Comments on: Nikon Rumors giveaway #4

By: NikoDoby

NikoDoby — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 09:43:17 +0000

Congratulations to the winner and thanks to everyone who entered

By: BMXDad

BMXDad — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 13:01:14 +0000

Your are correct, is this focal conversion between all the the different formats ever getting confusing

Pete

By: mike

mike — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 12:01:15 +0000

lol.

By: pc2rq

pc2rq — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 03:57:56 +0000

Wow, I would love to have these!

By: Ken Elliott

Ken Elliott — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 02:24:52 +0000

Actually, they have it backwards from an FX user’s prospective. The 20mm on a Diana is equal to a 11mm on a FX camera. The 20mm on a FX is exactly what an FX user would expect from a 20mm.

This “equivalent” thing is simply a way to say what a lens would do on a different format, relative to a format that you are familiar with. If you normally use a FX camera, then the same lens will seem to be 1.5x longer on DX, but 0.55x (about 1/2) as long on the Diana.

But the Diana user would see the 20mm on a FX seem more like a 36mm on a Diana.

So this is all about what you are used to. Most of us in Nikon-land think in terms of a field of view from an FX perspective.

By: Bojo

Bojo — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 00:59:25 +0000

Lomography rocks! especially on a NIkon system.

By: NikoDoby

NikoDoby — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 22:58:03 +0000

I’d like to hear your thoughts once you get to try them out magullo. Join our forum and we can share “notes” there

By: NikoDoby

NikoDoby — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 22:56:18 +0000

Guys it’s a freakin plastic lens!!! Calm down with the “misleading conversion” theories already. MY GOODNESS. If I post a picture of a brick wall would you then debate the corner sharpness of each lenses on a MF, FX, and DX camera?

By: yikesmoose

yikesmoose — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 22:52:18 +0000

These lenses look like a lot of fun. In the right hands they can produce some creative results. nudge, nudge.

By: Chris Lilley

Chris Lilley — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 22:38:28 +0000

Well, no. Its one thing to “convert” DX to “equivalent 35mm” focal lengths (though still misleading). But this article converts to “MF equivalents” which makes no real sense. Sorry, optics doesn’t work like that. Focal length is focal length.

To be clear – if you take a 100mm lens designed for medium format, a 100mm lens designed for 35mm full frame and a 100mm lens designed for DX, and put them on three identical DX cameras, they all have the same focal length and the same field of view.

By: inagitation

inagitation — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 20:13:58 +0000

hehe… can I post another comment? this is such a cool whacky set, it would be fun to have. But good luck to all others too!
cheers!

By: f/2.8

f/2.8 — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 17:36:55 +0000

Jo, that’s a low blow. But that is funny.

By: f/2.8

f/2.8 — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 17:34:07 +0000

I like it. My new kit:

A $5 Diana lens on the $5500 D3S

By: low

low — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 17:31:44 +0000

nikodoby > it definitely has!

By: f/2.8

f/2.8 — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 17:26:22 +0000

You embarassed my cell phone camera.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 17:03:43 +0000

More than anything I love the saturation and ghosting that plastic gives. I don’t care for the softness, but I guess it helps to give that soft dreamy look I like so much.

By: Jason

Jason — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 16:19:50 +0000

I agree with NikoDoby. The post specifically says “equivalent.” I don’t see how that is misleading.

By: bman

bman — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 16:02:32 +0000

it would be cool to shoot some video with these!

By: Hubert

Hubert — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 15:56:55 +0000

I am in!! Thanks NR admin

By: PacificEagle

PacificEagle — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 14:49:42 +0000

Thanks Admin/NIko, Great stuff.