How I would have liked a replacement to the 15-85 for my R7 but sorry Canon - too late. I got tired of waiting and just three days ago picked up a Sigma 17-40 f1.8.
Yeah I know it's only 40mm at the long end but I've got it and I won't be stuffing around selling it and purchasing another lens.
So the circle of confusion is another concept that you find useless? Lol. You are welcome to your own opinions, but not to your own facts. The fact is that the size of the sensor affects the circle of confusion, and the circle of confusion is one of the factors that determines DoF*.
Next, I suppose you’ll attempt some ridiculous reply about your how your personal definition of DoF doesn’t depend on the circle of confusion, or how you mean the ‘lens DoF’ as if DoF were an intrinsic property of a lens (it isn’t), or some other nonsense.
You really should avoid engaging in discussion of the technical aspects of photography. Frankly, your attempts at it are embarrassing.
Depth of field requires an image to exist, and thus requires a sensor (or other imaging medium), and the size of the sensor matters. However, the other ‘DoF’ —depth of focus— is independent of sensor size. Depth of focus is the image space counterpart to depth of field, and it’s measured in μm at the image plane. It has little relevance to general photography discussions…at least, little relevance for current cameras.
For DSLRs with dedicated phase detect AF sensors, depth of focus was the underlying basis for the specification of some AF points as ‘high precision’, requiring wider lens apertures (typically f/2.8) to achieve focus accuracy within 1/3 of the depth of focus, instead of one depth of focus for ‘standard’ (typically f/5.6) AF points.
So the circle of confusion is another concept that you find useless? Lol. You are welcome to your own opinions, but not to your own facts. The fact is that the size of the sensor affects the circle of confusion, and the circle of confusion is one of the factors that determines DoF*.
Next, I suppose you’ll attempt some ridiculous reply about your how your personal definition of DoF doesn’t depend on the circle of confusion, or how you mean the ‘lens DoF’ as if DoF were an intrinsic property of a lens (it isn’t), or some other nonsense.
You really should avoid engaging in discussion of the technical aspects of photography. Frankly, your attempts at it are embarrassing.
Depth of field requires an image to exist, and thus requires a sensor (or other imaging medium), and the size of the sensor matters. However, the other ‘DoF’ —depth of focus— is independent of sensor size. Depth of focus is the image space counterpart to depth of field, and it’s measured in μm at the image plane. It has little relevance to general photography discussions…at least, little relevance for current cameras.
For DSLRs with dedicated phase detect AF sensors, depth of focus was the underlying basis for the specification of some AF points as ‘high precision’, requiring wider lens apertures (typically f/2.8) to achieve focus accuracy within 1/3 of the depth of focus, instead of one depth of focus for ‘standard’ (typically f/5.6) AF points.
You might want to try learning something, instead of just resorting to personal attacks when your blatantly false statements are challenged with facts.
Or keep making foolish statements…it’s really your choice.
