I don't know the answer to your question. But I am curious about one thing in your note - when others talk about FOV, I have always visualized the horizontal coverage as the issue. I just looked at Wikipedia for FOV info and they point out that (of course!) you can measure the FOV horizontally, vertically, or diagonally. I am curious why you use the diagonal in this case. Did the specs of the lens you are referring to explicitly refer to diagonal FOV?
stan On Dec 26, 2011, at 10:11 PM, Darren Addy wrote: > Learned something today. Never even heard of plasmats before. > > That (winning) shot looks FAR wider (to my eyes) than a 24mm on a 35mm > film camera. > I was looking at the specs and comparing the field of view it gives to > the equiv. focal length with similar field of view on a 35mm. > Not sure if that's the proper way to compare apples and oranges, but > when the lens specs say 105 degree "maximum coverage" I'm guessing > that would be most like the "diagonal FOV" on a 35mm lens. > > The diagonal FOV on a 24mm Takumar lens is only 84 degrees, 35mm full frame. > The diagonal FOV on a 20mm Takumar lens is only 94 degrees, 35mm full frame > The diagonal FOV on a 15mm Takumar lens is 111 degrees, 35mm full frame. > > So extrapolating, it looks like the FOV would be similar to an 18mm > lens on a 35mm full frame. > > If that's not the proper way to look at it, I'd welcome a correction. > > Darren Addy > Kearney, Nebraska > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
