October 22, 2014, 12:11:45 PM

Author Topic: 2.8 vs F4  (Read 5728 times)

SJTstudios

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 150
    • View Profile
2.8 vs F4
« on: December 17, 2012, 11:28:17 AM »
Here is a fun little topic,  yesterdayI caught my friend and he caught me saying 2.8 and F4.

It's a bit weird, most photographers call regular # aperatures Fx, and all aperatures with a decimal, just the #?

Some examples
-1.2
-1.4
-1.8
-f2
- 2.8
-f4
-5.6
-f8

Please evaluate on why you think this is, or correct me if you don't.

canon rumors FORUM

2.8 vs F4
« on: December 17, 2012, 11:28:17 AM »

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14716
    • View Profile
Re: 2.8 vs F4
« Reply #1 on: December 17, 2012, 11:58:12 AM »
If you asked me what aperture I used for my last shot, I may have replied, "A value where the ratio of the apparent focal length with the lens focused to infinity to the physical diameter of the iris diaphragm was equal to two point eight, when rounded to the nearest tenth unit."  But maybe I just replied, "Did you like the picture?"
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

risc32

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 495
    • View Profile
Re: 2.8 vs F4
« Reply #2 on: December 17, 2012, 12:02:26 PM »
I think i'd respond to this if i had any idea what you're talking about :D

crasher8

  • Guest
Re: 2.8 vs F4
« Reply #3 on: December 17, 2012, 12:03:27 PM »
Using the whole number sounds like you're judge at a diving competition. It just doesn't have much relevance. The 'point' however puts it into photography context.

There's always 2.0 as in my favorite new lens! (135 f/2L)

SJTstudios

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 150
    • View Profile
Re: 2.8 vs F4
« Reply #4 on: December 17, 2012, 12:04:31 PM »
Using the whole number sounds like you're judge at a diving competition. It just doesn't have much relevance. The 'point' however puts it into photography context.

There's always 2.0 as in my favorite new lens! (135 f/2L)
Love it, thank you

frozengogo

  • Power Shot G7X
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Re: 2.8 vs F4
« Reply #5 on: December 17, 2012, 12:33:39 PM »
Is it like freeway numbers? Take the 55 to the 5 to the 10 the 15 to the 395 or take CA55 to I5 to I10 to I15 to US395. :-X

Drizzt321

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1674
    • View Profile
    • Aaron Baff Photography
Re: 2.8 vs F4
« Reply #6 on: December 17, 2012, 12:39:40 PM »
Is it like freeway numbers? Take the 55 to the 5 to the 10 the 15 to the 395 or take CA55 to I5 to I10 to I15 to US395. :-X

You left out the 405 to the 101 to the 170 to the 118 to the 210 :P
5D mark 2, 5D mark 3, EF 17-40mm f/4L,  EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, EF 135mm f/2L, EF 85mm f/1.8
Film Cameras: Mamiya RB67, RB-50, RB-180-C, RB-90-C, RB-50, Perkeo I folder, Mamiya Six Folder (Pre-WWII model)
http://www.aaronbaff.com

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 2.8 vs F4
« Reply #6 on: December 17, 2012, 12:39:40 PM »

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14716
    • View Profile
Re: 2.8 vs F4
« Reply #7 on: December 17, 2012, 12:45:18 PM »
Is it like freeway numbers? Take the 55 to the 5 to the 10 the 15 to the 395 or take CA55 to I5 to I10 to I15 to US395. :-X

You left out the 405 to the 101 to the 170 to the 118 to the 210 :P

Won't you get hip to this timely tip
When you make that Photography trip
A-get your kicks on efff five-point-six


          --Nat King Cole (well...sort of  :P)
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

Axilrod

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1376
    • View Profile
Re: 2.8 vs F4
« Reply #8 on: December 17, 2012, 01:07:40 PM »
Dude this is like the 10th vague, unnecessary, and/or incoherent post/poll you've posted today, what are you trying to accomplish here?
5DIII/5DII/Bunch of L's and ZE's, currently rearranging.

bvukich

  • Spam Assassin
  • Administrator
  • 5D Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 733
    • View Profile
    • My (sparse) ZenFolio Site
Re: 2.8 vs F4
« Reply #9 on: December 17, 2012, 01:20:09 PM »
Dude this is like the 10th vague, unnecessary, and/or incoherent post/poll you've posted today, what are you trying to accomplish here?

He's making conversation, relaying an observation about photog jargon.  I understand precisely what he's saying, as do several others here, and I've made the same observation as well.

What are you trying to accomplish by trolling his post?

TrumpetPower!

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 951
    • View Profile
Re: 2.8 vs F4
« Reply #10 on: December 17, 2012, 01:39:53 PM »
I'm more likely to leave out the "point." Thus, it's "eff two eight" and "eff four." I don't think I'd leave off the "point" for bigger apertures, though...it'd be, "eff five six," but "eff one point four." Not sure why.

b&

beast

  • SX60 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: 2.8 vs F4
« Reply #11 on: December 17, 2012, 01:40:39 PM »
For me it is clear too, what he ment.
I think, when a photographer sais "I shoot at 2.8" it's clear, that he is talking about the aperture. When he would say "I shot at 4" it could still mean, 4seconds or prob. 1/4 of a second. So we all say "F4".  But normally we would also say f2.8, but we are all lazy ;)

RC

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 608
    • View Profile
Re: 2.8 vs F4
« Reply #12 on: December 17, 2012, 01:48:15 PM »
« Last Edit: December 17, 2012, 06:40:11 PM by RC »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 2.8 vs F4
« Reply #12 on: December 17, 2012, 01:48:15 PM »

sandymandy

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 602
    • View Profile
Re: 2.8 vs F4
« Reply #13 on: December 17, 2012, 02:46:33 PM »
Dido?

Dido - Don't believe in love - Live

or do u mean... "dito" ?

crasher8

  • Guest
Re: 2.8 vs F4
« Reply #14 on: December 17, 2012, 02:48:23 PM »
No harm no foul axil. You're smarter than that to rag on him about this with your over 1k posts.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 2.8 vs F4
« Reply #14 on: December 17, 2012, 02:48:23 PM »