can someone explain the purpose of constant f/4?

Thanks guys - this is very helpful.

my RX100 mk iii has a great lens that is nice and wide at the wide angle, but I see that it changes f-stop when i change focal length. A constant aperture lens would not do that...

is there any reason they call it constant f/4? is that because that's as wide as these lenses go? that seems awfully small if that's the case...or is it just a naming convention?
 
Personally, for my shooting, I don't really care whether the max aperture is constant or not. It does not prevent me from getting the full potential of the lens.
If you think about it that statement is true of any lens, because the potential is what the lens is capable of delivering.
My answer is about adjusting the exposure settings, the auto iso for instance makes it really easy to adjust it to its best.
The difference between fixed and variable aperture zooms is that the fixed aperture ones have a greater potential (when the widest aperture is the same for both).
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. You mean constant max aperture ? Why greater potential ? Just curious to know, I am not aware of it.
Yes; the thread is about constant max aperture lenses. What I mean is that if a lens has a max aperture of, say, f/2.8 at its widest zoom and f/2.8 at its longest zoom (constant aperture) while another lens has the same max aperture at its widest zoom but f/4 at its longest zoom (variable), the constant one will have a stop more potential at the longer end.

The actual limit doesn't matter - every shot and every user might have a different limiting light-gathering requirement; but whatever the limit is an extra stop gives greater potential.
 
I see this for several zoom lenses - does this mean I have no other apertures other than f/4? or does it mean f/4 is the widest it goes at either end of the zoom?

Why is this a good thing?

Thanks, from a learning noob!
 
I see this for several zoom lenses - does this mean I have no other apertures other than f/4? or does it mean f/4 is the widest it goes at either end of the zoom?

Why is this a good thing?
It is not really an advantage anymore. I don't think people buy a lens because it has a constant aperture...
Some of us actully do! :-P

Got tired of ev compensating, so ended up in manual mode. Which forced me into constant aperture lenses... was going nuts having to change exposure just because of a little zooming...

So a big advantage here! :-D
Constant aperture
'Constant f-number' really, of course as the focal length changes, the aperture has to to keep the f-number the same.
is a huge advantage, most of us buy them for that very reason.
Well, depending on what the constant f-number is. I would say that an f/2.8-4 has it over a constant f/4, all else being equal.
Between my 12-40 and 40-150 I can shoot at F2.8 right from 12-150mm (24-300 eq)

I expect I'll also be getting a 7-14 f2.8 (14-28) before too long.
Now that Sigma's pushed past the f/2.8 barrier, I wonder how long before someone works out that while an f/1.8 constant might be too large and expensive to be practicable, there's mileage in an f/1.8-2.8.
 
Now that Sigma's pushed past the f/2.8 barrier, I wonder how long before someone works out that while an f/1.8 constant might be too large and expensive to be practicable, there's mileage in an f/1.8-2.8.
For sure there is mileage in going the wrong direction

This is as practical as mega-megapixel sensors, yet 'pro'sumers lap this numbers stuff up. Go figure.

I don't know if it's funny or just plain destructive, watching all these idiots chasing their tails to own >20 megaportions and faster than the weight of lead lenses just so they can take a snapshot to print on crappy quality canvas or just to be viewed on a monitor with a fraction of the resolution.

Any rational explanation?
 
I see this for several zoom lenses - does this mean I have no other apertures other than f/4? or does it mean f/4 is the widest it goes at either end of the zoom?

Why is this a good thing?

Thanks, from a learning noob!

--
https://backpackerpt.smugmug.com
These constant f-number zooms really test out the terminology
Others have already provided good explanations that I won't duplicate here. I'll just note that generally a constant-aperture zoom has a bigger aperture at the long end of it's focal length range than a variable-aperture zoom of the same range.
I'm guessing you meant 'bigger f-number'
No, I meant what I said, a bigger aperture. A bigger aperture has a smaller f-number. An f4 constant zoom has a bigger max aperture (f4) at the long end than a variable f3.5-5.6 zoom (f5.6).
though what you said is generally the case.
I did say "generally".
So, if you took something like a 24-85/3.5-4.5., its aperture at 24 is 6.9mm and the aperture at 85 is 18.9mm
It's common to see constant f4 and variable f3.5-5.6 zooms of the same range. "Fast" zooms tend to be constant-aperture, and it's often pros who want the big apertures,
See now where the confusion's leading you. You used 'big apertures' in the opposite sense to the previous statement.
No, I didn't. I think you need to read it again. In both cases, a "big" or "bigger" aperture is one that's physically larg(er) / bright(er) / "fast(er)".
so constant-aperture is often associated with "pro" quality, and constant-aperture zooms tend to be bigger and more expensive.

Aside from their generally being faster and of high quality, I can't think of any other advantages to constant-aperture zooms. If you've got an f3.5-5.6 zoom and you don't want the aperture to change as you zoom, all you have to do is manually set the aperture to f5.6 or smaller.
Moder cameras, with the f-number set from the body, keep the f-number the same as you zoom. The only advantage is that you lose availability of the wider aperture at the short end.
Losing the wider aperture is an "advantage"?

--
The way to make a friend is to act like one.
http://jacquescornell.photography
 
Last edited:
Now that Sigma's pushed past the f/2.8 barrier, I wonder how long before someone works out that while an f/1.8 constant might be too large and expensive to be practicable, there's mileage in an f/1.8-2.8.
For sure there is mileage in going the wrong direction
It depends what you think is 'the wrong direction'.
This is as practical as mega-megapixel sensors, yet 'pro'sumers lap this numbers stuff up. Go figure.
mega-megapixels sensors give better pictures, just like mega-mega-sharp lenses. Whethe people need pictures that better is another question.
I don't know if it's funny or just plain destructive, watching all these idiots chasing their tails to own >20 megaportions and faster than the weight of lead lenses just so they can take a snapshot to print on crappy quality canvas or just to be viewed on a monitor with a fraction of the resolution.

Any rational explanation?
Yup. If camera specs were trimmed to the capabilities of most photographers, the camera companies wouldn't sell any cameras.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top