how fast is the F1.4 28mm

Scott,

As you know, f/1.4 is 2 stops faster than f/2.8, so if you shoot the exact same scene (at the same focal length), and assuming the rounding errors of the actual specs (the 17-55DX f/2.8 appears to be f/2.83) are compatible, your shutter speed would be 1/250 or thereabouts. But you already knew that. :lol:

I think your first question is loaded by the second question, which I think is true in practice, but only because of what is in the field of view, on average. The wider the FOV, the more likely you are to have an overall mid-grey exposure (in matrix meteing). There are of course tons of exceptions to this: if the subject is so uniform that it does not vary in its luminance when zoomed in or out, then it shouldn't make a difference: a large brick wall from a distance (where the brick detail is averaged), or a large grey card come to mind.

However, if you pick a darker than average spot on a subject within a wide FOV scene and zoom in on it, the proper exposure of that zoomed in image, might need more light... hence less shutter speed. Similarly, if you pick a lamp (in a scene with a wide FOV) as your subject and zoom in on it, you'll probably need to increase your shutter speed to not overexpose it...

On top of all of that, of course a wide angle lens can be hand-held at lower speeds too, because of the lesser magnification of the image shake... which in turns can yield more keepers at even lower speed. I think (don't quote my failing memory) that Ron Reznick showed pics with the 28 f/1.4 that he hand-held at 1/4s, and were so very sharp! ;-)

Take all this with a grain of salt, and experiment.     :lol:

 

Scott,

Sorry. I didn't mean to experiment by actually trying a 28 f/1.4 lens. You could try the premise that a lens at the same aperture yields a higher shutter speed at wide angle than it does zoomed in, with any fixed aperture zoom you have in your arsenal, be it a 12-24 f/4, 17-55 f/2.8, 28-70 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8 (it's harder with longer focal lengths though).

I assumed that you have one of those... but perhaps, this is where I was totally wrong!   ;-)

 

#1064 - You have an error in your SQL syntax;

 

Not to burst your bubble but the 28 1.4 is not the sharpest lens around. In fact I get a bit worried when people say it's the sharpest in their bag. I never found my 28 1.4 to be *very very* sharp and just recently I stumbled on a Nikon site with all the charts. This proved indeed what I thought long ago: The 28-80G is sharper at 28 then the 28 1.4... I looked like a fool on Dpreview some 2 years ago when I said that but here it is:

28 1.4
http://www.nikon-image.com/jpn/products/lens/af/singlefocal/wide/ai_af_28mmf14d.htm

28-80G 3.3-5.6
http://www.nikon-image.com/jpn/products/lens/af/zoom/normal/af_28-80mmf33-56g.htm

Let's not forget this is only about sharpness. The colors, contrast, Bokeh and handling is all a dream with the 1.4  


Now, also on the good side: the 28 1,4 is incredible simply because it's made for those impossible occasions, which brings it on top where every zoom will fail miserably :!:


Pictures like this are unthinkable without that lens and this is why 1000-1800$ become measly once you start shooting in unthinkable and priceless situations.

Please note this was shot at dawn, Iso 800 (or even 1600, doesn't show on exif), 1/50th@ f1.4 ... I think this picture sums this lens up all around...  

 

Yes, and the reason you bought it for is worth every penny.

THe story is pretty simple: I was asked to exhibit some of my work and I just decided to refresh all my collection and while I was in eastern Europe I visited some remote Gypsy villages. Was a great experience. Not my first time but I always look out for the next.

I also learned (don't know if this is urban legend) throughout my escapade(s) in the deep that the Tzigan people cannot contract aids and not a single case has ever been reported.
Now don't flame me with facts (if they exist) as I really want to keep this "truth" naively into my mind   ...