A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Ping Tony Cooper



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old October 1st 18, 09:07 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default Ping Tony Cooper

On Mon, 1 Oct 2018 00:18:02 -0400, Ron C wrote:

On 9/30/2018 11:39 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 20:57:22 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

The lens is, and will always be, an 85mm lens. The argument is that
in some people's opinion, that can be a "long lens". In other
people's opinion, it is not a long lens.

it's not a matter of opinion. 85mm is a long lens and anyone who thinks
otherwise is wrong. simple as that. you even agreed with that the other
day. changing it again so quickly?

I would never have considered it a long lens in the days I owned a
Graflex.

once again, you're moving the goalposts.

don't think that you can get away with changing the film format without
anyone noticing.

I haven't changed the film format. I'm mentioning it for the first
time in the context of the 85mm lens.

both statements can't be true. either you did or you didn't.


I can and I didn't.

now go read the definition, this time for comprehension.

Even if you insist on using a definition rather than relying on how
people use a term, the definition is useless without someone
specifying an image size. You didn't: I did.

wrong on that too. originally it was a nikon d300.


Not on my Graflex.

Ah, SO much context has been striped that there's
there's no way to establish the range of film/sensor
diagonals that apply to "it's not a matter of opinion.
85mm is a long lens and anyone who thinks
otherwise is wrong."
~~
Lacking format pinning context the quoted [absolute]
statement is wrong in many cases.
~~
[Note: Yes, I too thought about my Graflex when I read
that statement. ]


(-: or is it :-)
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #152  
Old October 1st 18, 09:10 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default Ping Tony Cooper

On Mon, 01 Oct 2018 02:04:37 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:


I would never have considered it a long lens in the days I owned a
Graflex.

once again, you're moving the goalposts.

don't think that you can get away with changing the film format without
anyone noticing.

I haven't changed the film format. I'm mentioning it for the first
time in the context of the 85mm lens.

both statements can't be true. either you did or you didn't.

now go read the definition, this time for comprehension.

Even if you insist on using a definition rather than relying on how
people use a term, the definition is useless without someone
specifying an image size. You didn't: I did.

wrong on that too. originally it was a nikon d300.


The Nikon D300 is not a lens.


nobody said it was.

If you bother to read Eric's statement,


something you should do.

he was referring to a lens at a time when he owned a particular
camera.


what you fail to understand is the particular camera is very important.


Why do you think I made reference to my Graflex? In fact on my
post-card Graflex 85mm would have been a very short lens.

you continue to demonstrate your lack of understanding of all things
photographic.

The term remains "long lens".


yep, one which you do not understand, along with many others.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #153  
Old October 1st 18, 03:41 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Tony Cooper[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 188
Default Ping Tony Cooper

On Mon, 01 Oct 2018 02:04:37 -0400, nospam
wrote:

you continue to demonstrate your lack of understanding of all things
photographic.

The term remains "long lens".


yep, one which you do not understand, along with many others.


At least you've come to the realization that "many others", which
include almost all users of detachable-lens cameras, use the term
"long lens" in much the same way that I've described how the term is
used.

There's no "all" or "everyone" because those camera users are
individuals, and individuals have opinions. You are welcome to yours,
but your efforts to bully the readers here into accepting yours are
not being at all successful.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
  #154  
Old October 1st 18, 04:08 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Ping Tony Cooper

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


Why do you think I made reference to my Graflex?


to move the goalposts.

In fact on my
post-card Graflex 85mm would have been a very short lens.


missing the point entirely.
  #155  
Old October 1st 18, 04:08 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Ping Tony Cooper

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

you continue to demonstrate your lack of understanding of all things
photographic.

The term remains "long lens".


yep, one which you do not understand, along with many others.


At least you've come to the realization that "many others", which
include almost all users of detachable-lens cameras, use the term
"long lens" in much the same way that I've described how the term is
used.


you've changed that way at least twice, so which one is it today?

There's no "all" or "everyone" because those camera users are
individuals, and individuals have opinions. You are welcome to yours,


the physical properties of a lens are *not* an opinion.

as i said, you continue to demonstrate just how little you know...

but your efforts to bully the readers here into accepting yours are
not being at all successful.


....which is why you resort to yet another attack.
  #156  
Old October 1st 18, 06:59 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
-hh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 838
Default Ping Tony Cooper

On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 11:16:33 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 28 September 2018 18:08:55 UTC+1, -hh wrote:
nospam wrote:
-hh wrote:
a long lens does not become not long because someone uses it in a
different manner.

Which must be why nospam not only dodged answering my two examples
of context mattering, but he furthermore deleted them from his response,
clearly in hopes that readers would not notice his dodge.

i didn't dodge anything.


Then what’s the answer for each example provided? Don’t dodge again.

i answered your question, which covered both of your examples.


Except that you dodged making a declarative statement: is my
35mm long or short?


cough I'd call that a little prick.


Yeah, I deserved that for not *pedantically* including the word "lens" :-)

In any event, this was a tricky questions for pendants, as the
lens in question is the Nikon's amphibious Nikkor 35mm for the
Nikonos, which has an integral flat port. As such, while it acts
short out of the water, it becomes a normal when used in its
primary intended application of underwater (the field of view
in air is 52 degrees, which changes to 38 degrees), as it is
equivalent to a 52mm lens.

However, in practical application, the Nikkor 35mm was broadly
considered to be a bad (undesirable) lens that everyone owned
anyway, because it usually came bundled with the body, because
for the contextual application of underwater photography, it was
too "long" for most UW interests. Barring the novice who didn't
(yet) own any other lenses, virtually the only place you would ever
find it being used was with extension tubes for macro, but even
this was largely self-fulfilling, since Nikon's macro kit only
came with framers for use with the 35mm lens; one had to seek out
a 3rd party aftermarket for framers for the more usable 28mm. Plus
shooting wide didn't really start becoming "wide enough" until 20mm,
with 15mm being the premier lens: historically, the 15mm was the
"cash cow" lens with the highest rate of success in selling covers
for the rec scuba trade magazines...


And how about my 60mm - long or short?


6cm still a bit on the short side.
Now if you were talking inches then that's pretty normal.


Yup. As Eric pointed out in his statement, how happy one is
with length also depends on the receptor size ...yes, I meant
to say "of the _camera_ body"!


-hh
  #157  
Old October 2nd 18, 10:09 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default Ping Tony Cooper

On Mon, 01 Oct 2018 11:08:45 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

you continue to demonstrate your lack of understanding of all things
photographic.

The term remains "long lens".

yep, one which you do not understand, along with many others.


At least you've come to the realization that "many others", which
include almost all users of detachable-lens cameras, use the term
"long lens" in much the same way that I've described how the term is
used.


you've changed that way at least twice, so which one is it today?

There's no "all" or "everyone" because those camera users are
individuals, and individuals have opinions. You are welcome to yours,


the physical properties of a lens are *not* an opinion.


But what is normal and hence what is long is an opinion.

as i said, you continue to demonstrate just how little you know...

but your efforts to bully the readers here into accepting yours are
not being at all successful.


...which is why you resort to yet another attack.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #158  
Old October 2nd 18, 11:39 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
-hh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 838
Default Ping Tony Cooper

Whisky Dave wrote:
-hh wrote:
However, in practical application, the Nikkor 35mm was broadly
considered to be a bad (undesirable) lens that everyone owned
anyway,


I didn't I've never owned an nilon or nikkor lens.


Sorry; meant this to mean thst any owner of a Nikonos, as this lens usually came bundled.

But the biggest lens I've seen in real life was a nikon 6mm fisheye in the mid 70s.


The Nikkor 15mm for the Nikonos was pretty big .. probably a ~4” diameter on its dome.
But IIRC, Sea&Sea made a rectilinear 12mm in the 1990’s that was even bigger... and I
think they may be also made a fisheye 8mm in the 70s/80s?


... Barring the novice who didn't
(yet) own any other lenses, virtually the only place you would ever
find it being used was with extension tubes for macro,


If you put esxtention tubes on a lens does that make the lens bigger ?


Well, it does stick out further. But for the most part, I’d say that it’s primarily
changing the focus distance. The 35mm with Nikon’s two stacked macro tubes
has its focus distance collapsed down to around two inches from the lens face
while submerged.


-hh
  #159  
Old October 2nd 18, 01:40 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Ping Tony Cooper

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


the physical properties of a lens are *not* an opinion.


But what is normal and hence what is long is an opinion.


no
  #160  
Old October 2nd 18, 11:44 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Ken Hart[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 569
Default Big Lenses, was Ping Tony Cooper

On 10/02/2018 04:55 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:

snipped a lot of pedantic stuff...

I didn't I've never owned an nikon or nikkor lens.

But the biggest lens I've seen in real life was a nikon 6mm fisheye in the mid 70s.


I've never seen that lens in real life, but I remember the "excitement"
when it was introduced. I googled it, and found
https://www.mir.com.my/rb/photograph...yes/6mmf28.htm
has a pretty nice writeup about it.
For those who just want the highlights: a 220 degree angle of view,
236mm (9.29") diameter, 171mm (6.73") long, weight 5.2Kg (11.46 pounds).
The website doesn't give a price, but mentions that it was special order.

They also had a f/5.6 6mm fixed-focus lens at about the same time, less
than half the diameter and length, one-tenth the weight. Not a
retro-focus, it did require mirror lockup.

The f/5.6 model was introduced in 1969, the f/2.8 in 1972, according to
the above cited site.

snip
--
Ken Hart

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ping Tony Cooper PeterN Digital Photography 44 October 10th 16 04:00 AM
Ping Tony Cooper PeterN Digital Photography 4 October 8th 16 05:12 PM
PING: Tony Cooper Savageduck[_3_] Digital Photography 13 July 14th 16 06:01 PM
ping Tony Cooper PeterN[_4_] Digital Photography 2 March 8th 14 04:31 PM
PING: Tony Cooper Savageduck[_3_] Digital Photography 1 September 29th 11 07:26 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.