Gmail Calendar Documents Reader Web more »
Recently Visited Groups | Help | Sign in
Google Groups Home
'digital' lenses
There are currently too many topics in this group that display first. To make this topic appear first, remove this option from another topic.
There was an error processing your request. Please try again.
flag
  2 messages - Collapse all  -  Translate all to Translated (View all originals)
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
k  
View profile  
 More options Oct 15, 4:38 am
Newsgroups: aus.photo
From: "k" <fella...@PING.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 02:38:15 +0800
Local: Thurs, Oct 15 2009 4:38 am
Subject: 'digital' lenses
I've heard reference to lenses being 'digital lenses' - translation,
the light exiting the rear of the lens is designed to hit the sensor plane
collimated or straight on.

Now I know a bit about lenses, but this kinda smelt funny to me and I never
encountered any plausible explanation until I came across the links below.

Which makes me wonder if the 'digital lenses' photographers are  buying are
indeed telecentric and producing collimated light at the back end, or
whether they're just a scam by the camera companies selling ordinary lenses
and obfuscating things with a fine sounding term. (as many of us old buggers
believe)

For a start it seems that telecentric lenses are considerably bigger than
normal lenses, with a lot more glass - and I mean BIGGER  (the cited
example below would suggest that the aperture needs to be significantly
larger than the object or image height!)

Secondly, the disadvantages of telecentric lenses - has anyone using a
'digital lens' noticed that Aunty Mary looks the same height whether she's
5 feet away of 100?  Apparently a telecentric lens would have her the same
height..

Apparently it's relatively easy to check if digital lenses do as they
claim, and that's the bit I've been looking for! - all you need to do is
look through them .. if the apparent aperture looks to be a REALLY long way
away then you may be peering through a telecentric lens (or a wide angle
and confusing distant with small ;)

Not having any 'digital' lenses I can't check, but I'd be keen to hear any
ones observations

more on the matter:

"What is Telecentricity?

Telecentricity is a special property of certain multi-element lens designs
in which the chief rays for all points across the object or image are
collimated. For example, telecentricity occurs when the chief rays are
parallel to the optical axis, in object and/or image space. Another way of
describing telecentricity is to state that the entrance pupil and/or exit
pupil of the system is located at infinity"

"In a system with object space telecentricity, movement of the object
toward or away from the lens will not result in the image getting bigger or
smaller, " so there is no magnification based on distance from the lens /
subject (!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecentric_lens

http://www.edmundoptics.com/technical-support/imaging/what-is-telecen...

of course there are other explanations

http://www.dpmag.com/buyers-guide/lenses.html?start=1

"Every manufacturer has its own terminology to describe the top-notch
optical qualities of the best glass and coatings of its lenses. These
terms, like SD, LD, ED and APO, describe low-dispersion characteristics."

that's what i'm talking about!  an apo lens is neither new, nor a glass or
coating.. it's as we all know, a lens shape

"Benefit: Low-dispersion glass and coatings minimize aberrations—the kinds
of color and sharpness problems that appear dramatically amplified when
images are enlarged. Internal coated elements help stop flare, and front
element coatings make the glass more scratch- and dust-resistant."

uh-huh.. ore 'nothing-new-here' too :/  In fact, where are the thorium
elements of yesteryear?

and on it goes, crapping on about various rubbish

sigh

k


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Noons  
View profile  
 More options Oct 17, 11:27 pm
Newsgroups: aus.photo
From: Noons <wizofo...@yahoo.com.au>
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 23:27:09 +1000
Local: Sat, Oct 17 2009 11:27 pm
Subject: Re: 'digital' lenses
k wrote,on my timestamp of 15/10/2009 4:38 AM:

> I've heard reference to lenses being 'digital lenses' - translation,
> the light exiting the rear of the lens is designed to hit the sensor plane
> collimated or straight on.

It's a load of nonsense, mate: ignore most of it.

> Which makes me wonder if the 'digital lenses' photographers are  buying are
> indeed telecentric and producing collimated light at the back end, or
> whether they're just a scam by the camera companies selling ordinary lenses
> and obfuscating things with a fine sounding term. (as many of us old buggers
> believe)

So-called "digital" lenses have nothing to do whatsoever with:
1- digital.  They are analog devices.
2- "bending" the light is a different way.  Biggest pile of nonsense I've ever
heard.

The only two things that are somewhat unique in these lenses are:

1- they have extra light baffling and flocking on the rear section to avoid any
possibility of light reflected off the digital sensor bouncing back to said sensor.
2- they have extra coating in the internal and back elements to stop any
possibility of flare caused by light reflected back from the sensor.

Digital camera sensors are highly reflective, unlike film was.  If care is not
taken in the making of the lenses, there can be introduced flare and/or
reflections affecting the sensor and lenses from the light bounced back from the
sensor surface.

And that is just about all there is on "digital" lenses.  The rest is pure,
unadulterated marketing bullshit reinvented to make it sound like "science".
Just like most "climate change" arguments, really...

> "Every manufacturer has its own terminology to describe the top-notch
> optical qualities of the best glass and coatings of its lenses. These
> terms, like SD, LD, ED and APO, describe low-dispersion characteristics."

> that's what i'm talking about!  an apo lens is neither new, nor a glass or
> coating.. it's as we all know, a lens shape

Bingo.

> "Benefit: Low-dispersion glass and coatings minimize aberrations—the kinds
> of color and sharpness problems that appear dramatically amplified when
> images are enlarged. Internal coated elements help stop flare, and front
> element coatings make the glass more scratch- and dust-resistant."

> uh-huh.. ore 'nothing-new-here' too :/  In fact, where are the thorium
> elements of yesteryear?

> and on it goes, crapping on about various rubbish

> sigh

Indeed!  Spot-on.

    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
End of messages
« Back to Discussions « Newer topic     Older topic »

Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2009 Google