Big lenses

[480sparky42 42]

Sorry. I thought this pissing contest was about lenses we actually own.


My bad. Carry on.

 

[TheNevadanStig]

Came across this on facebook that made me think of this thread.
Overkill much? I could have gotten a proper shot with a P&S:

https://www.facebook.com/AnimalArk....1396408595./10152140226495734/?type=3&theater

 

[tecboy]

Came across this on facebook that made me think of this thread.
Overkill much? I could have gotten a proper shot with a P&S:

https://www.facebook.com/AnimalArk....1396408595./10152140226495734/?type=3&theater

That is far too close to shoot this animal with that telephoto lens.

 

[TheNevadanStig]

Came across this on facebook that made me think of this thread.
Overkill much? I could have gotten a proper shot with a P&S:

https://www.facebook.com/AnimalArk....1396408595./10152140226495734/?type=3&theater

That is far too close to shoot this animal with that telephoto lens.

Its a small animal sanctuary, the pens only go back about 20'. So even at the back of the pen...

 

[StoneNYC]

The need for BIG lenses is also about compressing the image for such a SMALL image taking area... If you used a real camera you wouldn't need a big lens

Hehe

 

[Gavjenks]

The need for BIG lenses is also about compressing the image for such a SMALL image taking area... If you used a real camera you wouldn't need a big lens ;-)

? Large image circles fundamentally require more glass.

LF lenses have some compactness to them by comparison more because they don't ever zoom and because they don't need focal groups, and because simpler ones don't correct for as much distortion usually (modern ones tend to be bigger and heavier!). The focus thing is pretty much "cheating" since that doesn't work unless you have the focusing ability of the front standard to back it up. Also they don't have to have empty space in them, also "cheating" insofar as offloading an obligation to take up that same space in the bellows

 

[unpopular]

MIRROR LENSES DON'T COUNT!

That includes telescopes, sparky!

 

[unpopular]

? Large image circles fundamentally require more glass.

uhm ... no.... While what you said after is true, the fundamental reason why LF glass is smaller is because of the tremendous amount of back focus typically available and the smaller aperture permitted.

A simple 12mm diameter DCX can project a wall-sized image provided that you give it enough space.

I am pretty sure about any lens could in theory cover any circle (divergence is, after all, how taking lenses work). The problem is that the minimum focus would be behind the front element, or the extension factor would be so excessive to be completely impractical (think meters). Certainly, infinity focus wouldn't be possible even if you could get it to focus to anything.

 

[StoneNYC]

? Large image circles fundamentally require more glass.

uhm ... no....

+1

My 300mm lens that covers 8x10 is smaller than a canon "thrifty fifty" (50mm f/1.8) and just about the same weight too...

I was however joking about the "real camera" stuff. I own a canon 70-200 2.8 mk2 also, and that glass is ridiculously heavy. I could sell the whole lens and buy an entire brand new 8x10 setup. It's kind of ironic, the smaller the format the more expensive the gear... Lol.

Most typical BIG lenses are only as good as the air around you, the long lenses 300mm and up, for 35mm, may be excellent or crappy "on paper" but typically you're shooting something far away, and the air quality in the world is pretty poor these days, add heat layers etc in the air currents, and it doesn't matter as much if you have the best or the crappiest. Especially with anything modern (made in the last 10 years).

 

[480sparky42 42]

MIRROR LENSES DON'T COUNT!

That includes telescopes, sparky!

Sez who?

 

[Gavjenks]

? Large image circles fundamentally require more glass.

uhm ... no.... While what you said after is true, the fundamental reason why LF glass is smaller is because of the tremendous amount of back focus typically available and the smaller aperture permitted.

A simple 12mm diameter DCX can project a wall-sized image provided that you give it enough space.

I am pretty sure about any lens could in theory cover any circle (divergence is, after all, how taking lenses work). The problem is that the minimum focus would be behind the front element, or the extension factor would be so excessive to be completely impractical (think meters). Certainly, infinity focus wouldn't be possible even if you could get it to focus to anything.

...Yes, obviously I mean in focus :roll:
Otherwise, this is like saying "Any lens can achieve 1:1 macro, because you can physically put an object close enough to the element. Nevermind that it's out of focus macro"
In real life photography where you, you know, want to see something other than an impossibly mushy blur on your film, covering larger film = more glass, fundamentally, all other things equal.

I.e. a 300mm lens rated for 4x5 film fundamentally does not have to have as much glass in it mass-wise as a 300mm lens for 8x10 film

My 300mm lens that covers 8x10 is smaller than a canon "thrifty fifty" (50mm f/1.8) and just about the same weight too...

No, you're changing multiple variables... (aperture being the most hugely obvious one. But also one of them probably being slightly retrofocus due to the mirror whereas the LF one isn't, etc.)
When somebody makes a claim about only one variable, it is obviously assumed the others aren't changing willy nilly in the meantime. I.e., a lens that used the same design as yours but covered 11x14 would have to be larger.

Just like if you say ice is colder than water, it is to be generally assumed you aren't talking about one of them at Jovian atmospheric pressure and one at surface Earth pressure.

 

[vimwiz]

Especially with anything modern (made in the last 10 years).

I dont think thats true. if anything, the optics in new lenses havent improved any, in the last 30 years. Maybe at the low end, but premium glass is still premium glass.

Ive used a 500mm f/4.5 L in nFD mount, from sometime in the mid 80s. I tried this for my film body. I would say its ~ 2.5KG or less, 40cm long, and while pain to focus, it does give damn good pictures for around £800 *tops* used, whereas the modern EF version (I have tried a colleagues) is about £5000 or so , is only marginally less bulky and somehow weighs ****more****, but doesnt give any better pictures.

 

[StoneNYC]

I dont think thats true. if anything, the optics in new lenses havent improved any, in the last 30 years. Maybe at the low end, but premium glass is still premium glass.

Ive used a 500mm f/4.5 L in nFD mount, from sometime in the mid 80s. I tried this for my film body. I would say its ~ 2.5KG or less, 40cm long, and while pain to focus, it does give damn good pictures for around £800 *tops* used, whereas the modern EF version (I have tried a colleagues) is about £5000 or so , is only marginally less bulky and somehow weighs ****more****, but doesnt give any better pictures.

I meant in the low end long focal lengths...

On paper the premium glass is better, but in real life for most images you make prints for, you'll never notice the difference unless you're making something bigger than 20x24, and at that point you should be using a medium format digital or film if you care about detail.

 

[Solarflare]

Sorry. I thought this pissing contest was about lenses we actually own.

Well, then I cant join in !

My 300mm lens that covers 8x10 is smaller than a canon "thrifty fifty" (50mm f/1.8) and just about the same weight too...

Comedy gold !

Your 300mm normal lens for [approx] 200x250mm [aka 8x10 inch, and thats ignoring the fact you probably have a lot more room than that for the camera movements] is probably f/5.6, that "nifty fifty" is f/1.8 and its a lens for DSLRs, which means a lot of things change (no need for a central shutter, need for the ability to focus, autofocus motor, etc).

Plus of course the 50mm f1.8, at least on my Nikon, is a VERY small lens. Much smaller than its housing.

 

[StoneNYC]

Sorry. I thought this pissing contest was about lenses we actually own.

Well, then I cant join in !

My 300mm lens that covers 8x10 is smaller than a canon "thrifty fifty" (50mm f/1.8) and just about the same weight too...

Comedy gold !

Your 300mm normal lens for [approx] 200x250mm [aka 8x10 inch, and thats ignoring the fact you probably have a lot more room than that for the camera movements] is probably f/5.6, that "nifty fifty" is f/1.8 and its a lens for DSLRs, which means a lot of things change (no need for a central shutter, need for the ability to focus, autofocus motor, etc).

Plus of course the 50mm f1.8, at least on my Nikon, is a VERY small lens. Much smaller than its housing.

My lens also includes it's own shutter though, remove the shutter and it's even smaller

It's an f/8 and WITH shutter weighs 426g

So maybe it weighs more than the canon 1.8 with the shutter, but that's not the point of any of this... The point is simply that size and weight of the lens doesn't necessarily equal focal length, nor does it designate image quality.

That was my point.

There is SOME room for movements but not a ton BTW.