"You need all the stops you can get."

[allen_walker]

The argument in the Erwin Puts web site is fallacious. The author there conflates the overal sensor size and the required correction factors to compare with full-frame 35mm on one hand, and the angles of arrival of rays from the lens exit pupil to a particular sensor site. They are quite different issues.

 

Although different digital sensor designs may have differing efficiencies of collecting light, particularly from large aperture short focal length lenses, this is not a large practical effect in digital photography. In other words, an f/2.8 lens is an f/2.8 lens, etc.

 

To continue with the topic, I love to be able to see what I'm going to take a picture of, and I love to take pictures in natural lighting. Therefore, I love lenses with maximum apertures in the f/1.4 to f/2 range. I do use zoom lenses for their convenience, but I never love them.

 

Cheers,

Allen

[panos_voudouris]

The one stop is trivial if you see it simply as a way of getting more light in. Just change the ISO.

 

On the other hand, I see it as a way to get a brighter viewfinder, shallower DOF and better bokeh. And these cannot be substituted neither with higher ISOs or with IS.

 

I'll take an f/1.8 prime over a f/4 zoom anytime on a film or digital SLRs.

[peter_nelson1]

<I>"The net effect is this: if we have a lens with a maximum aperture of 2.8 and reduce the angle of view, we get in fact the image quality of a lens stopped down to 4 or 5.6!" </I><P>

 

That's just plain B.S.