Originally posted by UncleVanya Enjoy your dogma.
"Dogma"... don't you think that describes "equivalence" perfectly?
---------- Post added 21-04-19 at 01:53 AM ----------
Oh, and let's go back to the first post of this thread because it's priceless:
Originally posted by oh_9000 just got bit confused here about DA* 300mm. What focal distance will this lens give on APSC camera? DA* would suggest it is made for APSC and it would be 300mm on K3 as such, however the description in the lens review on the forum states it is designated for 35mm/full frame. Then the note below on the same tab mentions it works ok for full frame...
and to this:
Originally posted by oh_9000 I also understand that if I take for instance DFA 100mm macro lens and mount it on my K3, the pictures it takes would be same as with using a 150mm apsc designated lens.
cheers Ondrej
The OP is blameless, of course - he was just fed dogma (UncleVanya won't get upset if I use his term, right?
) instead of information.
He's misled to assume that a label on a lens somehow has an influence on its focal length. He's actually trying to make sense of the nonsense. He's trusting the supposedly more experienced people who aren't there to help, but to mislead.
Ondrej, if it isn't clear at this point: 100mm is 100mm period. Any 100mm will behave exactly* the same** as any other 100mm you can put on the same camera.
On a K-1, using APS-C designated lenses might give you vignetting, but otherwise you will get the same result as with a FF designated lens of the same focal length.
On a K-3, using FF designated lenses will give you the same result as with an APS-C designated lens.
* allowing for some variation due to different optical construction, focal length marking not being extremely precise, focus breathing etc.
** in terms of field of view
How come "equivalence" threads (including those hijacked) include both clear example of the confusion it creates, and people claiming that no, it's not confusing but "useful"?