Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-09-2011, 07:41 PM   #16
Veteran Member
alohadave's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Quincy, MA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,024
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
I've actually compared the image size of my vivitar against my super-tak 85/1.9. The change in focal length is real
I think that you are going to need to show up examples.

03-10-2011, 11:16 AM   #17
Inactive Account




Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 4
QuoteOriginally posted by sigurdhu Quote
Dave,

I think the correct formula is: m = f/(d-f).

Sigurd.
The OP wanted to find the focal length.
Hence the formula for the focal length will be: f = md/(1+m)

Sigurd

Last edited by sigurdhu; 03-18-2011 at 09:00 AM.
03-10-2011, 05:21 PM   #18
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,314
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by sigurdhu Quote
The OP wanted to find the focal length.
Hence the formula for the focal length will be: f = md/(1+m)

Sigurd
Actually omwojldmlike people tO post the results for their lenses
03-10-2011, 05:25 PM   #19
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
Actually omwojldmlike people tO post the results for their lenses
Lowell, you should lay off the hallucinogens, they're producing strange results.

03-10-2011, 06:53 PM   #20
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,314
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by RioRico Quote
Lowell, you should lay off the hallucinogens, they're producing strange results.
Actually you are seeing an apple product at it's best. My iPod has it's own interpretation of typing
03-10-2011, 06:53 PM   #21
New Member




Join Date: May 2009
Location: Houston
Posts: 13
It was good example, where 28-300 had shorter focus than 70-210.
03-11-2011, 09:22 AM   #22
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,314
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Pigeon Quote
It was good example, where 28-300 had shorter focus than 70-210.
I quite agree, the issue is that all lenses are different, and what i was hoping was that we could some-how get this data available so people might have a chance to consider it as part of their purchase decision.
03-11-2011, 09:38 AM   #23
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,772
For convenience, it's pretty standard to only be concerned with focal length at infinity. Even assuming you're right and that focal length changes as you get closer to the lens, I'm not sure it's information I want to try and carry around with me. You can see the results through the viewfinder. If you don't get the result you like you switch lenses. That doesn't change because you've calculated a 15 focal lengths at different parts of the distance scale.

03-11-2011, 09:50 AM   #24
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
For convenience, it's pretty standard to only be concerned with focal length at infinity. Even assuming you're right and that focal length changes as you get closer to the lens, I'm not sure it's information I want to try and carry around with me. You can see the results through the viewfinder. If you don't get the result you like you switch lenses. That doesn't change because you've calculated a 15 focal lengths at different parts of the distance scale.
Indeed. WYSIWYG applies. Eyeball the effects and adjust your position accordingly. Sure, such variance may be significant in technical / forensic shooting, where some greater degree of precision is required. But that work would likely call for use of something other than a consumer-grade varifocal lens, too.
03-11-2011, 10:53 AM   #25
Inactive Account




Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Ames, Iowa, USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,965
One place where it matters a bit is for macro photography when the user cares about working distance. IF macro lenses may achieve high magnification by shortening their focal length.

This just means that something like the focusing distance at highest magnification should be in the specs list and the shopper should be aware of its importance.

For example the Tamron 180mm (IF) 3.5 macro lens' minimum focusing distance is 430mm at 1:1 magnification. That implies its focal length at 1:1 magnification is about 430/4= 108mm.

http://www.tamron.com/en/photolens/di_macro/b01.html

Tamron's 90mm IF macro lens is close to 72mm at 1:1 http://www.tamron.com/en/photolens/di_macro/272e.html

Last edited by newarts; 03-11-2011 at 11:15 AM.
03-11-2011, 02:43 PM   #26
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,314
Original Poster
where I think it matters is when looking at lenses and uses.

While I admit I had an error in the calculation of my 85mm, it is clear that some lenses do suffer rather badly in loss of focal length, and this has been confirmed by others on the post. the question is how quickly do you lose focal length?

what about some lenses like the 18-250mm lenses. We always tell people on the forum that 18 isn't wide enough in all cases, yet if you are in somewhat close, like a church interior, it may not matter because 18 is really 16 or 14. it is worth knowing at least where the limits are,

While I accept focusing near infinity it does not matter, focusing close, it might.

while the argument about field of view etc is valid, and you can reframe and move as you wish, movement is not always possible.
03-20-2011, 02:32 PM   #27
Inactive Account




Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 4
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
As to the source of the formula,

M = f / (f-d) where D is the distance to the lens (S2) this is from the same wikipedia page, just a little further down than the formula 1/S1 + 1/S2 = f/F
Lowell,

The correct formulae here are:
M = f / (d-f)
1/S1 + 1/S2 = 1/f

Also note that S2 is the distance to the lens from the image plane.
Hence S1 is the distance to the lens from the object plane.
I think your d (or D) is approximately equal to S1.

Last edited by sigurdhu; 03-21-2011 at 04:03 AM.
03-22-2011, 02:32 PM   #28
Inactive Account




Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 4
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
What about some lenses like the 18-250mm lenses. We always tell people on the forum that 18 isn't wide enough in all cases, yet if you are in somewhat close, like a church interior, it may not matter because 18 is really 16 or 14. it is worth knowing at least where the limits are.

Lowell,

Let us do the 18 – 250 mm lens as you suggest:
The main specifications at PENTAX NEWS release 2007 : smc PENTAX-DA 18-250mmF3.5-6.3ED AL [IF] state:
Minimum focusing distance: 0.45 m (1.48 ft) (0.45 m = 450 mm)
Maximum magnification: 0.28

Using thin lens formulae:

m = S2/S1
S2 = mS1
S2 = 0.28S1

S1 + S2 = 450
S1 + 0.28S1 = 450
S1= 450/1.28 = 351.6 mm

f = mS1/(1 + m)
f = 0.28351.6/1.28 = 76.9 mm
Quite far from 250 mm!


What would the total distance from the focal plane to the object plane be if
f = 250 mm and still m = 0.28?

From the formulae above:
S1 = f(1 + 1/m)
S1 = 250(1 + 1/0.28) = 1142.9 mm

S2 = mS1
S2 = 0.281142.9 = 320 mm

S1 + S2 = 1142.9 + 320 = 1462.9 mm
So in this case the total distance from the focal plane to the object plane is more than 1 m longer than 0.45 m!

So what do you think?

Last edited by sigurdhu; 03-23-2011 at 04:54 AM.
03-22-2011, 04:04 PM   #29
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,314
Original Poster
Sigurdhu

I think you should take shots at min and max focal length at a measured distance from the front element and look at the magnification factor , and use this to calculate the true focal lengths. With any of these lenses you don't know what FL maximum magnification is at but your first calculation suggests it is probably at maximu FL, as does the minimum focusing distance
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
distance, field, focus, k-mount, length, lens, lenses, magnification, pentax lens, post, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Focal length on M-series lens jackbullet Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 16 07-31-2009 09:01 AM
manual lens focal length nodretep Pentax DSLR Discussion 3 03-11-2009 04:16 AM
What is your most used Lens/focal length Fl_Gulfer Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 43 02-21-2009 12:36 PM
One lens, one focal length. Forever. pingflood Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 54 12-05-2008 06:01 PM
K10D + lens focal length jshurak Pentax DSLR Discussion 2 10-17-2007 10:44 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:42 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top