jan_jarczyk Posted June 19, 2005 Share Posted June 19, 2005 I've read Brandon post "how many feets.." i'am wondering if any one knows why 50mm lenses are called 50mm and 100mm are 100mm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_dunn2 Posted June 19, 2005 Share Posted June 19, 2005 <p>That's the focal length of the lens. It comes from the physics behind how a lens works.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pto189 Posted June 19, 2005 Share Posted June 19, 2005 Please check <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Optical/Focal_Length_01.htm">here</a>. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jan_jarczyk Posted June 19, 2005 Author Share Posted June 19, 2005 Steve i know that! and i asked about "the physics behind" lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jan_jarczyk Posted June 19, 2005 Author Share Posted June 19, 2005 Thanks Philip , that was very helpful <br>regards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astcell Posted June 19, 2005 Share Posted June 19, 2005 A 100mm lens used to be called a 10cm lens. Why did that change? We're only using mm now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harman_bajwa Posted June 19, 2005 Share Posted June 19, 2005 So long as it focuses at 50mm (ie it works as it is supposed to), I could'nt care less what they call it :-) - Harman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shambrick007 Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 "Why did that change?"<p>Bad publicist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimstrutz Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 <I>"A 100mm lens used to be called a 10cm lens. Why did that change? We're only using mm now."</I> <P> Yeah, and they used to be called a 2 inch or a 4 inch lens (50mm and 100mm respectively). Things just change, I guess. <P> Actually, I think that specifying 13.5cm, etc. didn't sound as good as saying 135mm. It's just marketing. Maybe someday we'll all go back to cubits. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_white2 Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 A "50mm" lens has the same magnification at infinity as a pinhole 50mm from a plane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 <i>A 100mm lens used to be called a 10cm lens. Why did that change?</i><p> 100 is a lot bigger than 10 and sounds much more impressive. Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ci_p Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 Actually, I think you should call it a "5 times ten to the minus two" metre lens, metres being the standard international unit of distance. This way there is no confusion when discussing focal lengths with people from around the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg_chang1 Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 Even old 100mm was once 10cm Why they changed it I can not say People just liked it better that way. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jv1 Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 "The focal length of a lens is defined as the distance in mm from the optical center of the lens to the focal point, which is located on the sensor or film if the image is "in focus". The camera lens projects part of the scene onto the film or sensor." How come the mirror doesn't hit the optical center of a superwideanglelens? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_kieltyka1 Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 >> How come the mirror doesn't hit the optical center of a superwideanglelens? << It does, sorta. But the optical center of a super-wide SLR lens is located behind the lens' rear element, so there's nothing physically there. :-) -Dave- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimstrutz Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 <I>"...the optical center of a super-wide SLR lens is located behind the lens' rear element..."</I> <P> I believe that's called a "retrofocal" design, and is often used in lenses designed for an SLR/DSLR just for the purpose of missing the swinging mirror. This is also one of the reasons a rangefinder camera is often a better tool for wide lenses, although lens makers have gotten quite good a designing retrofocus lenses. <P> The opposite is a "telefocal" design, and is where the optical node is forward of the physical center of the lens, possibly even ahead of the front element. This allows the long lens to be physically shorter than it is optically and is very commonly seen in zoom lenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitmstr Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 I think it makes more sense to say 14mm than 1.4 cm lens, no? The cm was not a good idea to begin with since we are talking about relatively small numbers/sizes, when we talk about photo lenses. Telescopes are a different thing altogether. You measure the unit that makes the most sense for the task. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flaviu_bor Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 I used to take photografs since 1965 (when i was a child), and so far as I remenber always the focal distance was mesured in mm (never in cm or in)Perhaps because the first camera lens was build in Europa when we used metric system. I realize this is uneasy in some countries, but so it is the left wheel driving for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harman_bajwa Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 >>I think it makes more sense to say 14mm than 1.4 cm lens, no?<< I think the idea is to use integral designations and get rid of the decimal altogether. That way everyone need not try and understand the unit behind the designation, but it would be implicit. After all your 1.4cm lens could be someone else's .014 meter lens or another's .000014 km lens ! (And we would have frequent lists arguing who is correct) - Harman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitmstr Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 >>I think the idea is to use integral designations and get rid of the decimal altogether<< Of course. And yes, as far as I can remember, being born in Italy, we have always referred to lenses in "mm", NOT "cm". I don't know about anywhere else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_kieltyka Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 Prior to WWII most lenses of European origin were labeled in cm rather than mm. My Zeiss rangefinder lenses from the 1930s & early '40s are all in cm. The 1950s versions are all in mm. -Dave- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 Many early Nikon F lenses are in cm; like my 5.8cm F1.4 normal; or the smaller 5cm F2; or longer 13.5cm F3.5; or 10.5cm F4. In July 1959 the formal definition for the foot and cm and inch got changed a few parts per million; with respect to another. US Surveyors still use the pre 1959 definition Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
josef_konradl Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 Sorry to butt into your jolly conversation. The reason for this change was the introduction of the International System (SI) some years ago, except in the US and one other country I cannot remember right now. Before that we had the CGS System (cm, gram, second) where cm was indeed a valid unit and this system is still wiedely used in atom physics. Should anyone be interested in more details about this, there is a very comprehensive explanation to be found in http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/units.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harman_bajwa Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 >>Before that we had the CGS System (cm, gram, second) where cm was indeed a valid unit<< I think you missed it by a mile :-) Actually the cm and mm are part of the same SI system that you mention. It a metric system where quatities can be inter-expressed in any of the convenient suffixes which are decimal based, such as km, cm, m, mm - they are all part of the same system. The other system that you mention is based on the Foot-Pound-Yard system which is the Imperial system. Most countries, except for the US have left the F-P system. But trust me the cm is very much part of the same system that mm is - its just the bigger brother, so to speak. Take a look here: http://convert.french-property.co.uk/ - Harman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 Non USA folks here seem confused :) cgs was the metric system in many books in the 1950's; and the mks was mentioned at times too. with the older cgs system; in Mechanical Engineering we used the dyne; centimeter and the erg. 1 joule is equal to 10 million ergs. a dyne centimeter is an erg. Before 1959 the meter was 39.37 inches ; afterwards 1 inch became 2.54 centimeters. ; the change is 2 parts per million., With a surveyors EDM; the calibration is with the older LEGAL unit 1/39.37 . A hand calculatorwith "units" uses the newer convention. In super accurate surveys; one must not use the incorrect conversion for surveys; with a built in calculator. <BR><BR>In Chemistry and scales; the gram has been accepted as proper in the USA forever.<BR><BR>Legally in most places in the USA; a grocery store cannot legally sell produce or meat just in grams or Kg; they will be shut down and jailed. <BR><BR>In US money; the metric system goes back along time; each bill since the 1930's weighs 1 gram; each nickle 5 grams. <BR><BR>In gasoline; a US gallon is legally 231 cubic inches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now