Lens Types (Page 2): I don't think it matters, there is still a 'normal' field of view, I just happens to be going through two lenses before being merged into one image.

rwilson1942 Loc: Houston, TX

John_F wrote:

That sounds reasonable except that the hman eye is binocular. How does that figure into the normal lens concept?

I don't think it matters, there is still a 'normal' field of view, I just happens to be going through two lenses before being merged into one image.

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

Nikonian72 wrote:

A true macro lens means the lens can project a life-size image on camera sensor. This is known as 1:1 magnification. There are several macro lenses of different focal length, each capable of 1:1 magnification, but each focal length has its own (different) Minimum Focusing Distance. Typical examples of APS-C or full frame focal lengths available for macro: 15mm, 35-mm, 85mm, 90-mm, 100-mm, 105mm, 150mm, & 200mm.

in addition, a true macro/micro lens produces a "flat field" edge to edge.

ballsafire Loc: Lafayette, Louisiana

Hi John, after reading the complicated (but accurate) writings answering your question I thought that you'd like to view a simple graphic in Chris Gatcum's book "The Beginner's Photography Guide" pp. 104-5. This will give you the big picture about lenses in a simple way.

John_F wrote:

Is there an article of some kind somewhere that gives the focal length ranges for different type lenses: fisheye, 1:1, macro, wide angle, normal, telephoto, etc (if there is an etc). I have been trying to reckon from the optics lens formula and that for magnification. Is there an alternative description using 'angle of view.'

Don L G

John_F wrote:

Is there an article of some kind somewhere that gives the focal length ranges for different type lenses: fisheye, 1:1, macro, wide angle, normal, telephoto, etc (if there is an etc). I have been trying to reckon from the optics lens formula and that for magnification. Is there an alternative description using 'angle of view.'

This mite help it doesn't cover the fisheye but mite help some.

http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/simulator/

Don

ballsafire Loc: Lafayette, Louisiana

John_F wrote:

Is there an article of some kind somewhere that gives the focal length ranges for different type lenses: fisheye, 1:1, macro, wide angle, normal, telephoto, etc (if there is an etc). I have been trying to reckon from the optics lens formula and that for magnification. Is there an alternative description using 'angle of view.'

This might help.

John_F Loc: Minneapolis, MN

ballsafire wrote:

This might help.

What is the book title & author. Looks like a nice concise depiction.

ballsafire Loc: Lafayette, Louisiana

Hi John, after reading the complicated (but accurate) writings answering your question I thought that you'd like to view a simple graphic in Chris Gatcum's book "The Beginner's Photography Guide" pp. 104-5. This will give you the big picture about lenses in a simple way.

John_F Loc: Minneapolis, MN

ballsafire wrote:

Hi John, after reading the complicated (but accurate) writings answering your question I thought that you'd like to view a simple graphic in Chris Gatcum's book "The Beginner's Photography Guide" pp. 104-5. This will give you the big picture about lenses in a simple way.

Thanks, ballsafire, I'll look it up next trip to the library. One of my little projects is to derive equations based on the laws of optics.

ballsafire Loc: Lafayette, Louisiana

I'm not sure what you are dong but this quotation might be useful for a hacker "Personally I consider depth of field tables and scales silly. Depth of field isn't absolute; it depends on your attitude, the magnification of the print, viewing distance and a zillion other things. Depth of field indications are therefore estimates at best, so any attempt to nail them down with any accuracy is futile. They don't mean anything, since they are all drawn up based on arbitrary circles of confusion, and even worse, ignore diffraction."

John_F wrote:

Thanks, ballsafire, I'll look it up next trip to the library. One of my little projects is to derive equations based on the laws of optics.

bcrawf

ballsafire wrote:

I'm not sure what you are dong but this quotation ... (show quote)

I have no idea who is being quoted in your post, but it shows sloppy thinking in claiming that, because any particular D of F table depends upon a choice for the value of the circle of confusion applied, the tables "don't mean anything." What could be concluded is that the values of a D of F table are not absolute. But to say the tables do not mean anything is to claim there is no difference between images in terms of focus sharpness. A D of F scale lets you note what aperture you will need for the particular shot you are planning in order for your selected subject material to fall within the "in focus" range when you make the exposure (assuming the scale uses a sensible circle of confusion factor and your lens is of fair quality).

TucsonCoyote Loc: Tucson AZ

bcrawf wrote:

I have no idea who is being quoted in your post, b... (show quote)

I'll second that !

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

TucsonCoyote wrote:

I'll second that !

i'll third that. before slr and coupled rangefinders in 35mm there were some excellent scale focusing cameras. original leica standards, 1 and 2 models, for instance were scale focusing and the ubiquitous rollei 35. and they all managed to take excellent photographs based on depth of field scales.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

wj cody wrote:

i'll third that. before slr and coupled rangefinders in 35mm there were some excellent scale focusing cameras. original leica standards, 1 and 2 models, for instance were scale focusing and the ubiquitous rollei 35. and they all managed to take excellent photographs based on depth of field scales.

I miss the DOF scales on the lenses also. Almost all Olympus film lenses had DOF scales. They were very useful for making decisions on how to get everything you would like to be in focus and where that focus point would have to be to achieve that DOF. Now days one has to depend on their eyes and the viewfinder to make sure everything looks in focus. The older we get with our eyesight, the harder it is to do.

Leitz Loc: Solms

John_F wrote:

Is there an article of some kind somewhere that gives the focal length ranges for different type lenses: fisheye, 1:1, macro, wide angle, normal, telephoto, etc (if there is an etc). I have been trying to reckon from the optics lens formula and that for magnification. Is there an alternative description using 'angle of view.'

John, have you ever considered putting a lens on your camera and going out and take pictures?