Would be 50mm 1.4 be better ?

[astroNikon]

Don't bother memorizing it. Here's the trick: Use f/1.4 and f/2 as the base. Alternately double them to get the rest of the stops, so -- 1.4, 2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, ... etc.

Why look at that .... I would have never figured that out.

 

[Braineack]

Hard to understand because the differences or not equal.

the math is actually:
f/number = √ ( 2 ^ aperture value)

so √ (2^2) = √ (4) = 2

so f/2 = AV of 2.

if you plot that out you get this scale:

AV1 = f/1.4
AV2 = f/2
AV3 = f/2.8
AV4 = f/4
AV5 = f/5.6
AV6 = f/8
etc
etc

everyone should learn the scale from 1-10. same with your shutter speed steps and ISO steps (which are easier to understand since they are just doubled/half).

once you do, making exposure adjustments is ezpz.

example:
Say you are shooting at 1/60, iso 800, and f/5.6
you notice youre getting motion blur and want to freeze things better.
you increase the shutter speed to 1/250.
you should know that 1/60 to 1/250 is two stops.
so now you can drop your f to 2.8, or if you dont have that option increase the ISO to 3200, or go to f/4 and iso 1600. Now your exposure has stayed exactly the same but youre able to stop motion better.

 

[imagemaker46]

I was never any good at math. I just take pictures instead of trying to understand it. Some people like to know all this stuff, it makes them appear more knowledgable when they talk to other people and any information is good. I'm one of the least technical photographers I know, well apart from Dad, who has always told me the same thing about himself. He always said "it's just point and click"

 

[Braineack]

you don't need to know the math, but I think knowing at least the full stops of your shutter, aperture, and iso jsut lets you use the tool better.

I just gave to math to show how the relationship works. where you can't just be like 2.8 is double of 1.4, so why is it two stops?

 

[Overread]

Generally speaking learning the stops tends to be something most people learn through practice. Rather than trying to sit down and dry-learn it like times tables its easier for most to simply pick it up as you talk about photography more and also look at your own photos and take more shots.

You'll soon start to get a feel for the numbers - if not you'll at least learn that a few clicks on the dial means one full stop (depends how you've got your camera setup - most do it in 1/3rd stop intervals these days - but you can set it to full stop intervals if you want or half I think).

 

[imagemaker46]

you don't need to know the math, but I think knowing at least the full stops of your shutter, aperture, and iso jsut lets you use the tool better.

I just gave to math to show how the relationship works. where you can't just be like 2.8 is double of 1.4, so why is it two stops?

Never was good at math. Although I did learn from your post, so thanks for that information. I was handed a camera and told that when there was little light it's f2.8 and if you wanted it really sharp it's f11. Iv'e always tried to keep photography as simple as I could over the years.

 

[Braineack]

Never was good at math. Although I did learn from your post, so thanks for that information. I was handed a camera and told that when there was little light it's f2.8 and if you wanted it really sharp it's f11. Iv'e always tried to keep photography as simple as I could over the years.

Hey, if it works

 

[hamlet]

You have to look at the transmission of a lens, not the aperture to get a correct reading of the amount of light your sensor is getting.

Go to this website. Under sharpness it tells you how much light will actually get to your sensor, you can browse other lenses to get an estimate. The F number shouldn't really be used for the amount of light passing through the lens anyhow, it just confuses a lot of folks.

 

[astroNikon]

I like my 50/1.4
but the aperture shouldn't be the deciding factor, it's getting the picture in focus and in detail .. thus your Depth Of Field.

you will probably calculate out that f/2.8 is a good point for what you are shooting.