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. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
What is this weird hatred of different focal lengths?
I don't get this oddball hatred of focal lengths not in the "norm" of
camera focal lengths. Scroll down 2/3 and see the comment by sour old Wizniewski. He claimes 55-58mm focal lengths all "failed." Was it too difficult getting 10-15% further away from a subject so you end up with your precious 50mm focal length, if it's that important?? http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/09...Distagon-55mm- F1-4-for-Canon-Nikon-lenses-for-mirrorless-system-cameras |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
What is this weird hatred of different focal lengths?
On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 21:11:58 -0500, Rich wrote:
: I don't get this oddball hatred of focal lengths not in the "norm" of : camera focal lengths. Scroll down 2/3 and see the comment by sour old : Wizniewski. He claimes 55-58mm focal lengths all "failed." Was it too : difficult getting 10-15% further away from a subject so you end up with : your precious 50mm focal length, if it's that important?? : : http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/09...Distagon-55mm- : F1-4-for-Canon-Nikon-lenses-for-mirrorless-system-cameras The picture of "sour old" Wisniewski (note spelling) makes him look a good bit younger than me, and probably you. But we'll let that pass. Wisniewski's point may be pedantic and irrelevant (and it was pounced on by at least one other commenter), but it's based on historical fact. When SLRs first started to compete with 35mm rangefinder cameras, most came with "normal" lenses of 55mm or 58mm, rather than the common rangefinder "standard" of 50mm. The presumption at the time was that it was easier to keep the slightly longer lens away from the mirror. But the 50mm standard was pretty well ingrained in the mentality of 35mm photographers, and soon enough the SLR manufacturers replaced the longer lenses with 50mm designs compatible with their cameras. So in that sense the longer lenses did "fail". But surely you knew all that? Bob |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
What is this weird hatred of different focal lengths?
On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 17:50:02 +0100, Bruce wrote:
: Robert Coe wrote: : : The picture of "sour old" Wisniewski (note spelling) makes him look a good bit : younger than me, and probably you. But we'll let that pass. Wisniewski's point : may be pedantic and irrelevant (and it was pounced on by at least one other : commenter), but it's based on historical fact. When SLRs first started to : compete with 35mm rangefinder cameras, most came with "normal" lenses of 55mm : or 58mm, rather than the common rangefinder "standard" of 50mm. The : presumption at the time was that it was easier to keep the slightly longer : lens away from the mirror. : : : A small correction: : : The true focal length of a 50mm rangefinder lens with Leica mount : (screw or M bayonet) is about 51.6mm. A lens with a true focal length : of 50mm needs a second rangefinder helicoid machined into the rear of : the lens to compensate for the difference in focal lengths. : : I am told, but have never confirmed, that the Carl Zeiss 50mm lens for : M bayonet mount has such a helicoid and, because of its true 50mm : focal length, has a greater angle of view than Leica "50mm" lenses. : : Deviations of a couple of millimetres from the focal lengths engraved : or painted on the lens are not unusual. I had a Tokina 20-35mm lens : which actually had a greater angle of view at the wide angle end than : the Nikon 18-35mm. It's not desperately important unless you are : upset that you are not getting an angle of view as wide as you thought : you were paying for. That's interesting information, but a non sequitur in the thread. Sour old Wisniewski's point, although he didn't fully explain it, was that although lenses labelled as 55mm and 58mm were common on early SLRs, they died out rather quickly in favor of lenses labelled as 50mm, when SLRs entered serious competition with 35mm rangefinder cameras, on which 50mm lenses were ubiquitous. Rich objected to Wisniewski's characterization of this phenomenon as a failure of the longer lenses. At no point did the discussion address the entirely separate issue of whether the focal lengths of any of those lenses was accurately stated. What does seem clear, though, is that the SLR lenses were redesigned to a shorter focal length to accommodate the prevailing opinion that a 50mm lens was "normal" on a 35mm camera. Bob |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
What is this weird hatred of different focal lengths?
"Robert Coe" wrote in message ... On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 21:11:58 -0500, Rich wrote: : I don't get this oddball hatred of focal lengths not in the "norm" of : camera focal lengths. Scroll down 2/3 and see the comment by sour old : Wizniewski. He claimes 55-58mm focal lengths all "failed." Was it too : difficult getting 10-15% further away from a subject so you end up with : your precious 50mm focal length, if it's that important?? : : http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/09...Distagon-55mm- : F1-4-for-Canon-Nikon-lenses-for-mirrorless-system-cameras The picture of "sour old" Wisniewski (note spelling) makes him look a good bit younger than me, and probably you. But we'll let that pass. Wisniewski's point may be pedantic and irrelevant (and it was pounced on by at least one other commenter), but it's based on historical fact. When SLRs first started to compete with 35mm rangefinder cameras, most came with "normal" lenses of 55mm or 58mm, rather than the common rangefinder "standard" of 50mm. The presumption at the time was that it was easier to keep the slightly longer lens away from the mirror. But the 50mm standard was pretty well ingrained in the mentality of 35mm photographers, and soon enough the SLR manufacturers replaced the longer lenses with 50mm designs compatible with their cameras. So in that sense the longer lenses did "fail". Which is all rather amusing when you consider the more serious photographers used an 85mm lens and a 35mm lens combination far more often than anything in the 40-70mm range. If anything a 58 mm lens was a little better for portraits than a 50mm one at least, even if not by much. A fast 50mm is a much better lens now on a non FF sensor DSLR however IMO. Trevor. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
What is this weird hatred of different focal lengths?
On Sun, 09 Sep 2012 13:59:40 +0100, Bruce wrote:
: Robert Coe wrote: : : On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 17:50:02 +0100, Bruce wrote: : : Robert Coe wrote: : : : : The picture of "sour old" Wisniewski (note spelling) makes him look a good bit : : younger than me, and probably you. But we'll let that pass. Wisniewski's point : : may be pedantic and irrelevant (and it was pounced on by at least one other : : commenter), but it's based on historical fact. When SLRs first started to : : compete with 35mm rangefinder cameras, most came with "normal" lenses of 55mm : : or 58mm, rather than the common rangefinder "standard" of 50mm. The : : presumption at the time was that it was easier to keep the slightly longer : : lens away from the mirror. : : : : : : A small correction: : : : : The true focal length of a 50mm rangefinder lens with Leica mount : : (screw or M bayonet) is about 51.6mm. A lens with a true focal length : : of 50mm needs a second rangefinder helicoid machined into the rear of : : the lens to compensate for the difference in focal lengths. : : : : I am told, but have never confirmed, that the Carl Zeiss 50mm lens for : : M bayonet mount has such a helicoid and, because of its true 50mm : : focal length, has a greater angle of view than Leica "50mm" lenses. : : : : Deviations of a couple of millimetres from the focal lengths engraved : : or painted on the lens are not unusual. I had a Tokina 20-35mm lens : : which actually had a greater angle of view at the wide angle end than : : the Nikon 18-35mm. It's not desperately important unless you are : : upset that you are not getting an angle of view as wide as you thought : : you were paying for. : : That's interesting information, but a non sequitur in the thread. : : : It's called 'broadening the discussion', sometimes termed 'thread : drift'. Sorry if it offended your sensibilities. ;-) You portrayed it as a "correction", which I think is confusing to the reader (as it was to me at first), since it doesn't address anything Rich or I said. By any other name, I'm fine with it. The fact is that I've contributed to thread drift myself often enough. Bob |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
What is this weird hatred of different focal lengths?
"Trevor" writes:
Which is all rather amusing when you consider the more serious photographers used an 85mm lens and a 35mm lens combination far more often than anything in the 40-70mm range. If anything a 58 mm lens was a little better for portraits than a 50mm one at least, even if not by much. A fast 50mm is a much better lens now on a non FF sensor DSLR however IMO. A 58mm is great on a 1.5X DSLR for portraits :-) -- Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net) Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/ Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/ Dragaera: http://dragaera.info |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
What is this weird hatred of different focal lengths?
In article c78ea956-44cd-4f57-80b8-85ef06d59896
@u19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com, RichA says... On Sep 9, 1:43*pm, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: "Trevor" writes: Which is all rather amusing when you consider the more serious photographers used an 85mm lens and a 35mm lens combination far more often than anything in the 40-70mm range. If anything a 58 mm lens was a little better for portraits than a 50mm one at least, even if not by much. A fast 50mm is a much better lens now on a non FF sensor DSLR however IMO. A 58mm is great on a 1.5X DSLR for portraits :-) But does it behave the same way as say an 85mm on a FF for the same subject matter? Why shouldn't it? The only issue might be the different DOF. -- Alfred Molon ------------------------------ Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/ http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
What is this weird hatred of different focal lengths?
Alfred Molon writes:
In article c78ea956-44cd-4f57-80b8-85ef06d59896 @u19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com, RichA says... On Sep 9, 1:43Â*pm, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: "Trevor" writes: Which is all rather amusing when you consider the more serious photographers used an 85mm lens and a 35mm lens combination far more often than anything in the 40-70mm range. If anything a 58 mm lens was a little better for portraits than a 50mm one at least, even if not by much. A fast 50mm is a much better lens now on a non FF sensor DSLR however IMO. A 58mm is great on a 1.5X DSLR for portraits :-) But does it behave the same way as say an 85mm on a FF for the same subject matter? Why shouldn't it? The only issue might be the different DOF. You're not using the edges, so vignetting and edge quality issues (common in ultra-fast lenses) are less important. The DOF is different (at any given aperture), yes. I don't find this actually matters in practice, but that'll depend on kind of photos and personal taste, it's a real difference. The DOF formulas work with real focal length not "equivalent". You also have to pick a circle of confusion, which depends partly on your standards for "sharp" and partly on the degree of enlargement planned and the viewing distance planned -- and the degree of enlargement is greater for smaller sensors. -- Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net) Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/ Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/ Dragaera: http://dragaera.info |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
What is this weird hatred of different focal lengths?
Alfred Molon wrote in
: In article c78ea956-44cd-4f57-80b8-85ef06d59896 @u19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com, RichA says... On Sep 9, 1:43*pm, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: "Trevor" writes: Which is all rather amusing when you consider the more serious photog raphers used an 85mm lens and a 35mm lens combination far more often than any thing in the 40-70mm range. If anything a 58 mm lens was a little better fo r portraits than a 50mm one at least, even if not by much. A fast 50mm is a much better lens now on a non FF sensor DSLR however IMO. A 58mm is great on a 1.5X DSLR for portraits :-) But does it behave the same way as say an 85mm on a FF for the same subject matter? Why shouldn't it? The only issue might be the different DOF. How about the flattening effect (compression) of the focal length? m4/3 and 50mm versus FF and 100mm, for instance. Same effective area coverage but would it look different, even if DOF was compensated for by using different apertures? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
What is this weird hatred of different focal lengths?
Rich writes:
Alfred Molon wrote in : In article c78ea956-44cd-4f57-80b8-85ef06d59896 @u19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com, RichA says... On Sep 9, 1:43Â*pm, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: "Trevor" writes: Which is all rather amusing when you consider the more serious photog raphers used an 85mm lens and a 35mm lens combination far more often than any thing in the 40-70mm range. If anything a 58 mm lens was a little better fo r portraits than a 50mm one at least, even if not by much. A fast 50mm is a much better lens now on a non FF sensor DSLR however IMO. A 58mm is great on a 1.5X DSLR for portraits :-) But does it behave the same way as say an 85mm on a FF for the same subject matter? Why shouldn't it? The only issue might be the different DOF. How about the flattening effect (compression) of the focal length? m4/3 and 50mm versus FF and 100mm, for instance. Same effective area coverage but would it look different, even if DOF was compensated for by using different apertures? Thre is no flattening effect or compression caused by focal length. Perspective (which technically means the relationships between objects in the rendered image) is controlled by camera location. If you take a photo from the same place with the center of the frame pointing exactly the same direction with a 24mm lens and 600mm lens, and crop the 600mm angle of view out of the center of the 24mm image, the perspective will be the same. (With that big a crop, there will probably be visible noise/sharpness issues, but the perspective will be the same.) (In the real world, one either picks a lens for a position you want to shoot from to get the framing you want, or else picks a position that gives the framing you want for the lens you have; the decisions are often made intertwined, not independently.) -- Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net) Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/ Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/ Dragaera: http://dragaera.info |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Confusion about DX focal lengths | DeanB | Digital Photography | 17 | February 27th 07 05:27 AM |
digital SLRS and focal lengths | Chris Long | Digital Photography | 9 | January 28th 06 09:30 AM |
Equivalent focal lengths and crop factors... | Will D. | Digital SLR Cameras | 66 | January 7th 05 06:44 AM |
Equivalent focal lengths | Juergen . | Digital SLR Cameras | 110 | January 2nd 05 08:17 AM |
New body, Landscapes and Focal Lengths | Collin Brendemuehl | Large Format Photography Equipment | 5 | June 25th 04 02:19 AM |