Tables of Lenses

[20droger]

February 2011 version.

Attached to the first three posts in this thread are tables of lenses, teleconverters, and extension tubes. These tables have again been completely redone to include those features requested by a majority of the readers, including images of the lenses, etc. These tables have been updated in February, 2011, to include more data than ever before.

I have released the copyright on these file to the public domain. You may use, copy, and/or disseminate them to your heart's content. It would be nice if you give me credit when your disseminate them, but that is not a requirement.

IMPORTANT NOTE: This is the last set of table I shall be posting here. If any brave soul would like to take over this ongoing project, PM me and we'll talk.

These files are formatted for viewing, not printing. If you would like the Master Table in Microsoft Word 2007 (.docx) format, just PM me your e-mail address. You may then reformat the tables for printing or anything else, or use the data for your own tables or whatever.

To assist in determining if you have downloaded the latest tables, the five files have the following names:

1102_Instr.pdf == The instructions—Be sure you download these!
1102_Prime.pdf == Table of Prime Lenses
1102_Zoom1.pdf == Table of Zoom Lenses, part 1
1102_Zoom2.pdf == Table of Zoom Lenses, part 2
1103_Other.pdf == Tables of Macro Lenses, Tilt and Shift Lenses, Teleconverters, and Extension Tubes

Hope you find these tables useful. Enjoy!

R. Roger Breton

[20droger]

This post contains the third and fourth of the updated tables.

Enjoy.

[20droger]

This post contains the last of the five updated tables.

[luckyart60]

Thanks interesting information

[gkuenning]

What an incredibly useful table!

This looks like it was made from a spreadsheet. If so, would it be possible to post the spreadsheet as well? That way, we could update it with additional information. (For example, photozone.de publishes detailed resolution and CA figures, which could be added. Over time, as a community effort, we might be able to produce the definitive lens buying guide.)

[Longwatcher]

Feel free to make your own table with all the old lenses you wish. I made this table for my purposes. I'm only sharing it here, and nothing requires you to use it.


I am not that obsessive/compulsive :)

Since I mostly have Canon lenses (actually all lenses for my DSLR are now Canon as I gave my Brother my crappy Tamron lens with the D60). I generally use the Canon camera museum lens listing as it gives me a lot more info about the lens. About the only thing it doesn't is a subjective rating of who people like the lens.

[20droger]

What an incredibly useful table!

This looks like it was made from a spreadsheet. If so, would it be possible to post the spreadsheet as well? That way, we could update it with additional information. (For example, photozone.de publishes detailed resolution and CA figures, which could be added. Over time, as a community effort, we might be able to produce the definitive lens buying guide.)
Actually, it was made from a giant table in Word, formatted for landscape 11×17 pages. The table was then divided into pieces to fit on portrait 8.5×11 pages.

The master table is over 1MB in size, a bit big for posting. If you want it, PM me your email, and I will send it to you. And the same for anyone else. I consider this in the public domain.

[mangkukhayun]

Good God! I have been waiting for something like this for a while. Good job mate!!

[jmbboss]

Thanks for the list! I have been waiting too! Great job!

[20droger]

You are all more than welcome.

[rhys]

I used Adobe 6.0 to make the file, not read it.


I use Open Office to make my PDFs.

[ans3288]

wow a comprehensive list! nice job! :)

[devil350]

Thanks for your job.

[SIMPLEPHOTOLT]

Thanks a lot for sharing

[hlcowan]

This is great! Thank you for sharing!
Pm sent with email address - I would love a copy of your original word document. :lol:

[4walls]

Great PDF of the lenses. Thanks for that. Must have been a lot of work.

Also, downloaded Foxit Reader for PDF's. I like it so far.

[Mowman]

Great table. I am using it to narrow down my choices for my next wide angle lens.

[Pasukun]

Very nice Chart! I love it!
Thanks a bunch!

[Pasukun]

You know what will be awesome to add in your chart?
MTF graphs from the Canon!
It will add another depth of detail to your document.
Just a thought.

[20droger]

You know what will be awesome to add in your chart?
MTF graphs from the Canon!
It will add another depth of detail to your document.
Just a thought.
Feel free. The chart is in the public domain. I would even send you the master chart, which is an MS word document.

[Eydz]

informative piece, thanks !

[Chumley]

What a labour of love! Thanks for this. Just a couple of thoughts :

You have an "In" section and an "Out" section - shouldn't the IS lenses be in a "Shake it all about" section?

On a slightly more serious note, this really illustrates the lack of choice for lenses for 1.6 crop bodies. For example, the 1.6 equivalent to the ubiquitous 50mm would be 31mm, but no such lens exists. Similarly there is a real shortage of wide-angles, but maybe that's inevitable.

It's the same with zooms - there's only the 10-22 which really equates to a "standard" 35mm zoom (the 16-35). There are no equivalents for the 28-105, 55-200 or 70-200. The EF-S 17-85 is probably the nearest, but that is generally considered to be a poor lens.

This really does call Canon's commitment to smaller sensors into question.

[Honeybee]

Thanks for sharing; next time add a little salt!:lol:

[20droger]

What a labour of love! Thanks for this. Just a couple of thoughts :

You have an "In" section and an "Out" section - shouldn't the IS lenses be in a "Shake it all about" section?

On a slightly more serious note, this really illustrates the lack of choice for lenses for 1.6 crop bodies. For example, the 1.6 equivalent to the ubiquitous 50mm would be 31mm, but no such lens exists. Similarly there is a real shortage of wide-angles, but maybe that's inevitable.

It's the same with zooms - there's only the 10-22 which really equates to a "standard" 35mm zoom (the 16-35). There are no equivalents for the 28-105, 55-200 or 70-200. The EF-S 17-85 is probably the nearest, but that is generally considered to be a poor lens.

This really does call Canon's commitment to smaller sensors into question.
Try the Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC HSM.

In the wide-angle department, try the following:
Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC HSM
Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
Tamron SP AF11-18mm F/4.5-5.6 Di II LD Aspherical (IF)

For a fisheye, try the Tokina AT-X 107AF DX Fish-Eye [10-17mm f/3.5-4.5]

There are bunches of zooms starting at 17-18mm and extending to various amounts.

[Chumley]

Sorry, I meant a shortage of Canon lenses.

Certainly companies like Sigma and Tamron are making lenses with 1.5 and 1.6 bodies in mind, but there's not much from Canon.

For example, there are only 7 lenses that cover 14-18mm and one of those is the kit lens, compared with 15 covering the equivalent 35mm range of 24-28mm. Now I know some of those are a bit long in the tooth and the list includes lenses that replace older ones, but I would imagine Canon sell far more crop bodies than full frame, so why not more shorter lenses?

[20droger]

Dunno. You'll have to ask Canon.

[PicSniper]

20droger, great job on the lens table! It is especially useful for someone like me, who just literally jumped into the world of DSLR photography! (it also happens to be my first post)

Anyways, I noticed a simple error in the listing that you might want to correct. The Canon kit lens, which happens to be the only lens I own so far, is listed in the aperture column as being a 2.8, when in fact it is a 3.5-5.6, as you've noted in the lens column.

I will definitely be using your lens table as a reference when I search for additional lenses, so thank you for the time you've invested. I certainly appreciate it!

Again, great job and thanks again!

[20droger]

Thank you. That has now been corrected in my master table.

By-the-by, that is not the kit lens, that is a USM version of the same lens. Canon doesn't sell the kit lens by itself, only as a part of a kit.

[PicSniper]

Thank you. That has now been corrected in my master table.

No problem.

By-the-by, that is not the kit lens, that is a USM version of the same lens. Canon doesn't sell the kit lens by itself, only as a part of a kit.

This is exactly why I'm hooked on this site. I learn many new things everyday! Thank you for the clarification.

[Vermin87]

EF-S 18-55 has IS? For $50 used, I should pick me up one of those! =) This is a cool chart, thanks for putting it together!

[20droger]

A completely new table is in the works & will be posted soon. It includes features requested by you, the viewers.

Sorry, no photos or MTF charts. I tried that and wound up with a 34 MB pdf file.

As they say, "Watch this space."

[gkuenning]

A completely new table is in the works & will be posted soon. It includes features requested by you, the viewers.

Sorry, no photos or MTF charts. I tried that and wound up with a 34 MB pdf file.

As they say, "Watch this space."

Also, I'm working on converting Roger's table into an SQL database. I won't have extensive time until summer, but my hope is to set up a Web site where you can search based on various characteristics. (It's an excuse to learn Ruby on Rails.)

[legend2x]

I am a beginner and this information helps me big time! Thank you.

[droiby]

The angles of view can actually be calculated based on the sensor size, and the focal length.

I've attached a spreadsheet that performs the calculations for you. You just simply need to enter the horizontal/vertical dimensions of your sensor, and also the focal length of the lens.

Note: These calculations only work on rectilinear lenses, so for other types of lenses (e.g., fish-eye lenses), you'll need to look up the manufacturer specs for this info.

[20droger]

Or, you can use this simple equation with virtually any scientific calculator:

A = 2·atan(s/(2·f))

where:
A = angle of view in degrees;
s = sensor size in millimeters in the direction of interest; and
f = focal length in millimeters.

Or, you can look in the tables provided free at the beginning of this thread.

[SunTsu]

Hello. Just wondering if anyone knows of a list of Canon lenses that also shows the beginning and end dates (or current if they are) of their life cycles.

[20droger]

Go to the Canon Camera Museum and look up the lens series in which you have an interest.

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/index.html

[SunTsu]

Go to the Canon Camera Museum and look up the lens series in which you have an interest.

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/index.html

That's a really cool site. Thanks! I'm not sure why, but I'm surprised at how long the product life cycles are for some of the lenses.

[DocFrankenstein]

That's a huge chunk of work. You even put the prices in.

How long did it take you to do this?

And why? (Sorry, just curious)

Will you update them with picture samples and 100% crops too? (Just kidding)

[20droger]

That's a huge chunk of work. You even put the prices in.

How long did it take you to do this?

And why? (Sorry, just curious)

Will you update them with picture samples and 100% crops too? (Just kidding)
"Version 1" started as a part of my "homework" when upgrading my wife to a DSLR. I had similar tables (long deleted, so don't ask) for Nikon and Pentax lenses.

I also had tables for camera brands and models. The Canon 20D won.

The current lens tables were done from scratch--previous tables were ignored. It took about 6 hours in Word. All the AoF tables were done in Excell and migrated into Word.

The nine focal lengths used for zoom lenses are derived by dividing the zoom range into geometric eigths. That is, the ratio between adjacent focal lengths is always the same. This is much as the manufacturers do it. For example, the "center" of the EF 100-400mm is 200mm (the geometric mean), not 250mm (the arithmetic mean). This maintains the ratios: 200:100 = 400:200.

Just consider these table my small contribution to POTN.

[JimmyNeutron]

Attached here are brand new lens and teleconverter tables

Both WinZip and Explorer tell me this is an invalid Zip file. Can you verify and update the post?

[SwimBikeRun]

Hi everyone, Newbie aboard!

Is there a calculator which can determine the approxomate size of the focal plane vertically and horizontally by angles and/or degrees of view combined with distance?

I see plenty of DOF calculators out there which is nice to gain a better understanding how DOF works and to see wether your lens is going to deliver a good product on a particular shot.

I would really like to be able to see "OK, I have my 200mm on, I am about 5 meters away from the object, so my focal plane window will be 23 cm wide and 17 cm high. At 7 meters I will cover 31 cm by 21 cm." Or I see an object, say a squirrel 30 yards away, and I want to know what lens to use best to get a 2 meters by 3 meters coverage.

I hope you understand what I mean. Maybe that is a foolish wish, if so tell me. But I think mathematically this should be possible to calculate for each lens when you know the angles of view. It´s just that I am not the mathematical whiz kid...

[droiby]

Welcome to the board!

You're right in that mathematically it's possible to calculate the vertical and horizontal window sizes from the angles in the lens tables. If you remember elementary trigonometry, tan(angle) = opposite/adjacent.

In the lens case, tan(angle of view / 2) = (window length / 2) / subject distance. Hence,

window length = 2 * subject distance * tan(angle of view / 2)

Worked example
The EF 50mm f/1.4 lens has a horizontal field of view of 40 degrees (on a FF body. If you have a crop sensor body, you'll have to use the effective field of view angle).

Let's say you're standing 10m away from your subject. Your horizontal window length will be 2 * 10 * tan(20 degrees), which is approx 7.3m. Same thing goes for the vertical length.

[gkuenning]

Hi everyone, Newbie aboard!

Is there a calculator which can determine the approxomate size of the focal plane vertically and horizontally by angles and/or degrees of view combined with distance?

I don't know of an online calculator, but the calculation is easy to do on any calculator that has trig functions (sine, cosine, and tangent). You do, however, need to be careful that the calculator is set to work in degrees and not radians.

If you have a horizontal field of view of view of h degrees, the horizontal coverage at a distance of d is just d times sin(h). For example, a 200mm lens on a 1.6-crop camera has a horizontal angle of view of about 6.4 degrees. So at 30 meters, the frame would cover sin(6.4) * 30 = 0.11 * 30 = 3.34 meters horizontally. Since a DSLR has a 3:2 aspect ratio, the vertical frame would be 2/3 of that, or 2.23 meters.

On a calculator, type 6.4, press Sin, times, 30, =.

The reverse calculation would be to type 3.34, divide, 30, =, Arcsin to find out you want a horizontal angle of view of 6.4 degrees; then you'd need to consult the lens tables to find the lens. On some calculators, Arcsin is labeled aSin or Sin-1 (with the "-1" as a superscript).

If you don't have the lens tables, it's possible to do the caculation from knowing the focal length and the sensor size; in fact, I suspect you don't even need to know trig. But it's time to go pick up my daughter. I'll try to remember to post more tonight if nobody else beats me to it.

[droiby]

I don't know of an online calculator, but the calculation is easy to do on any calculator that has trig functions (sine, cosine, and tangent). You do, however, need to be careful that the calculator is set to work in degrees and not radians.

If you have a horizontal field of view of view of h degrees, the horizontal coverage at a distance of d is just d times sin(h). For example, a 200mm lens on a 1.6-crop camera has a horizontal angle of view of about 6.4 degrees. So at 30 meters, the frame would cover sin(6.4) * 30 = 0.11 * 30 = 3.34 meters horizontally. Since a DSLR has a 3:2 aspect ratio, the vertical frame would be 2/3 of that, or 2.23 meters.

On a calculator, type 6.4, press Sin, times, 30, =.

The reverse calculation would be to type 3.34, divide, 30, =, Arcsin to find out you want a horizontal angle of view of 6.4 degrees; then you'd need to consult the lens tables to find the lens. On some calculators, Arcsin is labeled aSin or Sin-1 (with the "-1" as a superscript).

If you don't have the lens tables, it's possible to do the caculation from knowing the focal length and the sensor size; in fact, I suspect you don't even need to know trig. But it's time to go pick up my daughter. I'll try to remember to post more tonight if nobody else beats me to it.

You've got the gist of what you need to do (i.e., use trigonometry), but I'm afraid you've made a mistake in your calculations :)

Firstly, you need to use tangent, not sine. Secondly, you need to halve the angle of view before plugging it in. You then need to double the result.

Hence, in your example, it should be 2 * 30 * tan(3.2 degrees).

[SwimBikeRun]

OK guys, that doesn´t sound too hard to do. I should be able to make a spreadsheet with that info. I might even try do make a calculator with boxes to fill in with the distance and a dropdown for the lenses. Funny no one has done that yet. I would find that quite useful for quickly deciding on the right lens for a given situation and my idea of picture composition in mind.

OK, done it quickly in Excel. For 200mm = 10 degrees horizontal and assumed 6.66 degrees vertical, divided by 2 I get a tan of -3.38 horizontal, times e.g. 30 meters times 2 I get -202.83 meteres horizontal and -135.22 meters vertical. That can´t be right. OK, that is without crop, but it still looks wrong.

Do I need to calculate another way or did I misinterpret the instructions. And which one is it now, sin, sinarc or tan??

OH, I found something on the web that seems to do the job. They call it "Dimensional Field of View Calculator". At 200mm crop 1.6 and 10 meters distance I see 112 cm horizontal and 75 cm vertical, that sounds about right.

http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/calc.htm


Thanks for y´alls help again. :)

[gkuenning]

You've got the gist of what you need to do (i.e., use trigonometry), but I'm afraid you've made a mistake in your calculations :)

Firstly, you need to use tangent, not sine. Secondly, you need to halve the angle of view before plugging it in. You then need to double the result.

Hence, in your example, it should be 2 * 30 * tan(3.2 degrees).

You are entirely correct on both points. That's what I get for rushing my post.

However, as I intimated earler, there's a much simpler approach involving similar triangles, which doesn't require any trig at all, nor reference to lens tables.

The simple formula is: sensor width / focal length = frame width / distance. For the algebraically challenged, I'll give three useful variants in a moment.

One of the nice things about the triangle formula is that units drop out of it, which means you can even mix units to some extent. As long as sensor width and focal length are both measured in the same units (mm), and frame width and distance are in the same units, you'll get correct results. That means you can calculate in feet, meters, cm, or yards, as you need.

You can also substitute "height" for "width" above, if you choose. Or you can calculate first and then multiply by 2/3 to get the height.

The sensor width you should use is: 36mm for full-frame cameras; 27.7 mm (or round to 28 for nearly all purposes) for 1.3 crop bodies, 22.5 mm for 1.6 croppers like the Rebel and the 10/20/30D.

OK, now for some handy variants. I'll call the sensor width "s", the focal length "f", the subject distance "d", and the frame width "w". Remember that "s" and "f" must be in mm, and "d" and "w" must use the same units (both feet, both meters, etc.).


If you know the focal length f and distance to subject, the frame width is w = d * s / f.
If you know the desired frame width and subject distance, the focal length you need is f = s * d / w.
If you know the desired frame width and have a given focal length, the distance you need is d = w * f / s.
The fourth formula (calculating required sensor size given the other three parameters) is left as an exercise for the reader, since it's pretty silly. ;-)

Two remaining caveats:


The distance to subject is measured from the optical center of the lens. That would matter for macro shots; for normal distances the error won't be significant.
The formulas above assume a flat sensor (which is true) and a flat subject parallel to the sensor. Wide-angle lenses, especially fisheyes, can violate these assumptions.Repeating my previous example using these formulas, a 1.6 crop camera with a 200mm lens shooting at a distance of 30 meters would have a frame width of w = 30 * 22.5 / 200 = 3.375 meters.

Note that this differs slightly from the value given by droiby's formula above. The explanation lies in the value I used for AOV, which I took from the lens tables rather than calculating. The difference (6.40000 vs. 6.43899 degrees) is exactly enough to account for the discrepancy.

BTW, the triangle formulas above also agree precisely with the values given by the "Dimensional Field of View Calculator" found by SwimBikeRun. So you can use whichever you find convenient.

[SwimBikeRun]

If you know the focal length f and distance to subject, the frame width is w = d * s / f.
If you know the desired frame width and subject distance, the focal length you need is f = s * d / w.
If you know the desired frame width and have a given focal length, the distance you need is d = w * f / s.Ha, that does the trick! I made my Excel Calculator in 2 minutes and will be printing tables tomorrow.

Thx a million! :razz:

Wolf

[20droger]

[/list]Ha, that does the trick! I made my Excel Calculator in 2 minutes and will be printing tables tomorrow.

Thx a million! :razz:

Wolf
Tables are already printed for 1.0×, 1.3×, and 1.6× cameras. PM me your email, and they will be sent directly to you, or anyone.

They (and the lens and teleconverter tables) used to be here, ready for immediate downloading, but they were accidentally deleted. I contacted a moderator to put them back up, but was completely ignored.

[chauncey]

What you did was an enormous amount of work. thanks

[20droger]

Your welcome.

The tables will be updated evey few months--those manufacturers insist on creating new lenses--so be sure and come back periodically.

Next update will be around the middle of July.

[AussiePup]

Excellant work 20droger

I have been working on something similar in excel. I wanted to compare the various lens I had considered buying and then it turned into so much more. It is set up to filter each column so that you can view on those lenses in the critia you choose (i.e. Range, f-stop, Macro Lenses, L or EX class, IS/OS, etc). It is not as detailed as 20d's and it does not contain Tilt Lenses. It does have links to each lens web site for further information and the price is linked to the B&H product page for that individual lens.

The first column I use to put a "O" for own and a "W" for wish that way I could filter out those lenses I want to buy. But you can use it for anything you want I guess.

I was working on adding some more of the techincal specs to the table, but I think that would be reduntant based upon what has been posted. I did not take the time to test every link so if you find something wrong please let me know.

(Note: I had to upload as a .zip file)

[20droger]

Excellant work 20droger

I have been working on something similar in excel. I wanted to compare the various lens I had considered buying and then it turned into so much more. It is set up to filter each column so that you can view on those lenses in the critia you choose (i.e. Range, f-stop, Macro Lenses, L or EX class, IS/OS, etc). It is not as detailed as 20d's and it does not contain Tilt Lenses. It does have links to each lens web site for further information and the price is linked to the B&H product page for that individual lens.

The first column I use to put a "O" for own and a "W" for wish that way I could filter out those lenses I want to buy. But you can use it for anything you want I guess.

I was working on adding some more of the techincal specs to the table, but I think that would be reduntant based upon what has been posted. I did not take the time to test every link so if you find something wrong please let me know.

(Note: I had to upload as a .zip file)
Very nice.

[gkuenning]

I have been working on something similar in excel.

I wanted people to know that I'm also working on something, though it's not ready yet (and might not go live for quite a while, depending on the time I turn out to need). My approach is similar to AussiePup's, with the ability to filter on various useful criteria, except it'll be Web-based. (If you use kayak.com for travel, I've been getting some insipiration from them.)

Anyway, I'll announce things whenever I get something useful working. In the meantime, thanks to you and Roger for all the hard work you've done. We all appreciate it tremendously.

[20droger]

Ye be most welcome.

These things always start out as a labor of love, and end up being a love of labor.

[AussiePup]

Very nice.

Thank you

Anyway, I'll announce things whenever I get something useful working. In the meantime, thanks to you and Roger for all the hard work you've done. We all appreciate it tremendously

Thank you. And if you need any help please let me know.

These things always start out as a labor of love, and end up being a love of labor.

Isn't that the truth. Have to love projects that start to take on a mind of its own.

[shtang8]

very up to date adn useful table

[20droger]

Thank you.

[Dansndais]

Thanks so much for this information.
This is a great forum!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:D

[tomtam]

very good job!

[20droger]

You are welcome.

Be sure to come back every couple of months, as this is a "work in progress."

[20droger]

Just update the main lens tables today, 1 September 2007.

[bomboman]

Thanks very big : )

[20droger]

Just updated the tables again, mid-April 2008.

[xn2b8r]

Usually I learn plenty from reading the forums, but I'm over my head this time. How can I use the tables or a spreadsheet (sorry, my only calculator does basic math only) to figure out the width and height (in feet) of the frame at a certain distance, using a certain focal length and a 1.6 sensor (40D)?

Specifically, if I am shooting a baseball game and I am limited to a specific distance from home plate, what formula can I use to determine what lens I should rent to capture a 7-foot-high frame with the camera positioned in portrait (vertical) orientation? I'd like to use as long a focal length as possible to shorten the DOF because of the distracting background.

Thanks for any help anyone can offer.

[Vermin87]

A 100-400 L would probably be plenty. A 70-200 could probably do it also.

[gkuenning]

The easy way to figure this out is to use the laws of proportions.

Set up your camera with any lens you choose (except fisheyes), and with a known focal length. Shoot a tape measure stretched across the frame. Measure the distance from the tape measure to the nodal point of your lens. (Don't know the nodal point? Guess it at about 1/3 of the way from the back of the camera to the front of the lens; this isn't a critical measurement unless it's a really short lens.)

Now you know how wide your frame is at a given focal length and a given distance. From here there are two simple rules:

1. The frame coverage increases in direct proportion to the camera-to-subject distance. In other words, if you double the distance, the frame coverage doubles. Cut the distance to 60% of the original, your frame coverage drops to 60% of what you measured.

2. The frame coverage decreases in inverse proportion to the focal length. If you double the focal length, your frame gets half as big.

To make the calculations easy, I'd measure at a convenient distance, say 10 feet, and with a convenient focal length, such as 50mm. But with a little algebra and a calculator, it doesn't really matter.

From the above discussion, we have:

new f.o.v = (old f.o.v) * (old fl / new fl) * (new dist / old dist)

where f.o.v is your field of view in any units you choose, fl is a focal length, dist is the distance to subject, old represents what you measured, and new represents whatever you'd like to photograph (i.e., your baseball game). Rearranging this to get the focal length needed at the park, we get:

new fl = (old f.o.v) / (new f.o.v) * (old fl) * (new dist / old dist)

I just did a quick (and inaccurate) test with my 30D and 17-55, and came up with an f.o.v. of 12 inches (horizontally) at a distance of about 27 inches. Inches aren't very convenient, but we can use the rule of proportions to conclude that the f.o.v. will also be 12 feet at a distance of 27 feet. Plugging that into my formula, using your 7-foot figure, and assuming 100 feet to home plate, we get:

new fl = 12 / 7 * 55 * 100 / 27 = 349mm

So at 100 feet, a 100-400L would give you the frame size you need. For the outfield, you'd probably want a 500 and a monopod, or a teleconverter.

The other thing to consider, of course, is whether the park will give you trouble about using such a big lens. In major-league parks, they might object because the lens will block the view for other people, or even create a safety hazard by blocking the aisles. If you're going to a pro game, even minor-league, I'd suggest you call ahead (anonymously) and ask about the rules. There's been some discussion of this point in the last few weeks of the "Post the most ridiculous comments" thread.

[xn2b8r]

Very helpful! Thanks, Geoff

- Jeff

[aero.nz]

Wow thanks, great resource :)

[ThomGascoigne]

Thanks that was really helpful, I'm wondering if you've made a version that is listed as by manufacturer and then from smallest to biggest focal length, Ie with Canon starting with the 14mm and ending with the 800mm

[gilariver]

When I try to download this pdf file, an HTM file is downloaded. What gives?

[20droger]

When I try to download this pdf file, an HTM file is downloaded. What gives?
Very strange, since I never made an HTML file of these tables. PM me your email address, and I will send a zip of the PDF files directly to you.

[sajannarain]

I have gone through all the valuable information and would also request you to kindly send me the pdf file by email at sajan_narain@hotmail.com .
Thanks a lot in advance.

[nitehawk]

Very informative, thank you.

If you can include hyperfocal information into one of the table will be very useful.

[20droger]

Hyperfocal distance is a function of three parameters: aperture, focal length, and diameter of the circle of confusion.

All the lenses in the table (except mirror lenses) have multiple aperture values.

All the zoom lenses in the tables have multiple focal lengths.

There is at this time no consensus as to what constitutes a valid circle of confusion (CoC) diameter for a digital camera sensor. Most calculators and tables sort of assume that a digital sensor is a piece of film. This is simply not true. Multiple CoC diameters would have to be assumed for any chance at valid data.

This would mean that, for each lens, there would have to be a hyperfocal distance for each combination of aperture, focal length, and CoC diameter. This is simply not possible in a general lens table.

[PD_BARBS]

Thanks for this and excellent resource, that will help.

[Iahcon]

Thanks for all your hard work and time invested in this project.

[jype]

thanks for this, its a big help

[lwestfall]

Wow, nice work, thanks! Here's to our OCD! ;)

Lincoln :)

[20droger]

Wow, nice work, thanks! Here's to our OCD! ;)

Lincoln :)
Heh, heh, heh. God'll get you for that!

New edition coming in December. Be sure to check back.

[nemo man]

Roger

An excellent and very useful list. The problem with it is that I want most of the (expensive) lenses on it!:cry:

rob

[Mark]

Very nice, however I noticed 1 typo :D
that on the AoV table in the focal length bit at the end it says that the eos-1d has a 1.00559x sensor :lol: :lol:
But yes, very nice, you should have a total price at the bottom on the next one :D

[debrasue]

Thanks so much for sharing. I'm so new to dslr and this will help.

[jype]

thank you very much for sharing this :D

[tmblx]

this hard work is very helpfull. god bless you.
ehm... where is the December edition?

[20droger]

this hard work is very helpfull. god bless you.
ehm... where is the December edition?
The current versions were downloaded December 23, 2008.

[Jish]

Thank you soooo very much for all your time!!!
I'm going to PM you. I would love a copy of your original word document.

Thank you!!

[acrouse]

Awesome
you are very thoughtfull, thank you!

[Rohape]

Wow, what a lot of work put in to this. Even though I have no clue how to use this information, yet. :)
I did notice one thing. You have the 10D as a 1.6 crop and APS-C sensor. Everything I've read about 10D states it has a 1.3 crop and APS-H sensor. That is the reason a lot of people still like it as it was based off the 1D.
If i'm wrong my apologies. I hate critiquing such passion and someone who's skill level and knowledge far exceeds mine.
I'm learning and greatly appreciate all the work you put in to this!

[wildspirit]

Excellent Post! Incredible!!

Thanks a lot 20droger... You've saved me from a lot of headache :)

[20droger]

Wow, what a lot of work put in to this. Even though I have no clue how to use this information, yet. :)
I did notice one thing. You have the 10D as a 1.6 crop and APS-C sensor. Everything I've read about 10D states it has a 1.3 crop and APS-H sensor. That is the reason a lot of people still like it as it was based off the 1D.
If i'm wrong my apologies. I hate critiquing such passion and someone who's skill level and knowledge far exceeds mine.
I'm learning and greatly appreciate all the work you put in to this!
No problem, critique away. That is how things get better and better.

The EOS 10D is a 1.6 crop camera. It has a sensor that is 22.7mm × 15.1mm (data right from the manual).

You can double-check this yourself by looking here: http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/dslr/data/1995-/2003_eos-10d.html?lang=us&categ=crn&page=1995-&p=1

or by downloading the manual: http://gdlp01.c-wss.com/gds/0900000229/EOS10DIM-EN.pdf

[SS308]

Thanks, great info of resources. Appreciate the time and effort put into this!

[canonee]

Thanks for sharing the tables.
:)

[20droger]

You're welcome. It's a labor of love.

Or is that a love of labor? I'm always getting those confused.

Anyway, it's the kind of thing very anal people do when they're bored.

[S.Horton]

Wow.

Great list.

[HuskyKMA]

Dude, I don't know why I didn't click on this thread a long time ago. Thanks!

[JasonMM]

Thank you 20Droger. I appreciate your hard work.

[ddlai]

Hi Everyone out there
I have TC Canon EF 1.4 II, it doesn't fit my 28-300mm L lens, how to make it fit? and which kind of lens this TC fits.
Thank so much

[mercury-666]

i cant open pdf's for some reason.


would the tokina 10-17 FE have the same fiel of view as the canon 10-22?

[Jubilee32]

Hi Everyone out there
I have TC Canon EF 1.4 II, it doesn't fit my 28-300mm L lens, how to make it fit? and which kind of lens this TC fits.
Thank so much


There are some threads you can search for this - but, the best is the Canon websire. It lists all compatible lenses. Not all fit, by design

[20droger]

Hi Everyone out there
I have TC Canon EF 1.4 II, it doesn't fit my 28-300mm L lens, how to make it fit? and which kind of lens this TC fits.
Thank so much
Canon teleconverters have protruding front elements. Because of this, they will only fit lenses that have recessed rear elements. According to Canon, only lenses with a minimum (or only) focal length of 135mm or greater can be used with their TCs, with a very few specific exceptions.

Sigma has a similar design concept.

In my lens tables, the "X" ("Special Characteristics") column indicates the Canon lenses that will work with a Canon TC. Look for a Blue background color and the letter "C".

[20droger]

i cant open pdf's for some reason.


would the tokina 10-17 FE have the same fiel of view as the canon 10-22?
The PDFs were made using Adobe Acrobat 8.0, and should be pretty standard. If you need a PDF reader, you can download one from http://www.adobe.com/ for free.

The Tokina 10-17 would have an angle of view of 130°-104° (on a full frame camera), while the Canon 10-22 would have an angle of view of 130°-89.0°.

Angle of view is calculated by:

AoV = 2 * arctan[ s / (2 * f )]

where:
s = the sensor size in mm in the desired plane (diagonal, horizontal, or vertical); and
f = the focal length (in mm) of the lens.

[mzondeki]

For 28mm Lens on 40D body, angle of view is 55 degree. So If your subject distance at center is 10 Feet, Far corners are appx 12 feet away.
Calculate DepthOfField for 28mm, with F4.5 using http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html. The DOF is from 8 to 14 feet, with 10 feet at SHARP/FOCUS. So obviously at 12 feet you have some softness (out-of-focus issue)

[mellowd]

i cant open pdf's for some reason.


would the tokina 10-17 FE have the same fiel of view as the canon 10-22?

Even better than Adobe Reader is Foxit reader: http://www.foxitsoftware.com/pdf/rd_intro.php

Uses a lot less ram and has a smaller footprint

[20droger]

For 28mm Lens on 40D body, angle of view is 55 degree. So If your subject distance at center is 10 Feet, Far corners are appx 12 feet away.
Calculate DepthOfField for 28mm, with F4.5 using http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html. The DOF is from 8 to 14 feet, with 10 feet at SHARP/FOCUS. So obviously at 12 feet you have some softness (out-of-focus issue)
There are several factors at work here that are not immediately obvious. (I assume your "calculations" are correct.)

First, the "range of acceptable focus" is what defines the depth of field. With a focus distance of 10 feet and the corners of the image at ~12 feet, a depth of field of 8-14 feet should produce an image with acceptable focus over the entire 55°.

Second, the actual depth of field is determined by (among other things) the circle of confusion, which is dependent upon several factors of its own, not the least of which is the size of the print to be produced, the resolution of the printer/screen, and the distance at which the image is to be viewed.

--What is in acceptable focus for a 4×6 print is not necessarily so for an 8×10 print of the same image.

--What is in acceptable focus on a 17" screen at 1024×768 resolution is not necessarily so for an 11×16 print of the same image.

--What is in acceptable focus in a print to be viewed in a family album is not necessarily so for a print of the same size to be viewed in a gallery.

Third, and least obvious to most people, is the flatness of field of the lens. Some lenses (usually the cheaper ones) have very curved fields, in which case, for a flat full-field subject perpendicular to the optical axis, the edges of the image may well be out of focus when the center is dead on in focus. Other lenses (usually the dearer ones) have very flat fields, in which case the same subject will be in sharp focus from edge to edge. This is the whole purpose of aspherical lens elements. It is also what makes a good macro lens different from a good close-focusing lens.

[mercury-666]

The PDFs were made using Adobe Acrobat 8.0, and should be pretty standard. If you need a PDF reader, you can download one from http://www.adobe.com/ for free.

The Tokina 10-17 would have an angle of view of 130°-104° (on a full frame camera), while the Canon 10-22 would have an angle of view of 130°-89.0°.

Angle of view is calculated by:

AoV = 2 * arctan[ s / (2 * f )]

where:
s = the sensor size in mm in the desired plane (diagonal, horizontal, or vertical); and
f = the focal length (in mm) of the lens.


the tokina doesnt fit FF though.


so the FE effect doesnt effect the field of view.

[20droger]

the tokina doesnt fit FF though.


so the FE effect doesnt effect the field of view.
The equation still holds. Assuming a Canon EOS 40D with a 22.2×14.8mm sensor (~1.6× factor), the diagonal sensor dimension would be ~26.68mm, and the angles of view would be:

Canon 10-22mm lens: 106° - 62.5°
Tokina 10-17mm lens: 106° - 76.2°

[Mr. E]

WOW! That list and the depth of each lens is amazing! The shear number of lenses available is amazing!

[J1000]

Thanks for sharing your creation. Nice job.

[gcflora]

Best (only!) tables I've seen that present this very valuable and useful information. Thanks a million for sharing it with us all!

[jacob84]

thank you very much for sharing this http://www.tracker-data.com/data/img/3816/s09y0513bpco/icon_smile.gif


yep, thanks +1

[mohunn]

Wow! No more googling for lenses. Great work! I would call it a dictionary of lenses.

[matejmm]

Nice work... very similar to my idea (www.lensdatabase.net (http://www.lensdatabase.net)), but I wanted to make a list of lens more interactive so I set up a web page with database of lenses. At the moment there are only Nikon, Canon and some Pentax lenses in database, but I am working on it. In future there is a plan to "open" database to public.

Site development plan includes:
- links to reviews
- photos of lenses to be added
- links to photo equipment stores (with lens price calculation)

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

regards, Matej

[oldfella]

Thanks for such a detailed amount of tables. Puts my small prog into focus. One thing the members should remember is, when a lens is made, the maker does not know to what body it is to be fitted, full frame or cropped. So on the spec sheets with the lens it is always the full frame A.O.V. The lens itself if it is a prime lens cannot change the A.O.V. It is only the cropping of the image that narrows the A.O.V.

[oldfella]

As every shot is different, it is impossible to carry tables around to cover everything.The simple DOF programs will not be of much use.

[pom911]

WoW!!!

Thank you for very good information.

[hugolim]

thanks ya! very very informative!

[xxmxaxrxyxx]

wow very interesting!

[xxmxaxrxyxx]

Nice work... very similar to my idea (www.lensdatabase.net (http://www.lensdatabase.net)), but I wanted to make a list of lens more interactive so I set up a web page with database of lenses. At the moment there are only Nikon, Canon and some Pentax lenses in database, but I am working on it. In future there is a plan to "open" database to public.

Site development plan includes:
- links to reviews
- photos of lenses to be added
- links to photo equipment stores (with lens price calculation)

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

regards, Matej
am going to bookmark your website ... thanks!

[sophie-cao]

Thank you very much!

[tcrank]

Very comprehensive and useful! Thank you so much for this ongoing endeavor!

[RiaGurl]

great table! now to add the 3 new lenses!

[mrkgoo]

Thanks for compiling.

I thought the broken golden ring was to denote USM?

[Methodical]

Page 7 of the Table Instruction, Sensor Factor section, shows the EOS 1D as having both a FF and 1.3 sensor. Is the FF actually the 1Ds?


Attached to the first three posts in this thread are tables of lenses, teleconverters, and extension tubes. These tables have been completely redone to include those features requested by a majority of the readers, including images of the lenses, etc.

I have released the copyright on these file to the public domain. You may use, copy, and/or disseminate them to your heart's content. It would be nice if you give me credit when your disseminate them, but that is not a requirement.

NOTE TO ALL: This is an ongoing project. Your input is very valuable. If you find an error or omission, or if you have a suggestion, please PM me. I check in at least once a week. Errors and omission will be corrected soonest. Suggestions will all be seriously considered.

These files are formatted for viewing, not printing. If you would like the Master Files (Microsoft Word 2003 format) to reformat the tables (for printing or anything else), or to use the data for your own tables (or whatever), please PM me with your email address and I will send them to you.

To assist in determining if you have downloaded the latest tables, the five files have the following names:

Table Instr, Jul 09.pdf == The instructions—Be sure you download these!
Prime Tables, Jul 09.pdf == Tables of Prime Lenses
Zoom 1 Tables, Jul 09.pdf == Tables of Zoom Lenses, part 1
Zoom 2 Tables, Jul 09.pdf == Tables of Zoom Lenses, part 2
TC & ET Tables, Jul 09.pdf == Tables of Teleconverters and Extension Tubes

Hope you find these tables useful. Enjoy!

R. Roger Breton

[20droger]

Page 7 of the Table Instruction, Sensor Factor section, shows the EOS 1D as having both a FF and 1.3 sensor. Is the FF actually the 1Ds?
Thank you for pointing out the error. It will be corrected in the next release (in December).

Yes. The 1Ds-series have FF sensors and the 1D-series have 1.3× sensors.

[RiaGurl]

thanks 20D.

I was waiting for a full release!

(quiiiieet now guys;)) :D:p

[KND]

This is very helpful. Thanks for sharing

[Methodical]

No problem

Thank you for pointing out the error. It will be corrected in the next release (in December).

Yes. The 1Ds-series have FF sensors and the 1D-series have 1.3× sensors.

[bixxl]

hello 20droger
What a wonderful, nice, creative, time-consuming, generous, considerate, thing to do. Its shows a lot of caring when someone goes to such great lengths to help all of us make better decisions, on the lens we purchase, and use. Thank you so much, and great job!!

[showbag]

Great Stuff...Thanks for sharing

[tel8109]

Feel free. The chart is in the public domain. I would even send you the master chart, which is an MS word document.

Would love to have a copy if you would not mind sending it to me. Thanks so much..:D

[gkuenning]

I finally (if only partially) fulfilled a promise to Matej, and as a nice side effect, I now have a way to convert Roger's lens table into a CSV file so that it's relatively easy to load it into a spreadsheet. (I also have them in a format that's a bit easier to machine-parse, so PM me with your regular e-mail address if you want that file.)

Because of PHPBB restrictions, I'm attaching it as a ZIP file. Unzip it to get the CSV, and load it into the spreadsheet of your choice.

Here are the descriptions of the columns. "Unchanged" means that I took the field straight from Roger's tables and I think the meaning of the field is pretty obvious. Note that some fields are mutually exclusive; for example, you can't be both circular and diagonal fisheye.

manufacturer: Unchanged
designation: Unchanged
aps_c_lens: true if lens designed for small APS-C sensors, like Canon EF-S
blades: Unchanged
canon_life_size_ok: True if Canon Life Size Convert works (only one lens)
canon_tc_ok: True if Canon 1.4x and 2.0x teleconverters work
catadioptric: True for mirror lenses
circular_fisheye: Lens produces circular image
consumer_grade: True for Canon consumer-grade (bottom level) lens
date_marketed: Empty or the date lens was first marketed, in yyyy-mm-dd format. The day is always 01. For one lens, Roger had only "2008", so I chose 2008-01-01.
diagonal_fisheye: Lens gives 180-degree field of view diagonally.
diameter: in mm
diffractive_optics: True for Canon professional-grade "DO" lenses
digital_coating: True for lenses with anti-flare coating for digital sensors
discontinued: True if manufacturer has discontinued the lens
elements: Unchanged
front_filter_diameter: In mm; 0 if unspecified or lens takes no filter
focus_drive: One of a small set of strings based on Roger's list: null, "Canon arc-form motor", "Canon micro-ultrasonic motor", "Canon micromotor", "Canon ring ultrasonic motor", "DC motor", "Sigma hypersonic motor", or "manual focus"
focus_type: One of a small set of strings: null, "Canon front-group linear-expansion", "Canon front-group rotational-expansion", "Sigma dual", "front-group", "inner-group", "overall linear-expansion", or "rear-group"
full_time_manual_focus: True for lenses like Canon USM where you can always manually focus
groups: Unchanged
hood_included: True if hood comes with lens
hood_model: Model of hood that works with lens (can be empty)
hood_type: Empty of "Integral". Maybe this should be a Boolean?
image_stabilization_stops: Number of stops of IS, or 0 if lens has no IS. For non-Canon IS lenses, I always listed this as 2, which might be inaccurate.
kit_lens_only: True if lens can only be bought as part of akit
length: In mm
long_narrow_aperture: Narrowest (max) aperture at longest focal length; may be inaccurate for some lenses (see Roger's comments)
long_wide_aperture: Widest (min) aperture at longest focal length
magnification_is_ratio: True if max_magnification was calculated from a ratio given by the manufacturer
manual_focus: True if lens is NOT auto-focus
max_focal_length: In mm. Matches min_focal_length for prime lenses.
max_magnification: Unchanged
metric_designations: True if manufacturer gave dimensions, weight, and minimum focus distance in metric units, false for idiotic English units.
min_focal_length: In mm. Matches max_focal_length for prime lenses.
min_focus: Minimum focusing distance, in mm. (Roger gave cm, but I prefer to use consistent units across all tables.)
price: Unchanged
professional_grade: True for top-end lenses, such as Canon "L" series
rear_filter: True if lens takes a rear filter
rear_filter_diameter: In mm; valid only if rear_filter is true
rear_gelatin_filter: True if lens takes a rear gelatin filter
short_narrow_aperture: Narrowest (max) aperture at shortest focal length; may be inaccurate for some lenses (see Roger's comments)
short_wide_aperture: Widest (min) aperture at shortest focal length
sigma_tc1_ok: True for Sigma 50-500 lens, partially compatible with Sigma teleconverters
sigma_tc2_ok: True for Sigma 200-500 lens, which includes a dedicated tC
sigma_tc_ok: True if lens works with a standard Sigma teleconverter
standard_grade: True for manufacturer's standard-grade lens. Non-Canon lenses are all considered either professional-grade or standard-grade.
sunex_super_fisheye: True for Sunex Super Fisheyes with 185-degree view
tilt_shift: True for tilt-shift lenses
true_macro: True for "true" macro lenses with Roger's four characteristics
weight: In grams
white_color: True for Canon white-colored lenses
zoom_type: One of a small set of strings: null, "Canon helical", "internal", "linear (push-pull)", "power", or "rotary"

[jstnice]

Attached to the first three posts in this thread are tables of lenses, teleconverters, and extension tubes. These tables have been completely redone to include those features requested by a majority of the readers, including images of the lenses, etc. These tables have been updated in April, 2010, per user requests, to include even more brands and types of lenses.

I have released the copyright on these file to the public domain. You may use, copy, and/or disseminate them to your heart's content. It would be nice if you give me credit when your disseminate them, but that is not a requirement.

NOTE TO ALL: This is an ongoing project. Your input is very valuable. If you find an error or omission, or if you have a suggestion, please PM me. I check in at least once a week. Errors and omission will be corrected soonest. Suggestions will all be seriously considered.

These files are formatted for viewing, not printing. If you would like the Master Files in Microsoft Word 2007 (.docx) format, just PM me your e-mail address. You may then reformat the tables for printing or anything else, or use the data for your own tables or whatever

To assist in determining if you have downloaded the latest tables, the five files have the following names:

2010-04 Instructions.pdf == The instructions—Be sure you download these!
2010-04 Prime Table.pdf == Table of Prime Lenses
2010-04 Zoom Table 1.pdf == Table of Zoom Lenses, part 1
2010-04 Zoom Table 2.pdf == Table of Zoom Lenses, part 2
2010-04 Other Tables.pdf == Tables of Macro Lenses, Tilt and Shift Lenses,Teleconverters, and Extension Tubes

Hope you find these tables useful. Enjoy!

R. Roger Breton
Thanks for sharing!
:)

[madhkris]

Thanks a lot 20droger for the efforts and posting these updated tables. It was helpful and very kind of you.

[DENIEONE]

Great info..........

[Boogie99]

Thanks for all the great work you put into it.Very helpful

[wizcreations]

I almost got lost just reading the instructions.
These tables are overwhelming, yet abundantly helpful

thanks!

[captain_70]

thanx for sharing such useful info

[Ed Harp]

Thanks for the PDFs. Awesome

[20droger]

is the sigma 85mm good one? i found it at amazon for like 900 bucks
I don't own a Sigma 85mm, so I can't have a valid opinion.

I just make tables of the lens data. I cannot give opinions on lens quality (beyond the obvious).

I suggest you do a search here in the equipment forum for the lens in question. This will let you find people who own one. You can then ask their opinions.

You might also google "Sigma 85mm lens reviews" to find reviews and detailed analyses.

[Tiro]

Thanks for making these tables! I wish I had found this thread sooner. :D

[20droger]

Thanks for making these tables! I wish I had found this thread sooner. :D
Always check out the "Stickies."

[olcoach]

Hi, The amount of work here staggers me but thank you for it. I had a question about a lens that I had no idea where to even look and I found it here in about 3 minutes. I am very grateful. Good shooting. Mike

[joewulf]

Great list! Thanks!

[Jericobot]

Now that's some good stuff right there, thanks guys

[coffeestain]

These charts are wonderful! You are a kind, helpful and generous person.

[AbPho]

Thanks for all the effort you put into these. Great job.

[peregrino27]

Thanks.

[ahmisuhairi]

thanks... a valuable info for a newbie like me...

[ezzyz]

Thanks! Awesome job.