tweak

I think he's talking more from a film speed basis.

Nice work man! Is the lens Parfocal?

Original joke .

I tried to find this already. As you say almost all have some issue or two. All will extend pretty much and if they don't the front will rotate. Let me know if you find one. A few Olympus lenses get close.

Everyone should LEAP from this thread with their arguments -

Here's a great thread where people can argue about useless optical toys and their equivalencies without ruining other threads. Now LEAP.

More pics and video please @Mattias Burling.

Yes. Except you miss the point again and again, which is a lens only works for it's intended image circle (and full look) on a certain size format... Thus if you like a lens that is designed for a FF format when used on FF, then it indeed has that "FF look" (as non-descriptive as that is). Your definitions are your definitions, whether you wish people used other terms or not is irrelevant, because they don't and is the reason you are in the perpetual argument now. (It's the same thing as me telling you that "look" is not the right word to describe equivalency, then you telling me that it is .)

Exactly. As was happening here (or people assumed was happening ). You assumed they were, yes. But as I've pointed out "Look" is a very ambiguous word, open for interpretation, not definitive to your arguments in this thread which are that of equivalency and math/ science of sensor size vs DOF. Others (like me) I assume to actually be talking about "look" in regards to the lenses and the characteristics of such used on different sensor sizes. Thus to argue there is no different "look" between lenses for different formats imo would be to argue there is no different look between any lenses at all...

Yes, as was your prerogative, but other people were not talking about the same things as you and didn't actually care about such facts... just saying. This thread wasn't started to have debate about such facts or science, in fact I believe that was the total opposite of what this thread was about imo. Thus no one should be surprised with the outcome of this thread.

Personally I would say no, but sensor size is never "regardless of any other variable"... hence discussions like these. "Equivelence" in this case is merely math, done in perfect world environment, not considering all variables. Whether said variables are worthwhile enough to consider acknowledging is where this argument really begins imo.

You will make EOS HD implode with such posts.

Exactly. "Sensor size and look". Very ambiguous wording. What you should have said was "sensor size and lens FOV/DOF equivalency". "Look" can be linked to all the characteristics of glass used on that sensor size, thus different "looks" based on sensor size is a very real thing imo... unless of course you're not using lenses when you shoot with a camera?

What you actually thought photography/ film was an art form? Foolish hippie, cameras will always only be about specs and hard science! - And onwards we shall go, leaping and bounding through mathematic correctness forth the race to 16K!!!

Im just not sure what people are expecting from this? Does everyone expect people to say they all agree when no one here is actually arguing about the same thing/ specifics? Everyone here knows the real definition of insanity right?

I agree. Need to cool it a bit.

What are you trying to say? Bigger front element won't make a better lens to pair with even if the lens alone is hugely improved upon over your old Nikkor, that's exactly what I'm getting at. The more simplistic the lens design with as smaller front element as possible usually yields the best results (not always, but in most cases).

This is awesome, I love how everyone constantly contradicts themselves and are arguing in circles about things I don't really think anyone here disagrees on for the most part.

Usually these fast lenses have big front elements that don't pair so well as slower more simplistic designs (but I'm sure you know that).

It seems to me like people are simply confusing things. "Look" is a pretty ambiguous word. If you want to argue, stop talking about "a look" and start talking about specifics. Arguing there is no "full frame look" (or any other format look) is silly, because clearly there is a look to different formats (whether that's due to the lenses alone, or a combination of sensor + lenses is debatable, but clearly there's different characteristics at play). I assume what most people really want to argue here is a matter of "equivalency", which seems to be interchanged with the word "look" far to often in this thread for my likings. As such it seems (and reads) as though people are actually arguing about two or more different things whilst it's being taken as all one in the same...

Annnnnd thread locked.

Double focus, I'm fairly sure front rotates and extends, length not that short for a 8mm 1.5x, nothing particularly noteworthy, prices above actual worth imo (haven't tested for image quality but would be safe to assume it's similar to other Kowas, I can't see how this would be some super amazing glass compared to other Kowas since it's made for 8mm and all).

I said "silliest" not "stupidest".

Not buying it for this reason would be the silliest thing I've read in a while. Most speed boosters don't boost back 100% to the optics original image circle, all are just shy of it usually.

Hard to tell without pics but 6K does seem fairly excessive even if it were in mint condition.