A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

perspective w/ 35mm lenses?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 16th 04, 03:16 AM
PrincePete01
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default perspective w/ 35mm lenses?

sorry if the answer to this is obvious. i've looked high and low and haven't
been able to get an answer. suppose my digital slr has a 1.5x multiplication
factor when using 35mm lenses. so a 50mm normal lens for 35mm film, will have
the coverage of a 75mm lens when used on my digital slr. but what about the
perspective? the slight compression or flattening effect that i would expect
with a 75mm lens, would i get the same effect with the 50mm lens when used on
the digital camera? what i'm really trying to get is this. a 50mm lens is
generally not a good portrait lens when used on a 35mm camera. a 75mm lens
might be more acceptable. would a 50mm lens used on a digital body (effective
75mm coverage) be an acceptable portrait lens?

peter
  #7  
Old August 1st 04, 05:36 PM
Jack-of-the-Dust
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default perspective w/ 35mm lenses?

An over simplified answer. Were it so why would manufactures make so many
different lens focal lengths?
The answer is correct from a technical stand point, but like many things
practical issues invade reason.

Ed
wrote in message
...
On 16 Jul 2004 02:16:09 GMT, ospam (PrincePete01)
wrote:
what i'm really trying to get is this....would a 50mm lens used on a

digital body (effective
75mm coverage) be an acceptable portrait lens?

peter


Actually, it will not make any deifference at all. Lens focal length
has nothing to do with perspective. In fact perspective wasn't even
invintet until railroads became popular. There is no such thing as a
telephoto/wide angle look. I just looks like there is a telephoto/
wideangle look and if you really knew how to look, it wouldn't look
like there is a telephoto/wideangle to look at in the first place.
This can be proven by always using a 7mm lens (any format) and adding
a twelve foot post to your enlarger. You do have to protect your
wideangle prints from nose gease because the proper viewing distance
is focal length times magnification. This does mean the proper viewing
distance for an 8X10inch print from a full from a 35mm camera equiped
with a 500mm lens is eighty inches. Everyone know all this and in fact
is a given on at least one news list.

Objects in the mirror
are really not closer than they apear
so always burn out
when in reverse gear.

Heh heh heh......



  #8  
Old August 1st 04, 05:36 PM
Jack-of-the-Dust
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default perspective w/ 35mm lenses?

An over simplified answer. Were it so why would manufactures make so many
different lens focal lengths?
The answer is correct from a technical stand point, but like many things
practical issues invade reason.

Ed
wrote in message
...
On 16 Jul 2004 02:16:09 GMT, ospam (PrincePete01)
wrote:
what i'm really trying to get is this....would a 50mm lens used on a

digital body (effective
75mm coverage) be an acceptable portrait lens?

peter


Actually, it will not make any deifference at all. Lens focal length
has nothing to do with perspective. In fact perspective wasn't even
invintet until railroads became popular. There is no such thing as a
telephoto/wide angle look. I just looks like there is a telephoto/
wideangle look and if you really knew how to look, it wouldn't look
like there is a telephoto/wideangle to look at in the first place.
This can be proven by always using a 7mm lens (any format) and adding
a twelve foot post to your enlarger. You do have to protect your
wideangle prints from nose gease because the proper viewing distance
is focal length times magnification. This does mean the proper viewing
distance for an 8X10inch print from a full from a 35mm camera equiped
with a 500mm lens is eighty inches. Everyone know all this and in fact
is a given on at least one news list.

Objects in the mirror
are really not closer than they apear
so always burn out
when in reverse gear.

Heh heh heh......



  #9  
Old August 1st 04, 10:07 PM
Nostrobino
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default perspective w/ 35mm lenses?


wrote in message
...
On 16 Jul 2004 02:16:09 GMT, ospam (PrincePete01)
wrote:
what i'm really trying to get is this....would a 50mm lens used on a

digital body (effective
75mm coverage) be an acceptable portrait lens?

peter


Actually, it will not make any deifference at all. Lens focal length
has nothing to do with perspective.


That depends on how you use the term "perspective." In the way that most
people use it, it definitely is related to focal length.


In fact perspective wasn't even
invintet until railroads became popular. There is no such thing as a
telephoto/wide angle look. I just looks like there is a telephoto/
wideangle look


If it "just LOOKS" that way, then obviously there IS such a thing as a wide
angle or telephoto look.


and if you really knew how to look, it wouldn't look
like there is a telephoto/wideangle to look at in the first place.


This is the fallacy of that whole argument. People look at photos as they
are, and any different appearance "if [they] really knew how to look" is
irrelevant.

The way this argument usually goes is something like this: If you take two
photos of the same subject from the same position they have the same
perspective, whether you shoot with a wide angle, normal or telephoto lens.

Anyone who actually does this will see VERY OBVIOUS differences in
perspective. But the argument goes along these lines: Aha, but if you took
the central portion of the wide angle shot and enlarged it so that its field
of view would be exactly the same as that of the normal or tele lens, then
the perspective would also be exactly the same.

Yes, that's true, but people DON'T do that. The full shot taken with a wide
angle lens has a wide-angle perspective, and the shot taken with a telephoto
lens has a telephoto perspective. If you take a wide-angle shot and crop out
everything except what would appear in a telephoto shot, all you've done is
EMULATED the telephoto lens. The original PERSPECTIVE has been destroyed by
what you removed.


This can be proven by always using a 7mm lens (any format) and adding
a twelve foot post to your enlarger. You do have to protect your
wideangle prints from nose gease because the proper viewing distance
is focal length times magnification.


But no one CARES about "proper viewing distance." If we see a shot taken
with a very long telephoto, we do not put it at the far end of a room just
so we can look at it in the "proper perspective." That would, in fact,
defeat the whole purpose of using a long lens in the first place.

Similarly, no one puts his nose down on the print just because it was shot
with an ultra-wide lens.


This does mean the proper viewing
distance for an 8X10inch print from a full from a 35mm camera equiped
with a 500mm lens is eighty inches. Everyone know all this and in fact
is a given on at least one news list.


This sort of nonsense has been often repeated, that much is true. It's still
nonsense, no matter how often it's repeated.

If it were true and/or relevant, no one would ever bother using a 500mm or
other long tele lens. What would be the point, if the print had to be viewed
from some unnaturally and inconveniently long distance?


  #10  
Old August 1st 04, 10:07 PM
Nostrobino
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default perspective w/ 35mm lenses?


wrote in message
...
On 16 Jul 2004 02:16:09 GMT, ospam (PrincePete01)
wrote:
what i'm really trying to get is this....would a 50mm lens used on a

digital body (effective
75mm coverage) be an acceptable portrait lens?

peter


Actually, it will not make any deifference at all. Lens focal length
has nothing to do with perspective.


That depends on how you use the term "perspective." In the way that most
people use it, it definitely is related to focal length.


In fact perspective wasn't even
invintet until railroads became popular. There is no such thing as a
telephoto/wide angle look. I just looks like there is a telephoto/
wideangle look


If it "just LOOKS" that way, then obviously there IS such a thing as a wide
angle or telephoto look.


and if you really knew how to look, it wouldn't look
like there is a telephoto/wideangle to look at in the first place.


This is the fallacy of that whole argument. People look at photos as they
are, and any different appearance "if [they] really knew how to look" is
irrelevant.

The way this argument usually goes is something like this: If you take two
photos of the same subject from the same position they have the same
perspective, whether you shoot with a wide angle, normal or telephoto lens.

Anyone who actually does this will see VERY OBVIOUS differences in
perspective. But the argument goes along these lines: Aha, but if you took
the central portion of the wide angle shot and enlarged it so that its field
of view would be exactly the same as that of the normal or tele lens, then
the perspective would also be exactly the same.

Yes, that's true, but people DON'T do that. The full shot taken with a wide
angle lens has a wide-angle perspective, and the shot taken with a telephoto
lens has a telephoto perspective. If you take a wide-angle shot and crop out
everything except what would appear in a telephoto shot, all you've done is
EMULATED the telephoto lens. The original PERSPECTIVE has been destroyed by
what you removed.


This can be proven by always using a 7mm lens (any format) and adding
a twelve foot post to your enlarger. You do have to protect your
wideangle prints from nose gease because the proper viewing distance
is focal length times magnification.


But no one CARES about "proper viewing distance." If we see a shot taken
with a very long telephoto, we do not put it at the far end of a room just
so we can look at it in the "proper perspective." That would, in fact,
defeat the whole purpose of using a long lens in the first place.

Similarly, no one puts his nose down on the print just because it was shot
with an ultra-wide lens.


This does mean the proper viewing
distance for an 8X10inch print from a full from a 35mm camera equiped
with a 500mm lens is eighty inches. Everyone know all this and in fact
is a given on at least one news list.


This sort of nonsense has been often repeated, that much is true. It's still
nonsense, no matter how often it's repeated.

If it were true and/or relevant, no one would ever bother using a 500mm or
other long tele lens. What would be the point, if the print had to be viewed
from some unnaturally and inconveniently long distance?


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Can Nikon DX lenses be used on 35mm bodies? Paul Crowder Digital Photography 6 July 11th 04 09:32 PM
New Leica digital back info.... Barney 35mm Photo Equipment 19 June 30th 04 12:45 AM
35mm C vs 35mm N mamiya 645 lenses Stacey Medium Format Photography Equipment 0 May 16th 04 07:06 AM
Asking advice Bugs Bunny Medium Format Photography Equipment 69 March 9th 04 06:42 AM
FA: Ricoh KR-10 35mm Camera, lenses, flash extras jon Other Photographic Equipment 1 February 8th 04 11:10 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:37 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.