to/anandasim

'Enjoy Diversity - Live a Little or a Lot'

Unless you really know what to do with your equipment, and what you need, you propably don´t need the last drop of it.

Faster lens - 1.4 - can make better background blurring and can make you shoot with faster times, but not so much, and not in every situation. It can be 25% advantage in certain situations, but it can also be ZERO advantage. Then, you have to decide, If you are likely to have longer end (more zoom) for Olympus, or not.

That what you are asking for is not as important as your comfort during handling and shooting. I´d go for XZ-1.
--
Why does he do it?

robinleej said:

I am looking to upgrade to an lx7 or xz-2, but I am not too sure about the lenses, 1.4 for the lx7 and 1.8 for the xz-2

Click to expand...

That's at the wide-angle end. On each, you lose a stop (or more) when shooting photos with the lens on the telephoto setting.

• The Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 has a f/1.4 - f/2.3 maximum aperture.

• The Olympus XZ-2 has a f/1.8 - f/2.5 maximum aperture

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-lx7

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/09/17/Olympus-creates-xz-2-i-HS-BSI-CMOS-enthusiast-compact-with-bright-lens

It's simplistic and quite possibly misleading to look at just one figure such as f/1.4 versus f/1.8. That sort of comparison only makes complete sense when at the same focal length and on the same sensor (or at the very least the same type and size of sensor).

As it happens, the Olympus sensor is a tiny bit larger, which swings the balance (theoretically at least) back in its favour. However, it's also necessary to consider whether the slightly different sensors perform a bit differently.

Ultimately, I'd advise not to worry too much about the slight aperture difference, but instead consider the camera as a whole, the focal length range is different (LX7 goes wider, XZ-2 has more telephoto). And perhaps the handling and design of one seems preferable to the other. Do look at sample test images when comparing, but also look at the complete thing, not just a single aspect.

Regards,
Peter

Thanks to every one who spare their time to answer my question, after checking more around and based on given comments, I am leaning towards the xz-2 just for the tilt screen (Samsung EXF2, looks nice as well), just after a day trip and trying to capture my son on a pumpkin field, shooting without tilt or articulated screen turned out to be difficult task

Robin

Most of the time you'll need better DOF, like F3.2 to do a decent capture....and with the ISO's getting better, at least NMHO, there is no point to go for 1.4 + all that expense....unless you're lurking in semi dark all the time. Much also depends how far the subject is from the camera. It's up to you.

Leswick