Re: [Leica] 75/1.4 versus 90/2.0

["Raimo Korhonen" <raimo.korhonen@pp2.inet.fi>]

Yes - but magnification is a function of focal lenght and distance. It
seems to me that these are all interconnected. I=B4d still be intereste=
d to
know what the tables say.=20
Raimo
photos at http://personal.inet.fi/private/raimo.korhonen
nyt my=F6s suomeksi

- ----------
> From: Mark Walberg <Walberg@simmons.swmed.edu>
> To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Subject: Re: [Leica] 75/1.4 versus 90/2.0
> Date: 14. elokuuta 1998 23:31
>=20
> Raimo,   I think that depth of field is a function of magnification a=
nd
of
> f stop, but not of focal length.  In other words, an image made with =
the
> same magnification and the same f stop will have the same depth of fi=
eld
> even if taken with different focal length lenses.  So, that implies t=
hat
> for a particular magnification the f 1.4 lens will have less depth of
field
> than will the f 2 lens, ragardless of focal length. -Mark Walberg
>=20
> >Shallow yes - but if you are talking about portrait at 1 m with the =
90
mm
> >lens you must compare it with portrait at 0.83 m with the 75 mm lens
> >because of the lower magnification of the shorter lens. What do the
tables
> >say?
> >Raimo
>=20