Web Analytics RiceHigh's Pentax Blog: Tamron 90 Macro Vs Pentax 100 Macro - Calculating the Actual Focal Lengths at 1:1

Thursday, February 23, 2012

Tamron 90 Macro Vs Pentax 100 Macro - Calculating the Actual Focal Lengths at 1:1

PF has recently published a new comparison review of the two macro lenses in K-mount:-

http://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/tamron-90mm-macro-vs-pentax-100mm-wr/introduction.html

This reminds me of a forum thread that I came across some time ago in which someone made a quick calculation about the actual focal length of the Tamron 90. I've forgot and lost the link anyway. However, I still remember the rationale behind the calculations involved, which is really simple. As such, I don't mind to work it out again on my own. I think it would still be quite interesting to work it out and compare the two after all.

First of all, we need to learn the lens formula, i.e. the basic law for lenses and optics, which will be used:-


(For Convex Lenses)

Where 1/S1 + 1/S2 = 1/f and f is the unknown parameter that we are going to calculate, i.e., the true focal length.

Now, both macro lenses have the same maximum 1:1 macro capability as designed and specified. As such, we can simply make S1 = S2 = S under this case and the formula is further simplified as 2/S = 1/f, or simply: f = S/2.

And then, we need to look back at the specifications of the Tamron lens, here, and then that of the original Pentax lens, here, for what the PF reviewer has summarised.

Next, the object to film-plane distance, i.e., 2 x S, is to be found out. This total distance is the "minimum focus" + lens physical length when fully extended (i.e., at 1:1) + the K-mount flange to film distance (i.e., back focus register distance which is in 0.045m for K-mount - the 0.46mm tolerance is for the film thickness).

It should then be noted that whilst the closest focusing distances and the minimum physical lengths are all given in the two specs, the full extended physical lengths of the lenses are not given. But nevermind, PF has taken those comparison photos for the lenses when they are fully extended and retracted. So, I can simply derive the required extended lengths of the lenses by proportion, after some simple measurements on the figures.

Here we go:-

1. For the Tamron:-



2S = 0.29m + 0.097m x 76/53 + 0.045m => S = 0.2370m => f = 0.1185m, or 118.5mm.

2. For the Pentax:-



2S = 0.30m + 0.0805m x 80/50 + 0.045m => S = 0.2369 => f = 0.1185m, or 118.5mm.

Wow, what a coincidence! Both actual focals are actually more or less the same! :-o And, both lenses when focused at the 1:1 closest distance are actually having a longer true focal than the specified focal of 90mm and 100mm respectively, no matter what the lens is named. :-)


Related:-

Image Magnification Change Subject to Object Distance

Comments (9)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
This time I cannot agree with your calculation for a compoud lens with floating /FREE design
3 replies · active 683 weeks ago
Does such a lens not obey the basic lens formula?
yes, with floating element the actual focal length (f , not S2) CAN (not must, but there's a likelihood) change at different focusing distances (think of a zooming element/group)
The f was calculated at 1:1 magnification *only*, already.
I know this is an old post, but I would like to point out that your formula only applies to thin lenses. For thick lenses, the distance between the front principal plane and the rear principal plane (it can be different for these two lenses) should not be counted into the measurement of S1, S2, and f.
4 replies · active 583 weeks ago
More accurately speaking, your formula is correct, but your measurement of S1, S2, and f is inaccurate. The object to image distance is equal to S1+D+S2 or f+D+f, where D is the distance between the two principal planes.
Isn't that 2f is much shorter than S1+S2, as for the inclusion of the D for more accurate calculation with thick lenses, this point is agreed.
Yep, that was a typo -- I meant to say there is a D between the two f in your graph, but yes f+D+f is not the the same as S1+D+S2.
This technical article maybe useful for an in-depth study of the case:

http://www.panohelp.com/thinlensformula.html

It maybe a bit too complicated then, though.

Post a new comment

Comments by