BastianK Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
RustyBug wrote:
+1 that there is a difference between f/1.4 vs. f/1.5.
My math works out to about 7% larger area for the 1.4 vs. 1.5.
But, I think the point being made is that the difference in reality, may be greater than the expected difference. Even if we give credence to a 20% difference ... bumping an additional .75 EV to become equitable, well that's ballpark a 3/4 stop +/-, not a trivial 1/4 stop ... which means about 1/2 stop vs. the expectation, turning that 1.5 into something more like a 1.8, or so in practice.
Again, these aren't with the 28 Lux, so we have to wait and see, if the Voigt is "cheating" a bit on their f/1.5 designation. On math, it may be that the physical dimension equates to an f/1.5 relationship, but in transmission of light ... it might be something different. I've often felt that Voigtlander was a bit "generous" with their designation, so while it isn't confirmed yet, it is something I'm curious to learn of its actual. I know everyone wants a free lunch, for a bargain, but maybe this is part of the price to be paid.
We'll see ... 
...Show more →
It is amazing how someone tries so hard to find something wrong with the Voigtländer to make the Leica look better.
PS: the Leica 50mm 0.95 has worse transmission than the Voigtländer VM 50mm 1.0 and here the price difference is something like 9k, not barely 7k.
|