leica1215 Posted May 27, 2016 Share #1 Posted May 27, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) I'm considering the 28/1.4 vs 2.0 , wondering what is the ratio speed vs Iso? From 2.0 down to 1.4 how much iso I have to compensate ? Thanks Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 27, 2016 Posted May 27, 2016 Hi leica1215, Take a look here Iso vs lens speed. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Mute-on Posted May 28, 2016 Share #2 Posted May 28, 2016 One stop. Therefore, f 2.0 at ISO 200 is equivalent to f 1.4 at ISO 100 in exposure. At any given ISO, moving from f 2.0 to f 1.4 will require halving the ISO. So 1600 becomes 800, 800 becomes 400, and so on. An f 2.0 lens would be considered fast for daylight photography. Shooting at dusk or by artificial light, the extra stop of f 1.4 may provided some benefit, but this can be easily compensated for by one stop higher ISO and a steady hand. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 28, 2016 Share #3 Posted May 28, 2016 Aperture stops on a lens will increase/decrease the EV the same as shutterspeeds or ISO value steps. The 28/1.4 is only worth its money if you have a clear idea of its use, which is not specifically low light photography. On a modern camera 2.0 is ample for almost all low light work with a 28 mm lens, Its real value lies in the combination of a wideangle lens and shallow DOF. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leica1215 Posted May 28, 2016 Author Share #4 Posted May 28, 2016 Thanks, what about increase EV will it affect the quality of the picture? The shutter speed and Iso seem more often to adjust. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Printmaker Posted May 29, 2016 Share #5 Posted May 29, 2016 Anything higher than the base ISO decreases image quality. At 2x the base what you will see is a slightly lowered dynamic range. At 4x (2 stops) you will see an even larger decrease in dynamic range and noise in the shadows which looks a bit like film grain. In practical terms, you can shoot a Monochrom at up to ISO 3200 without suffering a significant decrease in quality when printing at sizes up to 13x19 inches. Unless of course you are very fussy, in that case 1250/1600 should be your top ISO. Personally, I like the look of high ISO Monochrom files. They have a film-like look. I have no problem shooting at ISO 3200 with my 50 Summicron. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted May 29, 2016 Share #6 Posted May 29, 2016 Are you talking MM1 or MM2 ? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Printmaker Posted May 30, 2016 Share #7 Posted May 30, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Are you talking MM1 or MM2 ? MM1 but the same holds true for the MM2 but plus a stop. At least as far as the tests I've seen. I only have a MM1. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted May 30, 2016 Share #8 Posted May 30, 2016 I tend to use ISO 1600 in the evening with my MM1 I've also taken to setting my M-9P at 320 during the day which makes swapping cameras easier even though I meter, I just get used to 1000 ish n f4 sort of day Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoffrey James Posted May 30, 2016 Share #9 Posted May 30, 2016 I regularly use 1250 on the MM1 and have no problems with larger prints up to 36 inches. I find the so-called loss of dynamic range to be similar to the diffraction problem after f5.6, which is to say, discernible to those who use magnifying glasses or screen magnifications, rather than looking at actual prints in real-life situations. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.