Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/11/09
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]you're right - depth of field has a direct relationship to focal length. It's one point that's sometimes overlooked when talking about medium and large format camera (used without movements)! Their lenses (say 80 and 150 mm respectively) have a respective depth of field shallower than our 'standard' 50 mm lens. but the same as (respectively) our 80 and 150 mm lens i.e a 50mm 'wide angle' on MF has the same depth of field as a 50mm lens for 35mm cameras (one thing where leica can be no better or worse than any other maker ;-^() - ----- Original Message ----- From: "M.E.Berube" <MEB@goodphotos.com> To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> Sent: 08 November 2000 16:55 Subject: RE: [Leica]Why a 35mm lens? > At 12:56 AM 11/8/00 +0100, Alan Hull wrote: > >So I thought "zone focus" and change to a 35mm lens to increase DOF. > >Which of course is nonsense as DOF has nothing to do with focal length. > > Huh? > Admittedly, I'm not an expert on photo theory and often confuse it all > round, but everything that I was taught, and my brief 20 years experience > hath shewn, that lenses of short focal length produce greater depth of > field than do standard lenses at the same aperture. > > Or did I misunderstand? > > Carpe Luminem, > Michael E. Berube > >