"telephoto" - another definition problem

RolandRB wrote:

We did disagree but he has not cast his vote here.

I see... Keep out the competition... ;-)

What was his "definition"?

Go take pictures.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

Go take pictures.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

RolandRB wrote:
I decided I might like a "true" very-high-quality 1:1 macro lens for
the EOS mount so I did a search on "process lens" (due to a discussion
in another thread that suggested a 1:1 top quality symettrical "macro"
lens is called a "process lens") and did not find any EOS Canon lenses
to match. That's not saying there is no such thing - but I didn't find
any. I am guessing they will be called "macro" lenses and I wonder if I
could tell if it were optimised for 1:1. But never mind, the word
"macro" means different things to different people and it seems like
the camera manufacturers prefer to keep people confused as to the
definition. But that aside, I walked two doors down the corridor to ask
a fellow photography enthusiast what his definition of "telephoto" was.
It was different to mine.

So what is the definition of "telephoto"?

And once we are all sure of what it is, then what is the definition of
"reverse telephoto" and "telephoto ratio" and does this fit with the
definition of "telephoto"?


Process lenses are built for process cameras. New they would cost much
more then the average canon user would dream of spending.

Telephoto lenses focus at infinity closer then thier focal length. A
non-telephoto 600mm lens would need to be 600mm from the film plane at
infinity. At 1:1 it would need to be 1200mm from the film plane.

Nick

Q.G. de Bakker wrote:
RolandRB wrote:

We did disagree but he has not cast his vote here.

I see... Keep out the competition... ;-)

What was his "definition"?

His definition for "telephoto lens" was something very close to "a lens
that gives a narrower field of view than a standard lens".

I didn't ask him for his definition of "telephoto ratio".

Q.G. de Bakker wrote:
RolandRB wrote:

We did disagree but he has not cast his vote here.

I see... Keep out the competition... ;-)

What was his "definition"?

His definition for "telephoto lens" was something very close to "a lens
that gives a narrower field of view than a standard lens".

I didn't ask him for his definition of "telephoto ratio".

RolandRB wrote:

His definition for "telephoto lens" was something very close to "a lens
that gives a narrower field of view than a standard lens".

That doesn't sound very wrong. In fact, not at all.

All depends on what aspect you're focussing on.
;-)

I didn't ask him for his definition of "telephoto ratio".

That would then be the ratio between the angles of view.
Nothing fundamentally wrong with that either.

"Matt Clara" wrote in message
news:2gpMd.966623

Go take pictures.

Yes, these later conversations are quite odd. It's got to be winter cabin
fever.

Lens to film distance? Well, I have a Nikon here in Minnesota. I left the
normal lens in Trinidad. Wow - that's thousands of miles of lens-to-focal
plane, eh?

Telephoto lenses focus at infinity closer then thier focal length. A
non-telephoto 600mm lens would need to be 600mm from the film plane at
infinity.

Not to say anything about the 16x20 inch coverage vs a 35mm frame

Larry

In message , Lassi Hippeläinen
writes
BTW, my shortest telefocus lens is the 35mm/2.8 on my Olympus XA
rangefinder. A wide-angle tele ;-)

And a super little thing it is too. I'm just sad they never made one
with an 80mm lens. I could then have carried one of each type and been a
happy snapper.
--
----------------------------
Paul Friday