Well, now you have a 6x7, so you're going to learn to think FOV instead of focal lengths. From this day forward, a 55mm lens is wide, and that 165 you bought is a short portrait lens.
> What Rob said. :) > > I used sloppy terminology. I just find it easier to think in terms of focal > length vs. AOV. It's easier, for me at least, to think of a 50mm lens as a > 75mm lens when used on the *ist D. Multiplying by 1.5 is not over my head. > > By "rated" I meant that the image presented to the capture medium at the > focal plane has the same angle of view one would expect when that focal > length lens was used on a 35mm body as originally intended. > > Tom C. > > > > >From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: [email protected] > >To: [email protected] > >Subject: Re: Future of DA lenses > >Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 17:38:31 +1000 > > > >On 30 Mar 2005 at 23:21, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > > > > > What is a "rated focal length"? > > > > > > How do you use a lens at anything other than its actual focal length? > > > Whether projecting onto a 16x24mm format or a 24x36mm format, a lens' > > > focal length does not change. > > > >I assume that Tom's comment meant to something like "the lenses design > >coverage > >and suggested AOV on a 35mm frame", that sounds reasonable, not too > >perplexing. > > > > > > > > > > > >Rob Studdert > >HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > >Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > >UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ > >Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 > > > >
