[Brightcolours]

Another hypothetical case to explain the value of understanding lens equivalence, so far removed from most people's personal situations that it is hard to feel offended by it or be defensive about their own gear.

 

Suppose there is a photographer who specialises in flower photos, suppose it is his expression of art. There is this young, budding enthusiast photographer who is taken away by the feel and style, so he writes that photographer asking if he would mind to explain how he gets that look, because the young budding enthusiast would like to go in that direction. The enthusiast mentions that he is using a Nikon D5500.

 





The flower photographer, understanding lens equivalence, replies to the budding enthusiast. He explains to him that he himself uses a 135 format full frame camera with a old fashioned 500mm f8 mirror lens to get that specific look. He explains to the young, budding enthusiast that he does not have to buy the same camera as himself, but that he can get the same look by buying a used Tamron SP 350mm f5.6 mirror lens. He goes on to explain why that is an equivalent lens: 

 

500mm divided by the crop factor of your D5500 gives:

500 / 1.5 = 333mm

They will have a similar aperture size:

500 / f8 = 62.5mm

350 / 5.6 = 62.5mm

 

Now the young budding enthusiast can go and try to emulate the look of the photos he admires from that flower photographer, knowing he can have a similar FOV and DOF with a similar lens equivalent on his camera to the lens/camera combination the flower photographer uses.

 

Having been explained lens equivalence, the young budding photographer will have an easier task to use equivalent lenses to other photographers he admires in other fields, like 135 format using 50mm lens shooting photographers like Robert Capa and Henri Cartier-Bresson.