35mm f2 - I thought this got me a 50mm?

... because it has been cropped . Your description is exactly what Bob GB and others have explained, which seems contrary to what desmobob is saying. Maybe there's a little confusion about what FOV means, but otherwise, you're just saying the same thing as far as I can tell.

As for desmobob, I still don't see what exactly he thinks is different about the "look" other than the DoF diff that Bob GB (and others) talked about. Since he seems to suggest it's more than just DoF, I can only guess that he is comparing the views at different perspectives/subject distances also, which is the "wrong" way to compare as far as this discussion's concerned. That is, maybe what he's actually doing is comparing the D70 + 24mm lens to the film body also w/ 24mm lens and composing the view so that a given subject has the same frame coverage area for both. If that's what he's doing, then yes, he will get very different looks because the perspectives will be very different. But he also won't be taking the shot from the same spot/distance either.

Man

Brad Berry said:

Bob GB said:

desmobob said:

Bob GB said:

Well, if you think about it, a 50 mm view is just a cropped part of
the 35 mm view, except for the depth of field. Geometrically, it is
precisely the same.

Click to expand...

In a theoretical sense, sure. In real life, it's not; especially
when you get into the wide angle lenses. Try it yourself and
see... shoot the same exact scene at 18mm with your D70 and with a
28 on your 35mm film body. (these lenses should be within a mm or
so due to the crop factor.) I bet you'll be able to easily pick
the 18mm shot.

I'll try and remember to do this the next time I shoot some film.
I'll post the shots.

Good shooting,
Bob Scott

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--



Just another amateur learning to paint w/ 'the light of the world.' (John 8:12)
Motto for the season: 'Cameras are for making photos, not war...'
See my profile for more + some basic photog resources.
As usual, YMMV + caveat emptor.
Contact me at [email protected]
Indulge my fancies at http://www.pbase.com/mandnwong

The 35 f/2 and the 50 f/1.4 have the same DOF as long as they're at the same aperture and the object in question is the same size.

See http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dof2.shtml for examples.

It's not quite fair to test them between the film and digital bodies. But you'll get the idea.

Joe

Bob GB said:

In real life, the difference is the depth of field, nothing more.
But it is a significant difference.

Click to expand...

I'm convinced there is something more, but the arguments otherwise are convincing me I'm mistaken.

I reserve further comment on the subject until after the holidays when I find time to shoot with film and digital and post the results. At that point, I'll admit I was wrong or jump up and down yelling "I told you so!" ;-)

Until then,
Happy Holidays!
I hope you all have a great holiday season (and take lots of photos),
Bob Scott

This thread repeats itself every week or two, starting out with the two different points of view and finally winding down to the inveitable reality that a 35mm lens on a DSLR will take the same basic image as a 50mm lens on a 35mm SLR- same field of view, same perspective as long as the camera to subject distance is the same. The only difference is DOF.

I have seen this thread replay itself 3 or 4 times in the past month here. If, at the end of every such thread, all parties come to this inveitable conclusion, why does it repeat over and over like some bad dream? Why does it take 40 posts to settle this basic optical issue? If I were retired I would go back and make lists of all the players to see if the players are changing or the old players have a memory span of perhaps 7 days or less. Any retirees volunteer for this job?

This is fertile ground for some sort of psychological study of crowds, or something like that.

))))

Regards,
Neil

I'm very familiar w/ that article as I have referenced it myself in the past, but while the observation is certainly useful enough in practice, the conclusion is not really quite true, especially at the extremes of DoF.

Here's a more accurate article on the subject although it might be more technical than most people would like to read:

http://www.dofmaster.com/dof_imagesize.html

Man

JoeFrost said:

The 35 f/2 and the 50 f/1.4 have the same DOF as long as they're at
the same aperture and the object in question is the same size.

See http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dof2.shtml for
examples.

It's not quite fair to test them between the film and digital
bodies. But you'll get the idea.

Joe

Click to expand...

--



Just another amateur learning to paint w/ 'the light of the world.' (John 8:12)
Motto for the season: 'Cameras are for making photos, not war...'
See my profile for more + some basic photog resources.
As usual, YMMV + caveat emptor.
Contact me at [email protected]
Indulge my fancies at http://www.pbase.com/mandnwong

NRothschild said:

This is fertile ground for some sort of psychological study of
crowds, or something like that.

))))

Click to expand...

Or perhaps a sociological study instead! ;-))))

Man

--



Just another amateur learning to paint w/ 'the light of the world.' (John 8:12)
Motto for the season: 'Cameras are for making photos, not war...'
See my profile for more + some basic photog resources.
As usual, YMMV + caveat emptor.
Contact me at [email protected]
Indulge my fancies at http://www.pbase.com/mandnwong

People that keep beating their heads against a brick wall need psychological study, not sociological study )))))))))))))

Regards,
Neil

Man-Fai Wong said:

NRothschild said:

This is fertile ground for some sort of psychological study of
crowds, or something like that.

))))

Click to expand...

Or perhaps a sociological study instead! ;-))))

Man

--



Just another amateur learning to paint w/ 'the light of the world.'
(John 8:12)
Motto for the season: 'Cameras are for making photos, not war...'
See my profile for more + some basic photog resources.
As usual, YMMV + caveat emptor.
Contact me at [email protected]
Indulge my fancies at http://www.pbase.com/mandnwong

Click to expand...

--
Regards,
Neil

Carry the perspective argument to the extreme. My Minolta D7Hi has a lens that is 7.2mm to 50.8mm. But the lens barrel is marked 28 at one end and 200 at the other end of travel. With the 7Hi sensor, this lens is equivalent to a 28-200 zoom on a 35mm film camera. But the images shot at the WA end do not look like they were taken with a 7.2mm lens on a 35mm camera. They look like they were taken with a 28mm lens. And if you are still not convinced, my Minolta X20 lens is 4.8 mm at the WA end. What would a cropped section of an 35mm film image taken with a 4.8mm lens look like? Not like the images I just posted an hour ago of my strap mods on the D70. They were taken with this camera at WA. They look like shots taken with a 35mm lens on a 35mm camera. So a shot taken with a 35 mm lens on a D70 will look like it was taken with a 50mm lens on a Nikon F.

Alan

georgeaye said:

hi there

after some research and after some weeks of new d70 ownership, I
went and got a new lens, the 35mm f2.

My previous experience with SLRs, is my trusty Canon A1 with a
50/1.4 which produces a wonderfully understandable and predictable
view from the viewfinder.

I was hoping for the 35mm f2 to act a like the 50mm since the
'cropping factor' of the d70 makes for 1.5x magnification...

Basically I bought a 35mm lens, and I think I'm getting 35mm
images. Which in of itself isn't a problem, since it's a very
usable lens, but I was somewhat under the impression that I'd get
50mm like images...

I just wonder where I got confused? Can someone explain what's
going on? I don't get 'it'.

thanks

g

Click to expand...

NRothschild said:

This thread repeats itself every week or two, starting out with the
two different points of view and finally winding down to the
inveitable reality that a 35mm lens on a DSLR will take the same
basic image as a 50mm lens on a 35mm SLR- same field of view, same
perspective as long as the camera to subject distance is the same.
The only difference is DOF.

I have seen this thread replay itself 3 or 4 times in the past
month here. If, at the end of every such thread, all parties come
to this inveitable conclusion, why does it repeat over and over
like some bad dream? Why does it take 40 posts to settle this
basic optical issue? If I were retired I would go back and make
lists of all the players to see if the players are changing or the
old players have a memory span of perhaps 7 days or less. Any
retirees volunteer for this job?

This is fertile ground for some sort of psychological study of
crowds, or something like that.

))))

Click to expand...

OK, I'm a new player. :^) I recall one thread in the past few weeks about this (where I found the luminous-landscape article)

I'm going to go read the dofmaster article. I'll come back and post 40 more times.

Joe

NRothschild said:

Regards,
Neil

Click to expand...

This issue seems to come up every week or two, and I really feel sorry for the ones asking the question and trying to wrap their head around around what should be a pretty straightforward concept. Unfortunately somebody invariably chimes in, sounding authoritative, and muddies the water by claiming that the wider lenses don't have the "perspective" of a longer lens on a full-frame camera. Sorry Bob but this is completely totally WRONG.

Let me say this loud and clear... LENSES DO NOT DETERMINE PERSPECTIVE. Perspective is determined by the actual spatial relationships between the subjects in the composition. In other words, PERSPECTIVE IS DETERMINED BY WHERE YOU ARE STANDING. Sorry to shout but some people just refuse to accept this concept and keep spreading misinformation that confuses others.

If you shoot the same composition from the same spot, once with 75mm lens on full-frame camera and again with 50mm lens on a DX camera, the field of view and perspective will be exactly the same. The only thing that will be different is the depth of field, with the DX shot having more DOF because DOF is determined by subject distance and focal length.

To the original poster, Jared Wilson already correctly answered your question in one of the first posts in this thread. Please disregard any conficting information in subsequent posts, no matter how well-intentioned it may be.

--
Jeff Kohn
Houston, TX
http://www.pbase.com/jkohn

I don' t think the Luminous Landscape article is applicable to the issue of FF SLR vs DSLR as it is discussed here. In LL article, he is comparing different lenses ON THE SAME SENSOR SIZE (film body) with the same subjects with one of the subjects normalized to be the same size.

That is different than the "crop" issue of our DLSRs. In our case, if we have a 50mm lens on an SLR and and 35mm lens on a DLSR, and the subject is the same size relative to each camera's frame, the subject is not the same size relative to an identical size sensor and that is the key point.

Regards,
Neil

Man-Fai Wong said:

Here's a more accurate article on the subject although it might be
more technical than most people would like to read:

http://www.dofmaster.com/dof_imagesize.html

Man

JoeFrost said:

The 35 f/2 and the 50 f/1.4 have the same DOF as long as they're at
the same aperture and the object in question is the same size.

See http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dof2.shtml for
examples.

It's not quite fair to test them between the film and digital
bodies. But you'll get the idea.

Joe

Click to expand...

--



Just another amateur learning to paint w/ 'the light of the world.'
(John 8:12)
Motto for the season: 'Cameras are for making photos, not war...'
See my profile for more + some basic photog resources.
As usual, YMMV + caveat emptor.
Contact me at [email protected]
Indulge my fancies at http://www.pbase.com/mandnwong

Click to expand...

--
Regards,
Neil

Well, don't plan on me responding 40 times )))

And, for the record, I just put a 50mm lens on my 8008 (film) camera, and a 35mm lens on my D70. I put the D70 on a tripod and rested the 8008 on the D70 hot shoe. I aimed at a scene (my kitchen) such that I had objects at or near the edges of the frame. I observed three things from this:

1) The two images were, indeed, virtually identical. The 50 on the SLR was, as expected a tad wider since the 35mm on the DSLR is closer to 52.5mm or so. Same field of view and same perspective. DOF, I haven't a clue; tough to tell looking through viewfinders.

2) Looking through the 8008 viewfinder was like looking at a movie screen in a cinema. Looking back though the D70 was like getting tunnel vision. I'm sorry I pulled the 8008 out Life would be so much easier with that viewfinder on a DLSR.

3) I popped my 12-24DX Nikkor on the 8008 for the first time, and even at about 16-17mm where the vignetting disappeared it was REALLY WIDE. I swept the camera around a room and actually got dizzy. I have never gotten dizzy looking through a viewfinder. I can't imagine the view with the Sigma. Part of my perception was the combination of being a little wider than at 12mm on the D70, plus that huge cinematic viewfinder which I am no longer used to.

Regards,
Neil

JoeFrost said:

NRothschild said:

This thread repeats itself every week or two, starting out with the
two different points of view and finally winding down to the
inveitable reality that a 35mm lens on a DSLR will take the same
basic image as a 50mm lens on a 35mm SLR- same field of view, same
perspective as long as the camera to subject distance is the same.
The only difference is DOF.

I have seen this thread replay itself 3 or 4 times in the past
month here. If, at the end of every such thread, all parties come
to this inveitable conclusion, why does it repeat over and over
like some bad dream? Why does it take 40 posts to settle this
basic optical issue? If I were retired I would go back and make
lists of all the players to see if the players are changing or the
old players have a memory span of perhaps 7 days or less. Any
retirees volunteer for this job?

This is fertile ground for some sort of psychological study of
crowds, or something like that.

))))

Click to expand...

OK, I'm a new player. :^) I recall one thread in the past few weeks
about this (where I found the luminous-landscape article)

I'm going to go read the dofmaster article. I'll come back and
post 40 more times.

Joe

JoeFrost said:

Regards,
Neil

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Regards,
Neil

Well, as several people have pointed out, this fact is not the debated matter. When moving up or away, you change the perspective.

-regards-

JoeFrost said:

The 35 f/2 and the 50 f/1.4 have the same DOF as long as they're at
the same aperture and the object in question is the same size.
It's not quite fair to test them between the film and digital
bodies. But you'll get the idea.

Joe

Click to expand...

NRothschild said:

Well, don't plan on me responding 40 times )))

Click to expand...

I bet you would! Ok, maybe just once more. :^)

NRothschild said:

And, for the record, I just put a 50mm lens on my 8008 (film)
camera, and a 35mm lens on my D70. I put the D70 on a tripod and
rested the 8008 on the D70 hot shoe. I aimed at a scene (my
kitchen) such that I had objects at or near the edges of the frame.
I observed three things from this:

1) Trimmed

2) Looking through the 8008 viewfinder was like looking at a movie
screen in a cinema. Looking back though the D70 was like getting
tunnel vision. I'm sorry I pulled the 8008 out Life would be
so much easier with that viewfinder on a DLSR.

Click to expand...

This is really getting me down. The D70 was the first SLR I've really used. Wandering through some used camera stores I picked up some old Nikon, can't remember which now, and it was beautiful. Absolutely beautiful. So I'm on a quest to pick up an old body and shoot some film. Should be fun.

NRothschild said:

3) Trimmed

Regards,
Neil

Click to expand...

Take care,

Joe

The old bodies are nice. Real viewfinders and all that. OTOH you needed one without autofocus or with some of the older, less reliable AF bodies. All in all I think my overall results are better with AF than anything I could do with my own eye with any viewfinder, but a lot of people would disagree with that. IOW, I would not want to go back, except for a quick trip down memory lane.

Regards,
Neil

JoeFrost said:

NRothschild said:

Well, don't plan on me responding 40 times )))

Click to expand...

I bet you would! Ok, maybe just once more. :^)

JoeFrost said:

And, for the record, I just put a 50mm lens on my 8008 (film)
camera, and a 35mm lens on my D70. I put the D70 on a tripod and
rested the 8008 on the D70 hot shoe. I aimed at a scene (my
kitchen) such that I had objects at or near the edges of the frame.
I observed three things from this:

1) Trimmed

2) Looking through the 8008 viewfinder was like looking at a movie
screen in a cinema. Looking back though the D70 was like getting
tunnel vision. I'm sorry I pulled the 8008 out Life would be
so much easier with that viewfinder on a DLSR.

Click to expand...

This is really getting me down. The D70 was the first SLR I've
really used. Wandering through some used camera stores I picked up
some old Nikon, can't remember which now, and it was beautiful.
Absolutely beautiful. So I'm on a quest to pick up an old body and
shoot some film. Should be fun.

JoeFrost said:

3) Trimmed

Regards,
Neil

Click to expand...

Take care,

Joe

Click to expand...

--
Regards,
Neil