Re: What is this weird hatred of different focal lengths?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Robert Coe, Sep 8, 2012.

  1. Robert Coe

    Robert Coe Guest

    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/2012/09/07/Carl-Zeiss-preparing-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
    Robert Coe, Sep 8, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Robert Coe

    Bruce Guest

    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.
    Bruce, Sep 8, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Robert Coe

    Robert Coe Guest

    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
    Robert Coe, Sep 9, 2012
    #3
  4. Robert Coe

    Trevor Guest

    "Robert Coe" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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/2012/09/07/Carl-Zeiss-preparing-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.
    Trevor, Sep 9, 2012
    #4
  5. Robert Coe

    Bruce Guest

    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. ;-)
    Bruce, Sep 9, 2012
    #5
  6. Robert Coe

    Robert Coe Guest

    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
    Robert Coe, Sep 9, 2012
    #6
  7. "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
    David Dyer-Bennet, Sep 9, 2012
    #7
  8. Robert Coe

    RichA Guest

    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 isa
    > > 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?
    RichA, Sep 9, 2012
    #8
  9. Alfred Molon <> writes:

    > 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.


    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
    David Dyer-Bennet, Sep 10, 2012
    #9
  10. Robert Coe

    Bruce Guest

    Rich <> wrote:
    >Alfred Molon <> wrote in
    >news::
    >
    >> 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?



    The "flattening effect" is purely a result of the distance between
    camera and subject. It has nothing to do with the focal length.

    However, the 50mm lens on m4/3 gives the same angle of view as the
    100mm on full frame. So to achieve a similar composition, you would
    have to stand at the same distance from the subject. So the
    "flattening effect" would be the same.
    Bruce, Sep 11, 2012
    #10
  11. Rich <> writes:

    > Alfred Molon <> wrote in
    > news::
    >
    >> 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?


    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
    David Dyer-Bennet, Sep 11, 2012
    #11
  12. Robert Coe

    RichA Guest

    On Sep 11, 3:19 pm, David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    > Rich <> writes:
    > > Alfred Molon <> wrote in
    > >news::

    >
    > >> 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?

    >
    > 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.


    So, if we have two objects in a frame, at different distances from
    the camera and we just frame them in a 500mm lens and then a crop from
    a 50mm lens shot, the appearance between the two subjects in the
    images will appear identical in both shots? No "telephoto
    compression" will be visible making the two objects in the 500mm crop
    seem closer to each other?
    RichA, Sep 16, 2012
    #12
  13. Robert Coe

    Bruce Guest

    RichA <> wrote:

    >On Sep 11, 3:19 pm, David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    >> Rich <> writes:
    >> > Alfred Molon <> wrote in
    >> >news::

    >>
    >> >> 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?

    >>
    >> 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.

    >
    > So, if we have two objects in a frame, at different distances from
    >the camera and we just frame them in a 500mm lens and then a crop from
    >a 50mm lens shot, the appearance between the two subjects in the
    >images will appear identical in both shots?



    Yes, absolutely.


    >No "telephoto
    >compression" will be visible making the two objects in the 500mm crop
    >seem closer to each other?



    No, absolutely.
    Bruce, Sep 16, 2012
    #13
  14. RichA <> writes:

    > On Sep 11, 3:19 pm, David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    >> Rich <> writes:
    >> > Alfred Molon <> wrote in
    >> >news::

    >>
    >> >> 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?

    >>
    >> 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.

    >
    > So, if we have two objects in a frame, at different distances from
    > the camera and we just frame them in a 500mm lens and then a crop from
    > a 50mm lens shot, the appearance between the two subjects in the
    > images will appear identical in both shots? No "telephoto
    > compression" will be visible making the two objects in the 500mm crop
    > seem closer to each other?


    Exactly; if the 500mm and 50mm shots are taken from the same location.

    A "place mat" showing this (pictures taken with every lens a particular
    manufacturer made, all from the same location) used to be standard
    furniture at every camera store, too (usually one from each major lens
    manufacturer, in fact).

    With a modern wide-range zoom it's very easy to take your own test
    photos to compare yourself.
    --
    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
    David Dyer-Bennet, Sep 16, 2012
    #14
  15. (Floyd L. Davidson) writes:

    > RichA <> wrote:
    >>On Sep 11, 3:19 pm, David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    >>> 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.

    >>
    >> So, if we have two objects in a frame, at different distances from
    >>the camera and we just frame them in a 500mm lens and then a crop from
    >>a 50mm lens shot, the appearance between the two subjects in the
    >>images will appear identical in both shots? No "telephoto
    >>compression" will be visible making the two objects in the 500mm crop
    >>seem closer to each other?

    >
    > Yes.
    >
    > The composition will be the same. That is, the size of the two object
    > will have the same relationship. If the nearer object appears to be twice
    > as tall as the far one, that will be true for both images.


    That's called "perspective", though, not "composition". Composition
    relates to how the objects, masses, colors, and such interact visually
    to make a more or less pleasing picture. Perspective is the size and
    position relationships of the objects in the picture.

    --
    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
    David Dyer-Bennet, Sep 16, 2012
    #15
  16. Robert Coe

    Trevor Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > A similar thing can be seen if you take an extreme wide angle lens, and
    > take a
    > picture of a city, for example. All of the buildings will appear to be
    > curved
    > and lean together, but if you crop out a very small part, you will be
    > surprised
    > to see perfectly rectangular windows.


    Not "perfectly rectangular windows" at all, but if their size is small
    enough the distortion becomes difficult to see. It is impossible for the
    building to be "tilted" and it's windows not to be.
    (Well before manipulation in PS anyway! :)

    Trevor.
    Trevor, Sep 17, 2012
    #16
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Jim Garner

    Apertures and focal lengths

    Jim Garner, Oct 10, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    368
  2. R2D2

    DIGITAL vs FILM PORTRAITURE (Focal Lengths)

    R2D2, Feb 4, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    531
    Chris Brown
    Feb 4, 2004
  3. Chris Long

    digital SLRS and focal lengths

    Chris Long, Jan 27, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    409
    Randy Berbaum
    Jan 28, 2006
  4. Bruce
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    289
    Bruce
    Sep 8, 2012
  5. Grimly Curmudgeon

    Re: What is this weird hatred of different focal lengths?

    Grimly Curmudgeon, Oct 2, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    207
    Grimly Curmudgeon
    Oct 2, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page