Ping Tony Cooper

On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 11:26:11 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 09:18:58 -0400, Ken Hart
wrote:

On 09/27/2018 10:11 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 18:30:56 -0700 (PDT), -hh
wrote:

On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 8:54:01 PM UTC-4, nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


could you give me a definition of a long lens.

It depends on what is being photographed.

no it doesn't.

Yes it does. I this context 'long' is a value judgement and it depends
on the viewpoint of the person describing a lens as 'long'.

focal length is not a value judgement. it's a physical attribute of a
lens.


Bzzzt!
Thanks for playing, but Eric wasn't talking in millimeters, but in a use context.

You have to wonder how nospam mind works. He's been around a
photography group for yonks. He knows - you know he does - what
people mean when they refer to a "long lens". He knows - he couldn't
help but know - that "long lens" is relative term and not a physical
attribute description of the lens. He must have picked up that one
person's long lens is not necessarily some other person's long lens,
but both have a long lens in their bag. He surely must know that the
choice of what long lens to buy is largely based on what you intend to
photograph. And, of course, cost.

He must know that no one will agree with him, that he's not informing
anyone of anything, and that there's no point to his comment...but he
persists.

How desperate for attention must he be?

He also hangs out in the Linux groups. A poster there one time posted
that it was unfortunate: nospam is quite knowledgeable about Linux, but
his attitude and demeanor turn people off so quickly and completely that
they stop listening to him.

I have a theory about nospam:
He is not a person, but an AI experiment (probably Google or Wikipedia
sponsored). 'His' programming calls for him to pick out a word or
phrase, take a contrary or narrow meaning, and support it with clips
from searches. Note that 'he' has no original content, and frequently
uses catch-phrases.

I too have a theory, but I associate him with autism.

He could be on the spectrum. He does show a lot of the indications.
Inability to relate to others, obsessive/compulsive tendencies,
ability to learn (high functioning) but inability to apply what has
been learned, and - most noticeably - social inadequacy because of
passive, aggressive, or disruptive behavior.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


Yes it does. I this context 'long' is a value judgement and it
depends
on the viewpoint of the person describing a lens as 'long'.

focal length is not a value judgement. it's a physical attribute of a
lens.

Bzzzt!
Thanks for playing, but Eric wasn't talking in millimeters, but in a use
context.

use context does not matter.

It sure as hell does to the user.

*which* lens to use is up to the user, but that doesn't change the
attributes of a given lens.

a long lens does not become not long because someone uses it in a
different manner.

the definition is clear:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-focus_lens
In photography, a long-focus lens is a camera lens which has a focal
length that is longer than the diagonal measure of the film or sensor
that receives its image.

The Wiki gives two sources.

which you're ignoring.

How on earth can you say that whan I quoted them?

because they contradict your claim that it's use context.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

help but know - that "long lens" is relative term and not a physical
attribute description of the lens.

it's not relative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-focus_lens
In photography, a long-focus lens is a camera lens which has a focal
length that is longer than the diagonal measure of the film or sensor
that receives its image.

you are once again moving the goalposts and arguing against what was
never said.

Nope. The discussion is about the term "long lens", not "long-focus
lens".

nope. they are equivalent terms.

If you try Googling 'long lens' you find:

the above definition as the first hit.

But I wasn't looking for 'long focus lens'. I was looking for 'long
lens' and that is what my quotes referred to. There is a difference
you know (or perhaps you don't?).

the terms are used interchangeably, along with telephoto, which is the
most common.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

here's what ken said:
In article , Ken Hart
wrote:
A "long" lens would be anything longer than a "normal" lens. In my case
(the Canon FX series from 1964-1969), the first long prime lens would
be
85mm. There is a long zoom lens: 55-135mm. Canon made a 1200mm prime
lens in the FL-mount- that would be called a "honking long lens".

why don't you try to 'educate' him that he's also wrong.

Because he's not wrong.

nor am i. what he said matches what i've said, yet you attack me and
not him.

I thought it was the other way around. What you think of as Tony's
attack is in fact his vigorous defense.

you thought wrong.

Ask a photographer what his "wide angle
lens" is. He'll tell you that it's the lens in his bag* that captures
the widest field of view. There is no specific lens that is a wide
angle lens. It could be a 10mm, 16mm, or 24mm or other number lens.
The photographer's term is non-specific and relates to what the
photographer considers to be the lens that suits his
needs/interest/budget or the lens that he owns.

nobody said there there's only one specific lens. in other words, they
likely will respond with 'which one?' also, what someone chooses to buy
or can afford is entirely irrelevant to the physical attributes of a
lens.

Oh, but it does. If you are contemplating buying a long lens, then
the cost becomes very relevant. The person may have decide between a
70/200 f/2.8 or 55/200 f/4-5.6 depending on how much he's willing to
spend. Both are long lenses.

purchasing is not the issue nor has it ever been the issue.

whether or not someone buys a particular lens doesn't change what type
of lens it is.

When he hasn't yet bought a lens it does affect the type of lens is
may be considering buying.

whoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oosh.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

here's what ken said:
In article , Ken Hart
wrote:
A "long" lens would be anything longer than a "normal" lens. In my
case
(the Canon FX series from 1964-1969), the first long prime lens would
be
85mm. There is a long zoom lens: 55-135mm. Canon made a 1200mm prime
lens in the FL-mount- that would be called a "honking long lens".

why don't you try to 'educate' him that he's also wrong.

because he isn't.

that's the point.

He isn't wrong and you misunderstand him.

i understand it fully. it's you who misunderstands it.

since ken and i are using the same correct definition of the term, it's
not possible for ken to be correct and me to be wrong. if tony is going
to attack me for being wrong and hurl insults, he can't at the same
time claim ken is correct. this is also not the first time tony's been
caught doing it either.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

You can prove him wrong, but you can't get him to admit to being
wrong. And, this is clearly a case where the meaning of "long lens"
is exactly how it was presented by me and by others.

nope. that's a flat out lie and you're *not* going to get away with it.

you initially claimed a long lens is an opinion (it's not),

I think that was me.

tony originally said the photographer decides what is long, i.e.,
opinion. that's wrong. he later changed that, hoping nobody would
notice. he's wrong on that too.

On 09/29/2018 12:06 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

help but know - that "long lens" is relative term and not a physical
attribute description of the lens.

it's not relative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-focus_lens
In photography, a long-focus lens is a camera lens which has a focal
length that is longer than the diagonal measure of the film or sensor
that receives its image.

you are once again moving the goalposts and arguing against what was
never said.

Nope. The discussion is about the term "long lens", not "long-focus
lens".

nope. they are equivalent terms.

If you try Googling 'long lens' you find:

the above definition as the first hit.

But I wasn't looking for 'long focus lens'. I was looking for 'long
lens' and that is what my quotes referred to. There is a difference
you know (or perhaps you don't?).

the terms are used interchangeably, along with telephoto, which is the
most common.

Except that not all "long" lenses are telephotos. A telephoto lens is
one in which the length of the lens is less than the focal length. For
example, my 1200mm lenses are long lenses and telephoto, as they are
about 850mm long. (They are also burdensome when you are hiking with one
on the mountain!)

Conversely, some "short" lenses are simply short, while other are
"retrofocus". In my case (the Canon FX 1964-69), there were two 19mm
lens designs. The original 19mm extended back into the mirror box and
required the mirror to be locked in the up position. It was sold with a
viewfinder that mounted on the accessory shoe (Not a "hot-shoe" at that
time.) The later 19mm, the "19R", was a retrofocus design which could be
used without mirror lockup, or on the Canon Pellix (with it's stationary
mirror).

Different photographers have differing definitions on what they consider
to be "long" or "short" lenses. The actual definition is a comparison
with the diagonal of the image: is the focal length longer or shorter
than the diagonal? As for calling it a telephoto, is the physical length
of the lens shorter than the focal length?

I have lenses from wide-angle to long/telephoto.* Whether a lens is
"long" or "short" enough depends on the use at hand. And how far I have
to carry it. And how big the tripod needs to be. And whether I've packed
that lens in my truck.

*19mm, 19R, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 55mm, 58mm, 85mm, 100mm, 135mm, 200mm,
300mm FL, 400mm, 500mm FL, 600mm, 800mm, 1200mm, 55-135mm, 100-200mm,
85-300mm.

--
Ken Hart

Ken Hart writes:
Different photographers have differing definitions on what they
consider to be "long" or "short" lenses.

Which goes back to the application.

And there’s ample oddities out there too: I’m familiar with one Nikon lens whose
focal length is less than its diagonal in some applications, but the very same
lens, without any additional accessories or change in mount, when used in
another application, has a focal length that’s *longer* than the diagonal. As
such, it is simultaneously both “short� and “long� as per the pedantic definition.

-hh

On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 00:06:40 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

here's what ken said:
In article , Ken Hart
wrote:
A "long" lens would be anything longer than a "normal" lens. In my
case
(the Canon FX series from 1964-1969), the first long prime lens would
be
85mm. There is a long zoom lens: 55-135mm. Canon made a 1200mm prime
lens in the FL-mount- that would be called a "honking long lens".

why don't you try to 'educate' him that he's also wrong.

because he isn't.

that's the point.

He isn't wrong and you misunderstand him.

i understand it fully. it's you who misunderstands it.

since ken and i are using the same correct definition of the term, it's
not possible for ken to be correct and me to be wrong. if tony is going
to attack me for being wrong and hurl insults, he can't at the same
time claim ken is correct. this is also not the first time tony's been
caught doing it either.

A common factor in these discussions with you is that you turn out to
be relying on a quite specific definition of a term while others are
using the term in a somewhat different sense. This makes me wonder:

1. How do you cope with terms for which there are two or more
distinctive definitions?

2. How do you cope with terms for which there are no clear
definitions?

3. Why is it necesssary to create specific definitions for terms
which are in general wide use?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 00:06:39 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

help but know - that "long lens" is relative term and not a physical
attribute description of the lens.

it's not relative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-focus_lens
In photography, a long-focus lens is a camera lens which has a focal
length that is longer than the diagonal measure of the film or sensor
that receives its image.

you are once again moving the goalposts and arguing against what was
never said.

Nope. The discussion is about the term "long lens", not "long-focus
lens".

nope. they are equivalent terms.

If you try Googling 'long lens' you find:

the above definition as the first hit.

But I wasn't looking for 'long focus lens'. I was looking for 'long
lens' and that is what my quotes referred to. There is a difference
you know (or perhaps you don't?).

the terms are used interchangeably, along with telephoto, which is the
most common.

I am sure you will correct me but, for practical purposes, all
telephotos are long focus but not all long focus lenses are telephoto.
For that matter, not all telephoto lenses are long either. See
https://www.dpreview.com/files/p/art...onnar-135.jpeg

In this case Tony meant long as in the sense of
https://previews.123rf.com/images/pa...-long-lens.jpg
or http://tinyurl.com/y9zdycmw
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens