Different lenses and focal length

[TonyE]

Hello all on my first post!

I have a Nikon D3200 and some Nikon lenses I've been using for years.
But it wasn't until now I have realised something weird when comparing two of my lenses, at least up to my understanding of course. I'm a begginer, so It's obvious I'm missing something...

Lens 1 is: AF-S DX NIKKOR 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED VR II
Photo taken at 200mm:

Lens 2 is: AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3G ED VR
Photo taken at 300mm:

That street number plate is placed several meters far from the camera.


Now I take a photograph of an object placed 2,10m far from the camera.

The 55-200 lens took this photo at 200mm:

whereas the 18-300 lens took this photo at 300mm:

I tought the longer the focal lenght, the narrower the angle of view... independently of the distance.
But this seems not to be the case, at least when comparing two different lenses...

What is the explanation for this?

Thank you very much!

 

[RAZKY]

Hello all on my first post!

I have a Nikon D3200 and some Nikon lenses I've been using for years.
But it wasn't until now I have realised something weird when comparing two of my lenses, at least up to my understanding of course. I'm a begginer, so It's obvious I'm missing something...

Lens 1 is: AF-S DX NIKKOR 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED VR II
Photo taken at 200mm:

View attachment 282964

Lens 2 is: AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3G ED VR
Photo taken at 300mm:

View attachment 282965

That street number plate is placed several meters far from the camera.


Now I take a photograph of an object placed 2,10m far from the camera.

The 55-200 lens took this photo at 200mm:

View attachment 282962

whereas the 18-300 lens took this photo at 300mm:

View attachment 282963


I tought the longer the focal lenght, the narrower the angle of view... independently of the distance.
But this seems not to be the case, at least when comparing two different lenses...

What is the explanation for this?

Thank you very much!

Try a Google search for "Focus Breathing."

 

[Thiophilos]

Hi, TonyE.

For this question, please post the photos without any cropping, and let us know the EXIF information.

And please come back and let us know you read this.

 

[wfooshee]

The first pair of images is what I would expect in a comparison of 200 to 300 millimeters. Without knowing how you've sized or cropped the images, your question cannot be answered. The post above mine is valid; we need the actual images, unresized and uncropped, with the EXIF data from the images.

 

[Thiophilos]

OP made just one post and has not been back.

Seems to be a common thing here at TPF.

 

[Dikkie]

Try a Google search for "Focus Breathing."

Hà cool, just learned a new thing here today

Next time I'm in a shop and a salesman tries to sell me something I'll ask this question: "Do you know if this lens is focus breathing corrected?"
And then notice how his hair instantly turns gray.

I advise doing this breathing technique:

 

[TonyE]

Try a Google search for "Focus Breathing."

Thanks a lot, this would perfectly explain the issue...although I would have never think of such a difference between those 2 lenses at short distance focus.

PD: "A word to the wise is enough." Congrats RAZKY.

Hi, TonyE.

For this question, please post the photos without any cropping, and let us know the EXIF information.

And please come back and let us know you read this.

The first pair of images is what I would expect in a comparison of 200 to 300 millimeters. Without knowing how you've sized or cropped the images, your question cannot be answered. The post above mine is valid; we need the actual images, unresized and uncropped, with the EXIF data from the images.

Hi. Images were not cropped in the sense you seem to mean (maybe +-1 pixel error at most at the edge from manually taken a region screenshot, which is nothing compared to what I'm trying to show you). Why would I have cropped them if i'm trying to compare focal lenght and the actual results?
Only meaninfull difference on EXIF apart from timestamp are lens model and "theoretical" (now that I know) focal lenght value, both of which are the ones I stated. Not even a difference in aperture or shutter speed.
I suppose you only want to make sure a newbie is not messing up things... but I consider question solved by RAZKY, so I won't upload new info. Thanks a lot anyway.

OP made just one post and has not been back.

Seems to be a common thing here at TPF.

Maybe not everyone has the time to daily check and reply in forums. Please relax...coming back after one week is not so much :^). Thanks again.

 

[RAZKY]

Thanks a lot, this would perfectly explain the issue...although I would have never think of such a difference between those 2 lenses at short distance focus.

The difference can be surprising - the field of view of one version of the 70~200 f/2.8 Nikkor, set at 200 and the closest distance, is said to equal that of a 135mm prime lens at the same distance.