Redpill me on manual lens is a f1.4 manual better than a f1.8

>>2756483
It depends

File: 1385424816728.gif (379KB, 278x208px) Image search: [Google]

379KB, 278x208px

>>2756483
>someone saved my picture
Long Beach is a shithole

>>2756483
>Redpill me on manual lens

manual lenses are for pros who know what they want, and who have a clear artistic vision.

auto lenses are for cückolds who use digital and are afraid of missing the shot on their cats yawning.

>>2756496
Ricoh?

Although the aperture might have something to do with it being called fast, fast lenses are called that way for a different reason.

They have a slightly modified mount, so the can be mounted on the camera with fewer movements (thus faster). That may not be a big deal under normal conditions, but it's of great importance in special occasions, such as war photojournalism, event photography, sports, etc. In these situations, being able to change lenses as fast as possible is critical, and a second or two of delay could be defining of getting or missing a very important shot.

That's why the pros need "fast" lenses, and the companies exploit that and charge more for them. However, with the advent of zooms, you don't need to change lenses that often (zooms cover a wide range of focal lengths), so the majority of them lacks this special mount, and are usually called "slow". Of course there are "fast" zooms, but these serve very special needs, an are dedicated to hardcore professionals, so they demand a very hefty price tag.

As an added bonus, because of the easy, fast and intuitive way the "fast" lenses are mounted on cameras, it is possible to mount them under very low light conditions (you can even do it blindfolded, they're that easy to mount), so many photogs recommend these lenses for "low light" or "available light" shooting.

Of course, "fast" lenses are often mocked by amateurs who think they're not that useful. These amateurs ironically call the fast, as they reach the ground "faster" if you drop them (due to their size), and they can empty your wallet "faster" (due to their price).

>>2756483
The real redpill is that manually focusing is either too slow or too inaccurate to be useful with large apertures.

The large aperture does make it easier to focus, but in practice you will be shooting around f/8 most of the time.

By contrast auto focus lenses are perfectly usable wide open.

>>2756496
Long Beach Grand Prix soon

>>2756542
This man knows whats up.

File: 1449710293502.jpg (60KB, 400x357px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 400x357px

>>2756542
devil's advocate, sounds like even faster method would be two cameras

>>2756551
>>2756551
>The real redpill is that manually focusing is either too slow or too inaccurate to be useful with large apertures.
To the untrained with inappropriate equipment- yes. If you have access to focus peaking / lv digic peaking you can rock n roll with it.

>>2756542

I can't tell if you're unbelievably stupid, or magnificently brilliant. 10/10


Op, if you don't have a camera with split prism manual focusing, don't even try the 1.4.

>>2756496
didnt realize that megapickle lived so close to me

long beach is pretty much the same as 85 percent as LA though

>>2756483
OP can we get som more info/EXIF on your pic?
It interests me

>>2756542
Finally someone actually knows what they're talking about.