[Brightcolours]

Unfortunately, what you wrote is the sort of thing that confuses people.

 

85mm or 86.4mm is the same as far as making an image goes.

Yes, it makes the view angle the same.


And what I wrote makes the other image shaping aspect of lenses, the DOF, the same. Oh, and the light that hits the sensor also. Nothing confusing about that.

f1.2 is f1.2. It is NOT f3.24.

Yeah. And 32nn is 32mm. It is NOT 85mm. 

But you know that but you want to add to the confusion, right? Yes, the dof is f3.2 but the lens is still an f1.2 lens. No need to multiply it by 2.7.

The lens is still 32mm, right? No need to multiply by 2.7.   

 

I don't have the AW lenses but to suggest that the 30-110mm is “fat” really shows the effect of fake news.

Is "fake news" your new hobby horse? 

The J5 is easily the smallest 1 camera and yet the 30-110mm is more or less the same width as the body. Remember, this is like a 80-300mm lens. 

 

I once had the Sony NEX-5. You would be horrified how “fat” the 18-55mm kit lens is.

You just do not want to understand it on purpose.  With the 1 lenses I mentioned, ithe relationship to the  barrel diameter and the optics does not make sense. That is what I mean by "fat" and what makes them bigger than necessary, and visually unappealing. Which apparently all did not help with selling the stuff.

[Studor13]

 

 

Is "fake news" your new hobby horse? 

You just do not want to understand it on purpose.  With the 1 lenses I mentioned, ithe relationship to the  barrel diameter and the optics does not make sense. That is what I mean by "fat" and what makes them bigger than necessary, and visually unappealing. Which apparently all did not help with selling the stuff.

 

I have no idea what bee is bugging you under your bonnet and I have no wish to understand this barrel diameter and optics relationship.

 

Just as I have no wish to understand the fluid mechanics equations that go on inside a hot cup of tea, which are said to be so complex that no one on earth actually understands them. 

 

Imagine that, that the smartest brains on earth don't know precisely what goes on inside a hot cup of coffee. Me, I just want to drink it. Just like my 1 lenses, I only need to know that I enjoy using them - fat, visually unappealing or otherwise.

[JJ_SO]

Your 1 lenses drink coffee?

 

Looks like that?  while reading another equivalence "so old as nearly dead" horse hobby post of a person who knows equivalence better than you your coffee and me my tea mechanics or what?

 

[Studor13]

How the heck do you come up with these emojis?

 

Could you please give me a link to them?

[toni-a]

Your 1 lenses drink coffee?

 

Looks like that?  while reading another equivalence "so old as nearly dead" horse hobby post of a person who knows equivalence better than you your coffee and me my tea mechanics or what?

 

 

I saw that coming   it's funny how this equivalence thing pops up every couple of weeks 

[davidmanze]

Funny?

[toni-a]

Funny?

Mieux vaut en rire que d'en pleurer :ph34r:

[davidmanze]

Mieux vaut en rire que d'en pleurer :ph34r:

C'est vrai   ! 

[Rover]

Oh... You've just opened a can of worms the size of Texas.

I almost bought an early Nikon 1 camera for my mother when she wanted a new camera. But since she was vehemently opposed to changing lenses, I got a Nikon P7100 (sp?) instead. God only knows why I chose a Nikon - I've been a Canon shooter since at least Eocene.

[JJ_SO]

Good choice, the Nikon  As well as a Canon G11 or 12, although I found the Nikon less sensitive to misplaced fingers on it's backside. The G11 was therefore a bit awkward to handhold. I wish they would still be in production - any of the 3.