Newbie Lens/Focal Length Question

Nostrobino wrote:

"Don Stauffer in Minneapolis" wrote in message
...

Charles Schuler wrote:


Well, I learned something (variable primes)! Thanks.

Yes, anybody can compile a dictionary and anybody can "bend the rules"
and sometimes these alterations become permanent. Language evolves over
time. Too bad that change can lead to confusion.

Stay well.

Indeed. Look at the change in the meaning of 'telephoto lens'. It
originally meant a lens whose physical length was shorter than its
effective focal length.


Correct. And that is still what "telephoto lens" means.



Now, it means a long focal length relative to format size.


Not exactly, but the advent of the "tele zoom" has confused the terminology
somewhat. Such lenses indeed often are longer physically than their f.l. at
the full "tele" end, and therefore obviously not true telephotos. At least
some manufacturers do not CALL that "telephoto" either, the term "tele zoom"
implying telephoto without actually saying it.

On some point-and-shoots the "tele" end really is telephoto by the
definition. My Minolta Freedom Zoom 160 for example has a 37.5-160mm lens,
and at full tele the overall length from lens front to film plane is less
than 130mm. But it's true that with such cameras generally, the tele end is
just the long end whatever that is, whether it's true telephoto or not.

(Just as a terminological curiosity, I once had an Olympus rangefinder
camera with a wide-angle telephoto lens. The lens was 42mm f.l., making it
(barely) a wide-angle; and the camera was just under 42mm from lens front to
film plane, making the lens (barely) a telephoto. How 'bout that?)

Anyway, I believe that all lenses marketed as telephotos and described as
such in the literature by the major manufacturers probably ARE true
telephotos by the original definition. At least I'm not aware of any that
are not.

N.


Oh, I believe this is probably so. However, if it were a long focal
length, most people would call it a telephoto even if it were not
shorter than EFL.

"Don Stauffer in Minneapolis" wrote in message
...
Nostrobino wrote:

"Don Stauffer in Minneapolis" wrote in message
...

Charles Schuler wrote:


Well, I learned something (variable primes)! Thanks.

Yes, anybody can compile a dictionary and anybody can "bend the rules"
and sometimes these alterations become permanent. Language evolves over
time. Too bad that change can lead to confusion.

Stay well.

Indeed. Look at the change in the meaning of 'telephoto lens'. It
originally meant a lens whose physical length was shorter than its
effective focal length.


Correct. And that is still what "telephoto lens" means.



Now, it means a long focal length relative to format size.


Not exactly, but the advent of the "tele zoom" has confused the
terminology somewhat. Such lenses indeed often are longer physically than
their f.l. at the full "tele" end, and therefore obviously not true
telephotos. At least some manufacturers do not CALL that "telephoto"
either, the term "tele zoom" implying telephoto without actually saying
it.

On some point-and-shoots the "tele" end really is telephoto by the
definition. My Minolta Freedom Zoom 160 for example has a 37.5-160mm
lens, and at full tele the overall length from lens front to film plane
is less than 130mm. But it's true that with such cameras generally, the
tele end is just the long end whatever that is, whether it's true
telephoto or not.

(Just as a terminological curiosity, I once had an Olympus rangefinder
camera with a wide-angle telephoto lens. The lens was 42mm f.l., making
it (barely) a wide-angle; and the camera was just under 42mm from lens
front to film plane, making the lens (barely) a telephoto. How 'bout
that?)

Anyway, I believe that all lenses marketed as telephotos and described as
such in the literature by the major manufacturers probably ARE true
telephotos by the original definition. At least I'm not aware of any that
are not.

N.
Oh, I believe this is probably so. However, if it were a long focal
length, most people would call it a telephoto even if it were not shorter
than EFL.

Most people might. I wouldn't and probably you wouldn't.

N.

"Chris Brown" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Nostrobino wrote:

Well, I suppose you could argue that either way. What you call a water
closet isn't really a closet for water, is it? There needs to be a
reasonably polite way of referring to such an appliance, and either
"toilet"
or "water closet" seems to serve well enough.

You miss the point - "toilet" meant something else. Specifically, it meant
somewhere where you engaged in personal grooming, e.g. washing, applying
perfume, (hence "toilet water" being perfume, and not the water found in
the
toilet), etc.

Actually, I think it originally had to do with the activity ("making one's
toilet") rather than the place.


It *didn't* mean a place where you go to defecate and urinate.
However, the word, "toilet" started being misused to refer to the latter,
and now is usually taken to mean that. Its meaning was changed through
common usage.

I agree, that happens. What I am disputing is that ANY misusage can be
dismissed airily "because language evolves." The fact that some words change
or drift in meaning does not mean that any existing meanings can be
discarded willy-nilly. In the case of the "prime lens" misusage, clearly
that came about through someone's complete misunderstanding of the term.


"prime lens" is the same - your usage is either on the way to
becoming obsolete, or already wrong. Ranting about it here won't change
the
outcome of that battle.

But it already has, in at least a few cases. There are at least a few people
who have dropped the misusage once they realized it was wrong. People pick
up this sort of error innocently--no one WANTS to look or sound
ignorant--and while some will stubbornly continue to misuse the term
"because lots of other people do" (the Monkey See, Monkey Do Principle),
some will recognize that it's wrong, really means something else, has NO
logical basis in this newer "definition," and will avoid the misuse.

This is especially true in the case of newbies, such as the OP here. If I
can encourage him to at least QUESTION the misuse when he sees it again, I
have done a Good Thing.



Evolution does not mean degeneration. It seems that every misuse of
language
or terminology that comes down the pike is sooner or later defended by
someone using the silly argument, "language evolves," as if that were a
ready-made excuse for any ignorant misusage.

And, one presumes, that someone a century-or-so ago was saying something
very similar about the ignorant use of "toilet" to refer to the crapper,
yet
you seem to accept that one without a problem, presumably because you were
born after the "ignorant" usage became the standard.

I don't know how that change came about, and have no opinion on (and little
interest in) the matter. I presume that there was some sort of logical
progression from "making one's toilet" to "going to the toilet," just as we
now speak of "going to the bathroom" when we really mean taking care of
those bodily needs, not taking a bath. Similarly, public places have
"washrooms," "rest rooms" etc. rather than "feces and urine deposit
facilities"--though that latter is their usual purpose, not washing or
resting. Your complaint about "toilet" seems to be along those same lines
exactly.



The battle is lost over "prime". You're tilting at windmills, banging your
head against a brick wall, fighting a lost cause, etc. Give it up.

As noted, some of those windmills have already gone down. Granted, the ones
built on firm foundations of rock-hard determined ignorance will probably
survive. I can't do anything about that. All I can do is offer valid
corrections to reasonable people.

N.

wrote in message
ups.com...
Nostrobino just didn't get the point:

It is not the SPELLING of "prime" I'm objecting to, but its misusage.
Spell
it "pryme" if you like. Just don't use it for "fixed focal length,"
please.

You are a nitwit. Word usage, spelling, pronounciation, and even
(gasp!) definitions and meaning change over time. Get used to it. Or
rage away incoherently while the rest of us laugh ourselves sick at
your arational antics. Your choice.

I prefer to have you laugh yourselves sick, for whatever reason. Throwing up
may help clarify or open your mind, though I'll admit that seems a last
resort with no great probability of success.

(What's "arational"? More evolution?)

N.

"Chris Brown" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Nostrobino wrote:

The danger lies in the fact that "prime lens" is sometimes still used
correctly, and many readers are now so confused by the misusage that they
don't understand what they're reading when they do see it used correctly.

One of the things that makes a good writer is the ability to impart their
meaning without confusing their audience.

If "their [sic] audience" has been misled as to the meanings of the terms
used, they cannot help but be confused. Your "good writer" should not have
the additional burden of correcting all the misusage that has gone before
him.

N.