Lens Magnification on 35mm

Wednesday ~ March 03, 2010

  • I know the size of a lens for a 35mm SLR is relative to it's focal point but can anyone tell me how to work out the magnification level?

    If 50mm is roughley what the eye sees then is 100mm equivelant to 2X magnification or is it more mathmatical than that?


  • Now that it's got realy confusing here's another question.

    If I had a 50mm lens and used a 2X converter it would be a 100mm lens.

    If I added another 2x converter it would be a 200mm lens right? 50mm X2 =100mm X2=200mm.

    If I added yet another 2x converter what focal legnth would I be up to?

    50mm x2 = 100mm x2 = 200mm x2 = 400mm?

    or

    3 x 2X converters = a 6X converter x 50mm = 300mm?

    :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:


  • Now that's realy confused things!


  • I don't know if you even calculate that.. If you would take a picture of someones head, which would be roughly say, 20 cm in hight, in portrait view, almost view filling. that would fill your negative for about 3.5 cm. that would be a demagnification of about 6x. When printed on 10x15 cm paper, the head would be around 12 cm on paper. so that makes a demagnification of 2.9x.. right?

    I think only macro magnify an object by more than 1x

    Again, correct me if i'm wrong


  • Also has anyone actually tried stacking converters like that? How bad is the distortion and image!?


    Not that I'm going to try it before anyone asks! I'd rather sellotape my camera to the end of a 2" refracting telescope first!:confused:


  • I know the size of a lens for a 35mm SLR is relative to it's focal point but can anyone tell me how to work out the magnification level?

    If 50mm is roughley what the eye sees then is 100mm equivelant to 2X magnification or is it more mathmatical than that?

    PlasticSpanner - please give us some more details as to the thinking behind the question ?

    What is it you want to figure out ?

    I hope it is not : " I have a 50mm lens and if I buy 3x Teleconverters(cheaper than lenses) then i can get up to 300mm or 400mm."

    Really curious about the thinking behind that question.



    Hanno


  • oh, forgot to add:

    but on the other hand, when you enlage a picture, at some point the magnification will become greater that 1..

    ..

    I just got even more confused..:confused:


  • Haha, no, it would be a 400mm, the lens magnification is exponential. e.g. 2^1=2, 2^2=4 2^3=8. Of course, that would be COMPLETELY useless! If you have 3 2x teleconverters on one lens, then you're certifiably insane! :lol:


  • Sorry..:)

    I've given that macro thingy some thought.. Lets say you were to photograph a flower that is 5 cm in diameter, camera in landscape view. under such an angle that you have the flower all over the photo, from side to side, top to botom. then, on the negative, the flower would be the full 35mm on the film (demagnification of (50/35=)1.4) then, when printed, it will fill the full 15cm of the photo, and that is a magnification of (15/5=) 3x..

    I don't know if i'm right, so please correct me if im wrong..

    by the way, why are we actualy trying to find this out.. it wont help us taking better pictures, will it..? :p


  • PlasticSpanner - please give us some more details as to the thinking behind the question ?

    What is it you want to figure out ?

    I hope it is not : " I have a 50mm lens and if I buy 3x Teleconverters(cheaper than lenses) then i can get up to 300mm or 400mm."

    Really curious about the thinking behind that question.



    Hanno

    The first question was because I would like to plan what lens I'd need to see what I can get on my Astronomy progran RedShift. The program is aimed towards telescopes and magnification factors. For example the Andromeda Galaxy is quite large at 3 times magnification but lenses are measured on the focal point so I would like to know what lens I'd need to get the equivelant 3x magnification on a 35mm SLR.

    The second question I thought up a couple of nights ago after a night of astrophotography and waiting for the sunrise. It was more of a hypothetical question realy with more emphesis on the mathmatics than the practicalities! Basicly it was a long night, I was bored and my brain started to wander!:lol:


  • Plus your losing stops every time you put on on so your going to wind up with a very slow lens.


  • If 50mm is roughley what the eye sees then is 100mm equivelant to 2X magnification or is it more mathmatical than that?


    Your original thought here is the correct one. I knew this but started to feel loopy after reading all of the reasoning that followed so I had to look it up again to make sure. :lmao:


  • If 50mm is roughley what the eye sees then is 100mm equivelant to 2X magnification or is it more mathmatical than that?
    What you said works when focused to infinity... or at least if the subject isn't too close.

    Correct me if I'm wrong though







    • #If you have any other info about this subject , Please add it free.#
    Your name:
    E-mail:
    Telphone:

    Your comments:


    If you have any other info about Lens Magnification on 35mm , Please add it free.

    Posted in enart.zjnq.com |

    Tell me about Panama...????? Tell me what you think of this poem, please? :)?