When 135mm isn't...

**Lowell Goudge** · 12-04-2014, 06:51 PM

Originally posted by stevebrot

Yes, by definition, though it is not validation as much as convention for measurement.

What I find funny is that people don't complain that the FOV of their external focus primes becomes narrower with close focus.

Steve

But they do complain about loss of aperture . With the reduction in focal length at close focus at least you do not give up aperture

LensBeginner · 12-05-2014, 02:12 AM

Originally posted by stevebrot

Yes, by definition, though it is not validation as much as convention for measurement.

What I find funny is that people don't complain that the FOV of their external focus primes becomes narrower with close focus.

Steve

If I'm going near an object then it stands to reason that I want it bigger in the picture... so narrower FoV is appreciated...
At those distance just one single step behind has a huge effect on the reproduction size, so no issues there.

stevebrot · 12-05-2014, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by LensBeginner

If I'm going near an object then it stands to reason that I want it bigger in the picture... so narrower FoV is appreciated...

Not only appreciated, but expected! It is counter-intuitive to not have the FOV reduced despite our own eyes not working that way. I have to admit to feeling a little cheated when I discovered that "feature" on my Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.0 (C). I bought it for the extra reach and really wanted a FOV equivalent to 70mm at portrait distances.

Steve

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Abstract Life isn't fair!	robjmitchell	Post Your Photos!	9	08-01-2018 12:40 PM
Nature Isn't she gorgeous	Panteg	Post Your Photos!	14	07-11-2018 10:06 AM
Why GoPro’s Success Isn’t Really Isn't about the Cameras	interested_observer	General Photography	16	07-01-2014 05:05 PM
What to do when 1:1 Macro isn't quite close enough	pentaxman	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	14	11-29-2008 05:14 PM
Camera cleaning - When the dust isn't on the sensor?	cputeq	Pentax DSLR Discussion	9	05-17-2008 11:08 PM

12-04-2014, 06:51 PM	#16
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,892	Originally posted by stevebrot Yes, by definition, though it is not validation as much as convention for measurement. What I find funny is that people don't complain that the FOV of their external focus primes becomes narrower with close focus. Steve But they do complain about loss of aperture . With the reduction in focal length at close focus at least you do not give up aperture

12-05-2014, 02:12 AM	#17
LensBeginner Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Photos: Albums Posts: 4,696	Originally posted by stevebrot Yes, by definition, though it is not validation as much as convention for measurement. What I find funny is that people don't complain that the FOV of their external focus primes becomes narrower with close focus. Steve If I'm going near an object then it stands to reason that I want it bigger in the picture... so narrower FoV is appreciated... At those distance just one single step behind has a huge effect on the reproduction size, so no issues there.

12-05-2014, 12:00 PM	#18
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by LensBeginner If I'm going near an object then it stands to reason that I want it bigger in the picture... so narrower FoV is appreciated... Not only appreciated, but expected! It is counter-intuitive to not have the FOV reduced despite our own eyes not working that way. I have to admit to feeling a little cheated when I discovered that "feature" on my Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.0 (C). I bought it for the extra reach and really wanted a FOV equivalent to 70mm at portrait distances. Steve