Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Guest
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Community Talk, Chatter & Stuff General Photography Talk 
Thread started 03 Apr 2008 (Thursday) 22:28
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

any relevence between Lens diameter and focal length?

 
beezwax
Goldmember
Avatar
1,169 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Houston, Tejas
     
Apr 03, 2008 22:28 |  #1

I guess the real question is this:

if I took a picture at 200mm with a 58mm lens, would it be the same exact picture as if I took one at 200mm with a 77mm lens? with the same body of course...

- Ben


MYGEAR
GULFCOASTTUNDRAS.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Naturalist
Adrift on a lonely vast sea
5,769 posts
Likes: 1252
Joined May 2007
     
Apr 03, 2008 22:32 |  #2

To answer your question, Yes both photos would appear the same as the 200mm provides the same field of view.

The objective lens on some lenses is larger because the lens is faster and therefore takes in more light. A 200mm f/2.8 lens will be wider (and therefore heavier) than a 200mm f/4 because the f/2.8 gathers more light with that big glass lens element.



5D Mk IV & 7D Mk II
EF 16-35 f/4L EF 50 f/1.8 (Original) EF 24-105 f/4L EF 100 f/2.8L Macro EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L[/FONT]

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Woolburr
Rest in peace old friend.
Avatar
66,487 posts
Gallery: 115 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 143
Joined Sep 2005
Location: The Tupperware capitol of eastern Oregon...Leicester, NC!
     
Apr 03, 2008 22:33 |  #3

200mm is 200mm period....

The only difference is apt to be in the speed of the lens...the 77mm is probably an f/2.8 and the 58mm is probably f/4 or f/5.6.


People that know me call me Dan
You'll never be a legitimate photographer until you have an award winning duck in your portfolio!
Crayons,Coloring Book, (external link) Refrigerator Art (external link) and What I Really Think About (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Perry ­ Ge
Batteries? We don't need no...   . . . or cards.
Avatar
12,266 posts
Gallery: 83 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 298
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Hong Kong
     
Apr 04, 2008 11:00 |  #4

f/number = focal length/aperture diameter.


Perry | www.perryge.com (external link) | flickr (external link) | C&C always welcome | Market Feedback & Gear | Sharpening sticky | Perspective sticky

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dermit
Goldmember
1,815 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 174
Joined Nov 2005
Location: Chandler, Arizona
     
Apr 04, 2008 11:34 |  #5

perryge wrote in post #5258947 (external link)
f/number = focal length/aperture diameter.

Exactly. And this explains why a smaller size aperture is a larger number and a larger size aperture is a smaller number. If you have a 200mm lens and it had the ability to use an f/2 aperture the physical size of that aperture opening would be 100mm. (200mm/2) An f/4 would be 50mm (200mm/4), and so on.

So from this we can then realize that the physical size of an f/2 opening on a 50mm (25mm) lens is much smaller than on a 200mm (100mm). So what's with this system? Well, its ingenious really. Given the same amount of light, the same ISO setting, and the same aperture it does not make a difference which focal length lens you use the shutter will always be the same.

By making the aperture number be a ratio of the focal length in this manner it makes it so the same amount of light transmits through all focal lengths at the same aperture.

This further explains why it is so hard to get a blurred background with a point and shoot at f/2 but with an SLR and a 200mm at f/2 it's hard to NOT blur the background. Because a physically large aperture gives you a shallow DOF. I figured out one time that on a typical point and shoot camera the physical size of an f/2 aperture opening was smaller than an f/22 opening on my 70-200mm at 200mm! So it figures that the DOF is different!


5DmkII, 5DmkIII, 5DS R, 15mm, 16-35 f/2.8 II L, 100 Macro f/2.8 L, 70-200 f/2.8 L IS, 85 f/1.8, 580EX II, 580EX, 550EX
http://www.pixelcraftp​hoto.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
beezwax
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,169 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Houston, Tejas
     
Apr 04, 2008 12:06 as a reply to  @ Dermit's post |  #6

I'm not talking about Apeture's

I'm talking only about the diameter of the Lens vs. Focal length.

we'll say EXIF reads this:

f5.6
ISO200
Focal Length 200mm
Shutter speed 1/600 or whatever

if I had 2 lens's:

a Canon 70-200L 2.8 and a Canon EF 75-300 4.5

since the 2.8L's lens diameter is 77mm and the EF's is 58mm

would the 77mm, because of being wider cover more area then the 58mm @ 200mm?


MYGEAR
GULFCOASTTUNDRAS.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SkipD
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
20,476 posts
Likes: 165
Joined Dec 2002
Location: Southeastern WI, USA
     
Apr 04, 2008 12:30 |  #7

beezwax wrote in post #5259370 (external link)
would the 77mm, because of being wider cover more area then the 58mm @ 200mm?

First off, you are saying "lens diameter" when the 58mm and 77mm are really "filter thread diameter" values.

Larger glass diameter on a lens will NOT give you any different angle of view as another lens of the same focal length but a smaller glass diameter.

The primary difference between the two lenses, as stated several times above, will ONLY be the maximum aperture. The lens with larger diameter glass will probably have a smaller minimum f-stop number (which is the same as saying it has a larger maximum aperture).

Obviously, there would likely be other quality-related differences because the lenses with larger diameter glass are usually from the manufacturer's more expensive line of lenses. Significantly more expensive lenses usually have better quality in several areas - optical, physical build, ruggedness, etc.


Skip Douglas
A few cameras and over 50 years behind them .....
..... but still learning all the time.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
beezwax
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,169 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Houston, Tejas
     
Apr 04, 2008 12:34 as a reply to  @ SkipD's post |  #8

ok...cool my question has been answered

Thanks


MYGEAR
GULFCOASTTUNDRAS.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

2,354 views & 0 likes for this thread, 6 members have posted to it.
any relevence between Lens diameter and focal length?
FORUMS Community Talk, Chatter & Stuff General Photography Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Forums   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset   •  Home

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.58forum software
version 2.58 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member was a spammer, and banned as such!
2529 guests, 170 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.