Talk:Camera lens

message: I agree that this article is way too in-depth and should be split.  However, I disagree with the lack of references tag (300 references is certainly not lacking!) and the too technical tag (just casually browsing through the article, I got the gist of it).  While I think the article deserves cleaning up, I also think these tags should be removed. AryconVyper (talk) 13:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Number of references do not mean an article is reliably sourced, and this article is a classic example. The introduction makes some un-referenced (and wrong) statements about camera lenses. There are very few references (in fact 13) in the "body" of the article, before the history section. The history section has the vast majority of the references and, as I pointed out above, allot of those are primary sources supporting original research. too technical is discussed above as well but I would note allot of the problem is a mix of badly written non-encyclopedic tone and general photographer/hobbyist folk lore making parts of the article more mumbo-jumbo than "too technical". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I too disagree with the lack of references tag (300 references is certainly not lacking!). Your "Systemic problems", even if existing, are not helpful to be tagged, when they are "systemic". Tagremover (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Unnecessary tags?

message: This statement- "Glass is the most common material used to construct lens elements" appears in the text and I really wonder if this is verified.  Many eyeglasses use plastic lens as do many inexpensive cameras and decorative lighting instruments.  Does someone really know?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.11.12.146 (talk) 08:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You make a good point. While I am sure glass is the most common for serious camera lenses (the title of this page), "most common" isn't well-defined. By number of units, I bet plastic lenses are actually more prevalent, given the billions(?) of cell-phone cameras out there in the world. Also, I think aspherical plastic elements are gaining acceptance in expensive optics. Maybe something like "Historically, glass has been the dominant material for building quality optics; recently, plastics have been used increasingly in everything from eyeglasses to cell-phone cameras to elements in high-end optics, particularly due to the ease of molding aspherical plastic elements." That seems to cover it but yet be vague enough to not be incorrect and to not require much citation. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 12:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glass is the most common... 

message: I am concerned with the following sentence, at the end of the "digital era" section.
In theory, if the physical characteristics of a lens are completely understood and the information in an image are completely known, the object can be mathematically recreated with near perfection, assuming no environmental degradation, because wave phenomena obey time-reversible equations. Presently, time-reversed signal processing techniques are used for sound and radio waves (for sonar and radar systems), but there is no fundamental reason why they cannot be used for visible light wave photographic systems.
The point here is with the wording "information in an image" which is technically incorrect. In order to "recreate the object" you need to know the full light field at the focal (or any) plane. Current image sensors (CCD, CMOS, film, just any image sensor) do sample only the light intensity incident on the surface of the sensor, as opposed to intensity plus phase (which would be needed at each wavelength). Moreover the intensity is integrated over broad regions of the spectrum (typically corresponding to three colors, or even the full visible spectrum for BW film). Since people doesn't consider such information as the full spectral content of light, let alone a complete description of the electromagnetic field, as part of an image, describing these data as "information in an image" is misleading.
Given the current image sensors, without some justification, the statement "there is no fundamental reason why they cannot be used..." sounds a bit like "there is no fundamental reason why we can not grow crops on the moon". Ok, true, but rather uninformative.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.154.29.221 (talk) 01:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Its the tail end of a section that is just full of un-encyclopedic statements. The last sentence sounds like more WP:OR and probably falls under WP:CRYSTAL. Can be checked against references, or removed and the deletion referenced in talk so someone can get back to it and firm up if any of it is encyclopedic. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 03:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Time-reversed signal processing

message: What does this q.v. stand for? Does anyone else find 40 occurrences of q.v. distracting? Dzenanz (talk) 01:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It means "quod vide", or "which see"; that is, "look it up".  I think even one occurrence is distracting and inappropriate in a general-English encyclopedia (but then I also object to i.e. and e.g., which are sources of great confusion among readers and writers these days, too).  We're not short on space, so there's no need to two-letter Latin abbrevs.  Fix it.  Dicklyon (talk) 01:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Dzenanz (talk) 03:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In many cases, a wikilink would be the sensible alternative, in case the readers wants to "q.v." Dicklyon (talk) 04:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  q.v. 

message: In the "Theory of operation" section, the two references to the "virtual image of the aperture" seem inadvisable in such close association with descriptions and illustrations of pinhole imaging. Confusion about what virtual and real images are is a deplorable trend. Even recent editions of the formerly excellent Focal Encyclopedia have a brief "Virtual image" article stating that the image focused on a screen or film is a virtual image, which is of course exactly wrong, and that howling error, faithfully copied, has for several years now been corrupting visitors—yes, even innocent little schoolchildren—naively seeking information at the George Eastman House site, seemingly also a highly reliable source. Let's try not to add to the problem. I assume the point that someone was trying to make in this article is about measuring the effective aperture of a diaphragm in a lens system, but the context for making that point was either ill-chosen to begin with or has subsequently evolved to be unsuitable and misleading. 66.249.174.102 (talk) 06:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Virtual image abuse? 

message: At present the article has a section on lens mounts. However, there's no similar section for filters and lens hoods that you attach to the front of a lens. --Marc Kupper|talk 23:18, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we need a section on filters and hoods? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Camera lens. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://ogiroux.blogspot.com/2008/06/worlds-fastest-lens-zeiss-50mm-f07.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The phrase "convex lens" is used several times in the article without definition or explanation. I think this is the sort of thing that someone accessing this article would be looking for. A short explanation and diagram would be appropriate additions, together with a link to the article "Lens". I'm not an expert & am reluctant to edit. Ishboyfay (talk) 17:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Convex lens 

message: a telescopic lens is similar 121.200.42.86 (talk) 08:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  telescopic