Hello. I like your approach. Do you think it is reasonable to assume that all traditional prime lenses, in which no measures have been taken to correct breathing, will behave the same? For example 50 mm lenses. Like EF 50 1.4, ef 50 1.8, old minolta 50 1.7, takumar, yashica.... I mean they all are just some sort of "7/6" which move forward and backward, what difference could there be ?
As far as my understanding of optics go, that assumption is valid. All lenses that extend when breathing will do so in the same way (AoV will narrow) and if they're the same focal length, should have very similar changes in percentage. Experimentally, I've seen this with the 3 extending primes I've tested, Canon's FD 50mm f/1.8, EF 50mm f/1.8 STM and EF 40mm f/2.8 STM. Though I'd love to have more data points to add to that list.
Excellent information!!
you deserve more views
Hello. I like your approach.
Do you think it is reasonable to assume that all traditional prime lenses, in which no measures have been taken to correct breathing, will behave the same?
For example 50 mm lenses. Like EF 50 1.4, ef 50 1.8, old minolta 50 1.7, takumar, yashica.... I mean they all are just some sort of "7/6" which move forward and backward, what difference could there be ?
As far as my understanding of optics go, that assumption is valid.
All lenses that extend when breathing will do so in the same way (AoV will narrow) and if they're the same focal length, should have very similar changes in percentage.
Experimentally, I've seen this with the 3 extending primes I've tested, Canon's FD 50mm f/1.8, EF 50mm f/1.8 STM and EF 40mm f/2.8 STM. Though I'd love to have more data points to add to that list.