Wrong. WRONG! You entered a wrong object distance! Object distance is NOT the same as minimum focus distance! Read the instructions! But thanks for settling the issue yourself, I already started doubting that I was right.
Scott,
Yup. The object distance as defined on that page is at least:
Maybe because it's Sunday.
Why don't you comment on the calculations done using the calculator you suggested? As I stated in a previous post, the subject apparently getting bigger can be misleading.
Focal length is DEFINED by the field of view. Nothing else, really. So when the field of view gets more narrow, you can/may/should conclude that the focal length increases.
Can you direct me to the post where you explained why apparently getting a bigger subject can be misleading?
Don't need to - I have enough lenses right here
That picture concurs with my own experience with some lenses I posted below.
Can you explain how the field of view has nothing to do with focal length? Because the field of view clearly changes. And field of view is what focal length defines...Don't need to - I have enough lenses right here
That picture concurs with my own experience with some lenses I posted below.
However, this is not proof that the focal length gets longer with decreasing subject distance for the 70-200 - neither for the f/4 Canon nor for the f/2.8 Nikkor.
Focal length can only be measured when subject is in focus. And even the web site with the calculator that you so kindly provided returns a 180mm focal length for the 70-200 VR when the correct object distance is used.
Fine. Let's assume for a moment that what you are saying is correct and the Nikon 70-200 VR I gains focal length with decreasing subject distance.Can you explain how the field of view has nothing to do with focal length? Because the field of view clearly changes. And field of view is what focal length defines...Don't need to - I have enough lenses right here
That picture concurs with my own experience with some lenses I posted below.
However, this is not proof that the focal length gets longer with decreasing subject distance for the 70-200 - neither for the f/4 Canon nor for the f/2.8 Nikkor.
Focal length can only be measured when subject is in focus. And even the web site with the calculator that you so kindly provided returns a 180mm focal length for the 70-200 VR when the correct object distance is used.
In my image, the back ground of the close focused photo is less wide, AND the in focus subject is noticeably bigger.
In my image, the back ground of the infinity focussed photo is wider, AND the out of focus subject is noticeably smaller.
Only one conclusion can be drawn: the focal length increases/field of view decreases when focussing closer.
You suggest that others read books on optics and math, but don't bother reading the thread you participate in, or the guidelines for the focal length calculator you're using. You make a huge fuss about others using "wrong" forumlas (because they don't support your statement), while you don't even bother putting correct numbers into yours (because that way, you get numbers that support your statements). And after getting egg on your face, you don't even bother wiping it off before starting the next round of attacks. Tiresome, to say the least.
So you can not direct me to your post where you explain why getting a more narrow view when focussing closer does not mean the focal length gets longer?
So, if we suppose that the lens at infinity actually IS around 200mm. And we see the field of view get more narrow at close focus. Then either two things (maybe more, always open to suggestions and ideas) can be "up with that":Fine. Let's assume for a moment that what you are saying is correct and the Nikon 70-200 VR I gains focal length with decreasing subject distance.Can you explain how the field of view has nothing to do with focal length? Because the field of view clearly changes. And field of view is what focal length defines...Don't need to - I have enough lenses right here
That picture concurs with my own experience with some lenses I posted below.
However, this is not proof that the focal length gets longer with decreasing subject distance for the 70-200 - neither for the f/4 Canon nor for the f/2.8 Nikkor.
Focal length can only be measured when subject is in focus. And even the web site with the calculator that you so kindly provided returns a 180mm focal length for the 70-200 VR when the correct object distance is used.
In my image, the back ground of the close focused photo is less wide, AND the in focus subject is noticeably bigger.
In my image, the back ground of the infinity focussed photo is wider, AND the out of focus subject is noticeably smaller.
Only one conclusion can be drawn: the focal length increases/field of view decreases when focussing closer.
It follows that the maximum focal length of that lens must be 180mm - according to that calculator that you insisted on using for the last 2 days, after correcting your false input for object distance (see my post above: "Indeed").
Now we also know that manufacturers are required to state the focal length of a lens at infinity, and within a certain tolerance (I believe it was 5%). Since the 70-200 VR must have less than 180mm focal length at infinity if your hypothesis is true, it must be concluded that Nikon grossly misstated the focal length of that lens!
That's a contradiction - the 70-200 VR must be at least 190mm at infinity if Nikon is following the rules.
So, what's up with that?
If you go to a great restaurant, pay $400 per person, the food, service, wine, room are all fantastic but you order pan roasted sea bass and you get poached lobster, would you send it back to the kitchen because it is not what you ordered?
