I find telescope eyepieces work pretty much as intuition suggests; a "stronger" eyepiece increases the magnification of the image. A far more interesting question, to my mind, is why that isn't the case in photography.
Bob Blakely mused: > > Ok, the analogy using "light levers" didn't work. Let's try again... > > Nothing is working opposite to expectations. One lens, the objective lens, > is working in one direction with light coming in from the distant object at > the *distant* focal point to the image on the other side of the lens at its > *close* focal point. The other lens is being used the other way around with > the light from the image going from the *close* focal point to the more > distant focal point and eventually to your eye. > > Regards, > Bob... > > From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > OK, I understand the math and don't disagree, but why does a longer focal > > length eyepiece (a set of glass lenses in a tube) give lower magification, > > when a longer focal length camera lens (a set of glass lenses in a tube) > > yields a higher magnification? > > > > It would seem at first blush that if you have a telescope with a given > > focal length producing x magnification and you then viewed that image > > through 2 eyepieces of different focal lengths, that the eyepiece with the > > longer focal length would yield the higher magnification. What makes it > > work opposite of what one (I) would expect? > > > > I know this is a basic optics question that I'm just not too embarrassed > > to ask. > >
