>"Effectively" is the weasel word that essentially makes this
>question meaningless.
Not quite. Affectively would be meaningless, effectively is
referring to the actual field/angle of view.
This question came up one day when I was photographing with Joel
W. and we were comparing 135mm lenses. I stated that I felt
that the 135mm was the mid-focal length between 100mm and 200mm
just based on "how the image looks in the viewfinder". He
disagreed on principle and that was the end of it. We haven't
spoken since. (just kidding).
Anyway, I was cruising the books the other day and came across a
lens comparison chart which inluded angle-of-coverages. Ahar!
I knew it!
I think this is a "modern math" thing. If multiplications are
supposed to be rough multiples of focal length then why is 135mm
the oddball? Hmm????
AG-Schnozz
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus ? Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|