Thanks for the catch... Updating.
Thanks for the feedback. To answer: No, Tamron did not pay NFS to write about them.
Like the Sigma article, this serves as a "manual" to their lenses, so it won't be a colorful read with an opinion about the glass – just spec facts. Nothing more, and yes, admittedly boring, but straight-forward info in one place.
If you want us to switch to "alternative facts," I'd love to start mentioning things like the optional cup holder port located near the focus ring...
You'll see similar ones for Zeiss, Cooke, Panavision, Rokinon, Fujinon, ARRI, Angenieux, Sony, Nikon, etc, in the future.
Let me know if you have any other questions.
Hope that helps.
But as a shooter, for me, story dictates glass type so I mainly rent. Favorite thus far: Cooke S2 Speed Panchros - though interested in seeing more from the Primo Artiste – 8K coverage w/ vintage look (these two companies did not pay NFS to say that either).
Good point. There's always an investment in time when learning something new. But I don't think they're trying to convince people to switch, rather, introduce peeps to the Avid environment.
Like you, I'm more efficient with other NLEs, but I know Avid too. It's nice being able to jump from one program to the next without being lost. Glad you're checking it out.
I'll definitely check the book out thanks. Ya, 35mm 57.4 x 37.8 degrees on FF.
Definitely not disagreeing that a 35mm doesn't cover the FOV of human vision when you look at the numbers.
These guys have FOV for both eyes at 200 degrees wide x 135 degrees tall. Page 398.https://books.google.com/books?id=GHoEWq6tcSgC&pg=PA398#v=onepage&q&f=false
I was looking for a technical report on visual perception NASA did in 1964 but couldn't find it online. It's a great read too.https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?print=yes&R=19640015224
From the article mentioned above:
"Studies have measured the cone of visual attention and found it to be about 55 degrees wide. On a 35mm full frame camera, a 43mm lens provides an angle of view of 55 degrees, so that focal length provides exactly the same angle of view that we humans have. Damn if that isn’t halfway between 35mm and 50mm. So the original argument is ended, the actual ‘normal’ lens on a 35mm SLR is neither 35mm nor 50mm, it’s halfway in between."
So this study has a 43mm on a 35mm camera providing the exact same angle humans.
In your research, did you find a focal length that best illustrates the angle of view for human eyes?
You bring up an interesting topic. I believe you're dropping knowledge from page 9 here: https://nzila.co.nz/media/uploads/2017_01/vissim_bpg102_lowfinal.pdf
On page 4, one of the bullet points says, " While this guideline does not advocate a particular focal length lens or camera format for use in all situations, a 50mm focal length lens (or its digital equivalent) continues to be widely used in the preparation of visual simulations."
One of my favorite reads on what mm lens best illustrates the field of view of a human eye can be found here:https://wordpress.lensrentals.com/blog/2009/03/the-camera-vs-the-eye
I've also read people say 24mm, 30mm, 35mm, 50mm... I think that comes from the variation you mentioned. I believe when Samyang says, "For full frame sensors, the focal length resembles the human eye the most" that's their interpretation of the subject.
Is there something you can point to that makes it definitive, an industry standard that should be followed? Would enjoy reading your thoughts.