Re: Proof if proof were needed

[Graywolf]

Sure it can if you know how to analyze photos. The 14mm shot was done from about 
1 foot closer than the 15mm, but when you correct for that in your mind the 14mm 
shot is still not as wide as the 15mm. Down in that range one-half millimeter of 
actual focal lenth makes quite a bit of difference. Now if you a wanted to 
figure out the actual focal lengths of the two you would need to be much more 
precise, but just the realitive focal lengths of the two can be compared quite 
well from the two photos.

graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
-----------------------------------

Jens Bladt wrote:
Unless the camera was on a tripod, the AOV can't really be compared. It
seemes like the Sigma shot was shot at closer range. Why is there a hug
"flare" or whatever on the left hand side shot?
Jens Bladt
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 16. december 2004 00:10
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: RE: Proof if proof were needed
Y'know what else seems odd ... the 15mm appears to have a wider angle of
view, unless you moved somewhat during the test.  If you did, then never
mind, but if you didn't, take a good look at the framing of the two pics.
Am I mistaken?
Shel

[Original Message]
From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


On the left, the Sigma 14mm EX f2.8 lens.
On the right, the Pentax SMC K15mm f3.5 lens.
It's as simple as that.
<http://www.cottysnaps.com/snaps/spare3.html>