Template talk:Infobox photographic lens

message: I have some issues with this template.
* It assumes that we're talking about single-lens reflex cameras of 35mm film format or the full-frame or smaller sensored digital cameras of similar form factor.  There are many more camera formats out there, including 35mm rangefinder and a variety of bigger and smaller cameras.
* It has no field for a lens' actual focal length, just its '35mm equivalent'.  A lens has only one real focal length or range; 35mm equivalents just help those unfamiliar with a format translate it into a frame of reference they're used to.
* Some lenses are usable on cameras with several different sensor or film sizes.  Thus there may be multiple equivalents.  E.g. a Canon EF lens can be used on 1.0, 1.3 and 1.6 "crop factors" and will have a different field of view on each.
* A lot of the thinking behind the fields is Canon-centric.
* No lens is produced with a 1.3 crop SLR in mind, yet it is one of the 'fov' options.
If you don't mind, I will be thinking of ways to broaden the scope of this template - it would be a shame not to be able to use it on articles on e.g. Hasselblad or Pentax 6x7 lenses. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If what you want done can't be done simply then I recommend forking the template.  Just a suggestion. Cburnett 00:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I created the template as a vehicle for capturing details about Canon lenses - so the shortcomings in the content are based purely on this rather narrow point of view.  Of course, with some help from a wider audience, it should be simple to extend and modify the definition to be more representative.  Any suggestions on new tags or clearer definition is welcome, starting with the   suggestions made already oyster 12:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some issues with this template 

message: I see that this template automatically adds articles to :Category:Photographic lenses. This creates redundant categorization when a lens belongs in a more specific category, such as :Category:Minolta lenses. Lenses in the latter should not also appear in the former, per Wikipedia's guidelines.--Srleffler 04:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, that was easy to fix. The field "category" now allows you to specify an alternate category in which to put the article.--Srleffler 04:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category problem. 

message: Could we remove the "#" before the "Diaphragm blades:" label in the infobox? Clearly the parameter is a quantity, so the number symbol is redundant. The infobox labels would have a cleaner left-aligned look without it. – voidxor (talk | contrib) 07:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number symbol preceding "Diaphragm blades" is superfluous 

message: Is "Manufacturers standard retail price" something which should be included in an encyclopedic article?
– Thinking about it, for historical products it can make sense to note what the price was – but to keep track of current prices? I guess this must have been discussed somewhere, I mean generally for the whole encyclopedia, so now I go looking for that discussion – anyone got a link? --83.255.55.91 (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it makes sense. I might read about one lens, and then see that another lens has some other features, and wonder how that might be reflected in the price of the two items. Economics is a valid encyclopaedic subject and should be reflected. Samsara 11:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retail price?? 

message: If I ask what the diameter of a ball is, am I likely to be misunderstood? Will I be offered a section of the ball at an arbitrary point, or the thickest point? I think the same goes for lenses - other websites commonly list the diameter as simply "diameter", I think the "Max." is superfluous. KISS principle. Samsara 22:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diameter 

message: I think it would be nice to add the parameter feature-af (Feature autofocus) with value yes or no. 
I think this would be useful, especially for manual focussed lenses, to see with a short look that it is manual focussed lens; that autofocus is not supported by this lens. I think it is an Important information, as nowadays most of the lenses are auto-focussed. And Lot of lenses like little bit exotic Samyang, Handevision but also well known and very expensive lenses like Zeiss Otus don't support autofocus. This might be not known, not expected, by everybody. 
So my aim is, that everybody sees with a short look, that AF is not supported. But this feature can also be use to indicate that autofocus is supported
What is your opinion? Should I add this parameter? Feedback is welcome. --GodeNehler (talk) 07:24, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add parameter feature-af (Feature autofocus supported) - your opinion needed 

message: I'd come across several lenses, in which the lens type (tele / supertele) was used instead of the the suggested application/genre (e.g portrait, landscape, etc.). Should there be a change of this field? --Angerdan (talk) 00:27, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the explanation on the Template page: type = Zoom, Prime or Special. There is nothing mentioned about portrait or landscape. From my point of view, a tele / supertele is a special form a prime lens. So, therefore it is ok. --GodeNehler (talk) 06:22, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Tele/supertele isn't an application, so the entered values in some used templates doens't fit to the name of the template. Like portrait or landscape isn't a lens type. I do suggest to list all photographic genres relevant for lens choices in the "application" explanation of the template. And to specifiy the possible lens types as combinations in the "type" template explanation. Otherwise the descriptions would be mixed together in future uses of the lens box like before. --Angerdan (talk) 11:33, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested application