I get most of the stuff about apertures etc, but I wanted to check a point - is it such that F/2.8 allows in exactly twice the amount of light as F/5.6, or is it not as linear as that?
The reason I ask is that I'm thiking of getting some prime lenses - I want them to be sharp - probably a 50mm ('cause I seem to be going to quite a few weddings at the moment!) and and another in the region of 75-100mm for sports. I like the idea of having a lens with a wider aperture so I can manage faster shutter speeds, but how much real world difference does having f/1.8 or f/2.8 make over f/5.6?
Any reccomendations for either of the above? I'm assuming the Canon 50mm f/1.8 is going to be quite popular? I'm looking for eBay (or anywhere else!) bargains really - maybe £50ish for the 50mm, and maybe £100 for something around 85mm f/1.8 or f/2.8...
Ah, excellent, thanks. So an increase of the aperture by the power of the root of two (1.4) allows half the light to enter, so f/1.4 allows in 3 times as much light as f/2.8?
Ah, excellent, thanks. So an increase of the aperture by the power of the root of two (1.4) allows half the light to enter, so f/1.4 allows in 3 times as much light as f/2.8?
Is it not 4 times as much light?
f/2.8 to f/1.4 is two stops.
A stop is double the amount of light. Double something twice = x 4.