Objective?

Here in the Netherlands we just as often use the word objectief as the word lens however I never came across the word objective used in the English language, is there a reason for that?

It is used sometimes in English - strictly speaking the objective is the lens that is facing the subject, so a lens that is off the camera or not in use can't be the objective.

Not sure how much of that terminology has fallen by the wayside over the years though...

Ah okay so it's the Dutch language that got deluded

This what a simple on-line dictionary has to say about it.
The lens or combination of lenses that first receives the rays from the object and forms the image in the focal plane of the eyepiece, as in a microscope, or on a plate or screen, as in a camera.

So from what I understand you can only call it an objective if it's mounted on a camera?
We learn something everyday

That's a similar definition then - the objective is the lens that "receives the rays from the object", so in other words the lens that's currently in use.

Languages change over the years though so who's to say what the real meanings are? As long as we all understand each other then there are bigger things to worry about imho.

Isn't the Objective the front "glass" in the lens and the Subjective the rear "glass"?
Or have I mis-remembered my physics lessons from all those years ago?

Maybe, although I must admit I've never heard "subjective" used in relation to camera lenses before. It wouldn't be the first time I've been proved wrong though!

It could easily be me who is wrong. It's been a long time

Hefty a thought occur to me, camera lenses are designed to be objectives so how can they not be an objective if they aren't in use or is it really that strict?

I've no idea Father Ted

Father Ted, objective comes from the ability to "picture" an object there is no front or back involved.

However if we talk about models we talk about subjects so can't we call the objective a subjective then?

So...
The objective of the shot is the subject. The light passing from the subject, passes through the objective onto the sensor.

My brain hurts!!

Yes Father Ted but since the word objective comes from his ability to "picture" an object, shouldn't we call it a subjective if it pictures a subject rather than an objective?

I don't think it's all that strict - few things in the English language are (and it's that flexibility that has allowed it to dominate other languages over the years).

Maybe a lens is merely a lens when it's first created and when it takes its first photo it passes a right of passage to become a fully fledged objective?

Thank you Hefty I'm going to use the word objective from now on, it sounds far more interesting than lens.

Is it possible the objective lens of a TLR distinguishes it from the lens used for viewing?

It might be that the objective lens needs to be one of a series? For eg a magnifying glass on its own, as an individual lens, perhaps wouldn't qualify.

With telescopic sights (whether or not mounted on a rifle), the lens closest to the object being viewed is also the objective lens. Binoculars are the same.

The 'rear gear' of a rifle-scope is an 'ocular assembly' - ocular no doubt referring to the proximity to the eye.

Not sure about the answer to Mike's situation - As speculation only, might it be that there are two objective lenses, but for different purposes?