Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2013/01/29
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]It would be interesting for me at least to know if a longer lens gets a larger circle of confusion or smaller. The hippo in the kitchen nobody is mentioning is that it has little relevance or meaning to compare a 90mm against a 50mm at ten feet. What has real meaning or relevance is doing the comparing at same subject size. If you're doing a head and shoulder shot with a 50 at f 1 and then set up the same shot with a 75 or 90 at f1.4 or 2 your going to get less DOF as you stop down or use a slower lens. And when you stop down your Noct. To f2 it would match the long lens at f2. So a 1.4 long lens has not really less depth of field than a f1 normal unless you moronically don't back up when you make the shot. As when the subject size is the same f2 is f2 pretty much regardless of focal length. Though this COC being different at different focal lengths is a new one and makes it more interesting. Not heard or read that one before that I recall. On 1/29/13 3:19 PM, "Herbert Kanner" <kanner at acm.org> wrote: > 1. The depth of field values depend on a decision as to an acceptable > circle > of confusion. This is a given. > > 2. The size of the circle of confusion is geometrically calculated from two > numbers: 1) the focal length, which is the distance from the real principal > plane of the lens to the exact focal point (zero diameter for circle of > confusion) for parallel rays entering the lens e.g. subject at infinity; 2) > the f stop, which is the ratio of the focal length to the diameter of the > ray > bundle AS MEASURED AT THE REAL PRINCIPAL PLANE. > > So how can different lenses of the same focal length have different DOF > tables? Two possible explanations; I prefer the second. > > 1. The f number is a bit nominal and may not be all that accurate. 2. The > focal length is probably not exactly as stated. For instance, if one lens > came > out 74.7 mm and another 75.3 mm, wouldn't they both be called "75"? I > suspect > that all the complex calculations leading to corrections for all those > abberations: coma, spherical, astigmatism, chromatic--I think that's all of > them, would make it impractical to aim for an exact focal length. > > Just my guess. > > Herbert Kanner > kanner at acm.org > 650-326-8204 > > Question authority and the authorities will question you. > > > > > On Jan 29, 2013, at 12:02 PM, Cedric Agie wrote: > >> I have (plasticized) cards with DOF charts for all the lenses I've >> got. As well for Leica as for Hasselblad. When in doubt, for example >> with a tele or a macro set-up, I always have them at hand and I check >> them before taking some pictures. Be it portraits, flowers or insects >> etc. It's too bad to discover that the nose, the eyes of the girl, the >> bird or the insect etc are out of focus when they are gone. In >> practice forget MFT arguments, because for you they are useless. It's >> good for the optical engineers to conceive and check the lenses they >> produce...... check what the others are doing or for the people of the >> sales department who don't always know what to say to sell their so >> called new and better products. Also forget arguments such as cit; >> ".... small residual optical faults corrected in the camera >> software....". >> >> It takes some thinking and time to calculate or check these DOF charts >> for the lenses you've got. But do it, it's a good exercise. Sometimes >> you'll discover strange things or funny phenomenon's and even mistakes >> that went unnoticed for 10's of years. Even in Leica (Leitz) or Zeiss >> letterature. You'll know your lenses much better. And by the way, when >> you're reading articles or hear arguments, you'll soon discover if the >> guy really knows what he is talking about. In the end it will stay >> somewhere in the back of your mind. That makes the difference between >> an even talentfull amateur and a very good professional photographer. >> The pro will take one or two pictures. Some amateurs will show you the >> one picture he or she took almost by chance and not the others. >> >> Is it really necessary to pay almost two times the price of a lens for >> an increase of just one stop and a DOF that is suddenly reduced to >> centimetres or millimetres? For macro follow this rule: fully close >> the opening of your (best) lens and then open it one stop. And check >> it's DOF. To the contrary of what some say, digital photography hasn't >> changed these basic rules. >> >> Are your really going to walk around in daylight with a Noctilux 0.95 >> and a speed of 400 ISO or more? Or is it just for fun? When you do >> these calculations you really start thinking. And do take notes of >> your new tests. >> >> On the other hand I know (a very few) pro's who can walk around at >> night in a city, in a bar, around an orchestra or a theatre, inside >> it's buildings and take pictures in dim light, going unnoticed and >> come back with marvellous pictures. >> >> cedric.agie at gmail.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 2013/1/28 Marty Deveney <benedenia at gmail.com>: >>> On Tuesday, 29 January 2013, Frank Filippone wrote: >>> >>>> True, but note that the 90, at F2 , has the same limited DOF as the 75 >>>> at >>>> F1.4. >>>> >>>> We do not hear too much about difficulty with focusing the 90..... I >>>> wonder >>>> why not? >>>> >>> >>> My principal difficulties with the 75 Summilux occur closer than the 90 >>> focuses, in the extremely shallow dof range under 1 m. >>> >>> Marty >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Leica Users Group. >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information -- Mark William Rabiner Photography http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/