reala_fan
Well-known
How many stops faster is the 35/1.2 than the 35/2.5?
Two and a half stops faster?
...
Two and a half stops faster?
...
pagpow
Well-known
Close, but not quite. 1.2 is one half stop faster than 1.4, 2.5 is one third stop faster than 2.8 -- so that looks like 2 and one sixth stop faster -- which I'd be tempted to call 2 stops unless we knew more about the actual, rather than the nominal, relative apertures.
kully
Happy Snapper
reala_fan
Well-known
Yeah, sounds right. And according to a chart on this page:
Wiki Page
It also indicates two stops faster (see the 'Typical one-third-stop f-number scale')
Appreciate...
gshybrid
Well-known
should be two stops
Sparrow
Veteran
two and a smidgen then?
payasam
a.k.a. Mukul Dube
Well, a damn sight faster.
angeloks
Well-known
You can say that 2 stops weight 359 grams in that case (490 vs 131)!
BillBingham2
Registered User
On the positive side for me the 1.2 takes 52mm filters. My personal standard (read I have a large stock of them).
B2 (;->
B2 (;->
kshapero
South Florida Man
I have had both at the same time. What a team!
ferider
Veteran
Here is a list of 1/6th stops:
One really should measure transmission of both lenses to be exact. But I think 2 stops difference is a safe statement, if you assume proper rounding of the numbers was done
The two lenses really complement each other: bokeh is equivalent, the rest is distortion vs. speed vs. size and VF obstruction.
Roland.
One really should measure transmission of both lenses to be exact. But I think 2 stops difference is a safe statement, if you assume proper rounding of the numbers was done
The two lenses really complement each other: bokeh is equivalent, the rest is distortion vs. speed vs. size and VF obstruction.
Roland.
Last edited:
payasam
a.k.a. Mukul Dube
Something to do with logarithms, isn't it?
Astragony
Newbie
actually it's about square root of 2
kevin m
Veteran
I had them both, too. An absolute screaming value.
SimonSawSunlight
Simon Fabel
agreed. no versus, they're a perfect match.
