Talk:Lenses for SLR and DSLR cameras

So now we have a separate Wikipedia reference for SLR lenses? My goodness, are we at a premium for 'server-space' these days that that portion had to be removed, recreated? Now how many users and readers of the other pages are going to click on this page?--MurderWatcher1 21:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * My intention with this page is to provide some fairly non-theoretical and consumer-oriented information about lenses for DSLRs (and film SLRs, although I'm convinced that film SLRs are a rapidly dying breed, and that those people investing in new lenses for their film SLRs will mostly be interested in ensuring forward-compatibility to DSLRs). I envision this page as being less technical than the Photographic lens page and with a more pratical information for new DSLR owners.


 * May I request a few more days, maybe the better part of a week, to get the page up to snuff. Then it can be judged, and if not considered useful, then it can be deleted again - I believe Wikipedia has a process for that sort of thing. --RenniePet 18:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The future (if any) of this page
I've taken this page about as far as I can, both in terms of knowledge, Wikipedia skills, and time available.

I do feel that a page like this would be very useful on Wikipedia, especially for new DSLR owners and those considering buying a DSLR.

So, if this page is not to be deleted (perhaps with bits of it merged into the Photographic lens page), I'd like to request that others take over the job of revising and completing it. It needs more text where noted, it needs some pictures, it needs references and categories, it needs copyediting.

Maybe it should be reduced in scope to be just for DSLR lenses?

Anyway, it's been interesting so far, and I have put a lot of work into it (much more than I expected when I started out), so I hope that the page does survive in some form or other. --RenniePet 23:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Flawed refs
RenniePet, I object to you using a bunch of Vincent Bockaert (dpreview) sources; many of them seem to be not very relevant to the points you've attached them to. And some are very flawed, like the idea that the normal lens captures a field of view similar to that of the human eye; poppycock, yet commonly repeated! If you must state that as one interpretation of normal, cite a more reliable source, but also cite sources with a more sensible viewpoint on it. It is my experience that Bockaert articles are full of minor misstatements and confusions (like the nonsensical "The FOV associated with a focal length is usually based on the 35mm film photography, given the popularity of this format over other formats."); I did convince him to fix a couple of them; they seem not to be reviewed by anyone with an in-depth knowledge of photographic technology and terminology. Many better sources are readily available, like this 1908 book that defines wide, tele, and normal w.r.t. the diagonal, as is conventional, without mentioning field of view of human vision, which is around 180 degrees. His "picture angle" terminology is a somewhat unusual alternative for field of view, popularized on a bunch of Nikon sites; but he uses it differently, as if it specifically means diagonal field of view; I don't find any reliable source for this interpretation. Dicklyon 05:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Glad that you updated the references I'd added with better ones. I was just trying to find some sources in order to get rid of the "unsourced article" tag, and figured that the ones on DPReview were as good as any. I'll try to find some more (and better) references when I have the time, and convert the external links in the text to references. --RenniePet 11:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

New photos?

 * I have a LOT of very high quality photos of the collection of SLR and DSLR lenses that I have - more than 60 lenses in total and I was wondering if this page could use any additional photos of lenses, or to replace and of the photos on there with new fresh ones?


 * The photos are all very high quality with excellent focus and detail shown – some of my lenses are rare and all of them are still in new condition if that helps … I belong to a photography club and I take photos to use in tutorials, so they should fit right in here – and I do NOT have any copyrights on any of my photos, they are free for anyone to use


 * If so, what is the procedure for posting them on here? … also, which lenses would be the ones to add to this page – large ones, small ones, unusual ones, close up’s of the interior blades and working assemblies? - Anyone help with this? ... Thanks Ukt-zero (talk) 12:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You, like anyone else, are welcome to upload and post pictures on this article, and then the other editors may decide they are not useful and delete them from the article. The principe of Wikipedia is that "consensus" should be reached, and as I still consider myself to be a relative newbie I generally let the more experienced editors make decisions without me trying too hard to make my opinions felt.


 * If you'd prefer not to upload your pictures yourself you are welcome to post the URL for whereever they can currently be viewed on the Internet. I'd be glad to look at them and tell you what I think might be useful for this article. But it would actually make more sense if you did the uploading and changing of the article yourself. --RenniePet (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * And I also think this page is important and should stay ... I could make this page hundreds of lines long if I wanted to - there is so much information about SLR and DSLR lenses that I think it needs to have this article ... there is a LOT of interesting and amazing information and facts about these lenses that most people don't know - it would be a real shame if this article disappeared, I was very happy to have found it ... just my opinion - Ukt-zero (talk) 12:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As the person who originally created this article, thank you for the kind words. The article has existed more-or-less in its current state for almost four months, so I don't think there is much chance of it being deleted any more. --RenniePet (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend adding photos that illustrate particular points of the discussion, or particularly unusual design features. Go for it. Dicklyon (talk) 17:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The long captions really mess up the formatting, as you can see. Some of that info may be extraneous, and some can be moved into the relevant section paragraphs. And maybe illustrating two different Minolta 50 mm lenses is too much? Dicklyon (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Continuously variable aperture
is what I was looking up... and there is a narrative hook. If it is not usually continuously variaoble, it cries out for "except ...." I might find something to add. FWIW, WRT to above comments, this page seems to be what I was looking for and does no harm by existing. Where I edited typically to by definition, necessarily might be a better word perhaps. Midgley (talk) 10:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The graph putting nikon F lenses against Canon EF lenses
What is this graph meant to actually show exactly? I'm trying to wrap my head around it. Is it market share? Production? Without any axis labelled it's frankly useless. OCuin (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm equally puzzled by this. There's a caption in the file description suggesting it sales, so well done ot Canon for selling 100 lenses in 25 years I guess? No seriously, can somebody add units (It's millions, I assume?) EditorInTheRye (talk) 18:45, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


 * This confused me as well. Without meaningful labels this graph isn't particularly useful. If it can't be improved or replaced with a better version, should it be removed? Gin and Monotonic (talk) 17:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I replaced it with an more accurate and expanded chart. --Angerdan (talk) 21:06, 5 July 2023 (UTC)