I don't understand why this should be the case with lenses?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Mr.Will, Jul 26, 2003.

  1. Mr.Will

    Mr.Will Guest

    I have two lenses, one is a 75-300f4/f5.6 and a 35-110 f 4-f5.6
    FOr some reason I need less light to get a decent exposure and colour
    saturation with the 75-300 lens.
    Yet both are f 4/5.6 - it doesnt seem to make sense to me.
    Also with my prime f 1.8, if I shoot at f 4 it seems once again to require
    less light for a decent exposure.
    Perhaps this is due to it being prime and not zoom - Ive heard prime is
    simply better due it being optimised for a particular job.

    Still it seems odd to me that f4 doesnt always mean f 4.
    Can anyone explain this to me?

    --
    Mr.Will
    Mr.Will, Jul 26, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Mr.Will

    Leon Guest

    Lets eliminate perhaps the obvious... Do you have filters attached to both
    lenses and if so are they exactly the same filter?
    Then, are you using the proper size filter on each lens so as not to be
    restricting light from one over the other?

    Are your findings the same with no filters at all?

    Are you shooting both lenses at 75 and 25 respectively to take advantage of
    maximum aperture on both lenses when doing the comparison? Does either lens
    have a hood that could be restricting light?

    "Mr.Will" <> wrote in message
    news:USkUa.11583$...
    > I have two lenses, one is a 75-300f4/f5.6 and a 35-110 f 4-f5.6
    > FOr some reason I need less light to get a decent exposure and colour
    > saturation with the 75-300 lens.
    > Yet both are f 4/5.6 - it doesnt seem to make sense to me.
    > Also with my prime f 1.8, if I shoot at f 4 it seems once again to require
    > less light for a decent exposure.
    > Perhaps this is due to it being prime and not zoom - Ive heard prime is
    > simply better due it being optimised for a particular job.
    >
    > Still it seems odd to me that f4 doesnt always mean f 4.
    > Can anyone explain this to me?
    >
    > --
    > Mr.Will
    >
    >
    Leon, Jul 26, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Mr.Will

    Mark M Guest

    Leon wrote:
    > Lets eliminate perhaps the obvious... Do you have filters attached
    > to both lenses and if so are they exactly the same filter?
    > Then, are you using the proper size filter on each lens so as not to
    > be restricting light from one over the other?
    >
    > Are your findings the same with no filters at all?
    >
    > Are you shooting both lenses at 75 and 25 respectively to take
    > advantage of maximum aperture on both lenses when doing the
    > comparison? Does either lens have a hood that could be restricting
    > light?


    Hoods don't restrict the light in a sense that would be significant here.
    He didn't include enough details about exposure for anyone to answer his
    question. His camera body may be compensating differently, but we wouldn't
    know. Also... If he's using print film, then all bets are off--since the
    processor of his film has FAR more control over exposure than he (the
    photog) did.
    Mark M, Jul 26, 2003
    #3
  4. "Mr.Will" <> writes:

    > Still it seems odd to me that f4 doesnt always mean f 4. Can anyone
    > explain this to me?


    Look up `t numbers' in a good photo reference. specifically, f4 does
    not mean t4...

    --
    Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
    +61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
    West Australia 6076
    comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
    Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
    EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.
    Paul Repacholi, Jul 26, 2003
    #4
  5. Mr.Will

    Charlie D Guest

    In article <>,
    Paul Repacholi <> wrote:

    > "Mr.Will" <> writes:
    >
    > > Still it seems odd to me that f4 doesnt always mean f 4. Can anyone
    > > explain this to me?

    >
    > Look up `t numbers' in a good photo reference. specifically, f4 does
    > not mean t4...


    Aren't "t" numbers brought into play at when lenses are focused closer,
    usually much closer than infinity?
    I don't feel like looking it up. ;)

    --
    Charlie Dilks
    Newark, DE USA
    Charlie D, Jul 26, 2003
    #5
  6. Mr.Will

    Charlie D Guest

    In article <>,
    David Eppstein <> wrote:

    > T-numbers are
    > simply F-numbers, tweaked to compensate for the fact that not all the
    > light that goes into a lens makes it through to the other side:


    ok, thanks.

    --
    Charlie Dilks
    Newark, DE USA
    Charlie D, Jul 26, 2003
    #6
  7. Mr.Will

    Mxsmanic Guest

    Charlie D writes:

    > Aren't "t" numbers brought into play at when lenses are focused closer,
    > usually much closer than infinity?


    A t-number is the true aperture of a lens including transmission and
    other losses. It's measured by actually measuring the light passing
    through the lens at a given nominal aperture setting.

    T-numbers are useful in cinematopgraphy for very precisely matching
    exposure from shot to shot and from lens to lens, so that difference
    scenes do not change in brightness when multiple shots of the same scene
    are edited together. Two cameras with two lenses set to t/8 will
    produce exactly the same exposure on film; if they were just set to f/8,
    tiny differences in their true aperture might cause brightness to change
    visibly when cutting from one camera to the other in a scene.

    In still photography, this obviously is far less of a problem, so
    t-numbers are not normally used. The difference between t- and
    f-numbers is too small to have an influence on correct exposure.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
    Mxsmanic, Jul 26, 2003
    #7
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. John Steele
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    599
    Uli Link
    Jul 12, 2005
  2. Mary Thompson

    Don't understand

    Mary Thompson, Jun 29, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    451
    ┬░Mike┬░
    Jun 29, 2003
  3. Sharon Fullington

    I don't understand

    Sharon Fullington, Nov 6, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    446
    Boomer
    Nov 6, 2003
  4. fashion t shirts seller
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,185
    fashion t shirts seller
    Jun 13, 2011
  5. bob
    Replies:
    78
    Views:
    2,401
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Jul 3, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page