PDA

View Full Version : Which 4x5 lens is truly normal? I don't think 150mm is!



riooso
2-Jan-2007, 21:28
I just finished reading "Using the View Camera" by Simmins and Shaw's "Landscape Photography". I shoot 4x5. I am really having a time with the concept of "normal". I shot a rice dryer with the sunrise behind it and when I got the slide back that dryer is a lot larger in real life. I love my 150 and shoot it most of the time. I like the in your face, perspective I get with it, yet understated a tad. Regardless, what lens gives one more of a "Real" perspective? Just curious, part of the learning curve. I have searched on the forum and nothing really answers that. Hope that I have articulated the question properly.

Thanks
Richard

Oren Grad
2-Jan-2007, 21:47
The "normal" focal length for a format is, by arbitrary definition, the focal length equivalent to the diagonal of the format. 4x5 is generally considered to have an actual image area of 96x120mm (though there are small variations among different brands of film holder); if you do the arithmetic, you get 153.7mm for the diagonal. Modern lens makers offer lenses at 150mm, which is the nearest round number and is close enough. Among older lenses you'll sometimes find 6" or 152mm focal lengths.

As for "what lens gives one more of a "Real" perspective?", that's entirely up to you. It's something you'll figure out for yourself as you gain experience with different lenses. If I could have only one lens for 4x5, it would be 135mm. Others prefer something longer than normal, such as a 180 or a 210. If you search on "favorite lens" or similar terms, you'll find lots of old threads in which people tell about their preferences.

Jim Ewins
2-Jan-2007, 21:54
:) Owen's measurements are of the exposed image size, not the film size of 4x5. If the film size is used it would be 162mm.

riooso
2-Jan-2007, 22:02
Confusing, I guess I am talking about scale. If I am a 1000 feet from something and I measure something at 1/2 inch which lens will give me a 1/2 picture. Shaw's states that the "normal" lens was the abritary by history and the lens manufacturers. I probably have something twisted here. Something I am missing. Perspective is the wrong word, I have a distort perspective most of the time I shoot.


Thanks in advance
Richard

OldBikerPete
2-Jan-2007, 22:09
The "normal" focal length for a format is, by arbitrary definition, the focal length equivalent to the diagonal of the format. <snip>


That's true, but if taken litrally, then the 'normal' lens for 35mm would be about 38mm. I figure that a lens for 5x4 having the same 'viewing angle' as a 55mm lens in 35mm format would be about 205mm.
That said, my most used lens in 5x4 (landscapes only) is 135mm,
which I figure is about equivalent field of view as a 35mm lens in 35mm format.

Jorge Gasteazoro
2-Jan-2007, 22:16
One of the few things if not the only useful thing I saw a long time ago in the VC web site was a lens chart, I think the 50 mm equivalent for the 35 mm to the 4x5 was a 210 mm lens.

Doug Kerr
2-Jan-2007, 22:18
Hi, Richard,

Note that the nature of the perspective in a shot is solely a matter of the position of the camera (the distance from the camera to the subject is one way to look at it for a scene with a single subject). It is not affected by focal length at all.

How focal length seems to get into the deal is that, if we wish to shoot a certain shubject from a certain distance (so as to achieve a certain perspective effect), we may then wish to use a certain focal length to get the optimal framing.

Thus, in portrait work, for example, we may find that we like the effect of perspective when we shoot from, say, a distance of 10 feet. Then, having decided that, the focal length we will want to use will depend on whether we are shooting a head shot, waist-up, or full length portrait.

But if we use "too short" a focal length, for example, and still shoot from the desirable distance, we will get the perspective we desire, but the subject will occupy a small portion of the negative, and we will have to deal with that when we make the enlargement for delivery by using a smaller portion of the negative and a greater enlargement factor.

But the effects of perspective will be the same as if we used a longer focal length lens and printed a larger fraction of the frame at a lesser enlargement factor.

Regarding the extremely-arbitrary matter of a "normal" lens focal length, note that the following are widely held:

1. The "normal" lens focal length is equal to the diagonal of the frame format, which for full-frame 35-mm work is about 43 mm.

2. In full-frame 35-mm work, the "normal" focal length is considered to be 50 mm.

So go figure!

Best regards,

Doug

John O'Connell
2-Jan-2007, 22:19
Simple answer: try using a 210mm lens.

Long answer: this is not a question about what a normal focal length should be. Either you want the formula for reproducing an object at a particular size on film, or the 150mm lens does not give you the relative prominence you want for different subjects in a single composition.

Stroebel's View Camera Technique contains formulas and diagrams for achieving specific image sizes for objects of a known size.

If you are concerned about the relative prominence of objects in your photographs, and the lens you are using leaves objects too small on film, use a longer lens. Because you already have a 150mm lens, it makes sense to skip over the 180mm focal length and get a 210mm lens to try a slightly greater magnification.

naturephoto1
2-Jan-2007, 22:21
Hi Richard,

Here is a chart that may prove of some assistance in comparing focal length compared to 35mm for many format sizes:

http://lensn2shutter.com/35mmchart.html

Rich

riooso
2-Jan-2007, 22:24
Thanks a lot. Much food for thought on my part. Good parts in both books started me thinking.

Thanks

Alan Davenport
2-Jan-2007, 22:32
We're talking about a very non-technical-sounding technical term, which is actually very narrowly defined. Most people see the term "normal lens" and they assume it means the lens everyone else normally uses. Obviously that isn't the case, and Oren is correct with his definition. If everyone in the world decided to normally use a lens that was twice the diagonal of their film size, it wouldn't change the definition of a "normal lens," which has nothing to do with the lens you normally use.

I'm normally not this way, but sometimes I'm abnormally amused by normal things.:rolleyes:

riooso
2-Jan-2007, 22:36
Oh no!!!!! Here comeS the "ABBY NORMAL" stuff.:rolleyes:

Oren Grad
2-Jan-2007, 22:53
That's true, but if taken litrally, then the 'normal' lens for 35mm would be about 38mm.

Actually, it's 43mm. If you want to have a lens that's exactly normal for 35mm, you can buy the Pentax 43mm in either Pentax K bayonet or Leica screw mount. There have also been plenty of other lenses in near-normal focal lengths offered by many different vendors - lots of 40s, and a few 45s too. My old Kodak Signet 35 has a 44mm lens.

The lenses in the 50-55mm range traditionally sold as "normal" for 35mm are in fact quite long. On almost every other format I can think of that's in common use, the available "normal" lenses have generally been much closer to the actual format diagonal. That 35mm is otherwise is a strange historical quirk that has led to much confusion about the definition of a "normal" focal length.

Brian Ellis
2-Jan-2007, 23:26
"I shot a rice dryer with the sunrise behind it and when I got the slide back that dryer is a lot larger in real life."

I assume you mean the dryer appeared larger in real life in relation to other things in the scene than it appeared in the photograph. That's something you control not only by your choice of lens focal length but also by the distance between your camera and the subject. If you had used say a 75mm lens and moved sufficiently close to the dryer it would have appeared much larger in relation to other objects in the scene (and farther away from them) than it apparently did with your 150mm lens. There's an explanation for why that's so but it would take some length to go into it. You can see the effect for yourself if you have a wide angle lens just by putting it on the camera and moving closer to and farther from a subject like the dryer while watching what happens as you do so on the ground glass. Then do the same thing with your 150mm lens. However, none of this has anything in particular to do with what lens is "normal" for 4x5.

Colin Robertson
3-Jan-2007, 03:50
Hee hee. This is great because we're gonna use maths to deal with a subjective issue. Richard, if you still have a 35mm camera, stick a 50mm lens on the front. You'll find the magnification/ field of view lets you keep both eyes open (or to switch between eyes) easily. I think 50mm became 'normal' because it suited the rangefinders which predated SLR's. On 5x4 a 150mm lens (which I use) is certainly wider. More like 38-40mm on th3 35mm format. LF has issues of weight, bellows extension and 'cropability' which favour wider lenses.

Ole Tjugen
3-Jan-2007, 04:07
... You'll find the magnification/ field of view lets you keep both eyes open (or to switch between eyes) easily. ...

Whether or not it does depends more on the magnification of the viewfinder than on some "mystical" property of the 50mm lens, I'm afraid.

The problem with basing the "normal" focal length on the diagonal of the film format is that different film formats have very different aspect ratios. It is easier to say that the "normal" focal length for 35mm film is 50mm, or about 1.39 times the long side of the negative (assuming 24x36mm). Multiplying that by the 120mm long side of a 4x5" film (image area) gives about 167mm. So yes, a 150mm lens on a 4x5" camera is a little wider than a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera.

But if shot from the same place the perspective would be identical, since that is only determined by the distance from lens to subject.

Colin Robertson
3-Jan-2007, 04:34
Yes, Ole. Unfortunately the perspective issue, which has come up so many times, often becomes confused in the process of printing. Most of us habitualy print full frame (I think), so let's imagine two shots. One from a 50mm lens on 35mm the other a 150mm on 5x4, both taken from exactly the same position. We print both full frame, to a similar size. Although the sapatial relationships of all objects contained within the frame will be exactly the same, the LF shot will be a little wider. It will include a little more foreground and some objects will be smaller within the frame. For many people the two lenses will 'seem' to have delivered a different 'perspective'. In order to demonstrate that perspective is a product of camera/subject distance I think you would need to print in such a way that the principal subject was excatly the same size. We would end up with two different size prints, and even then a little masking might be needed to convince everyone. Happy new year, by the way. Looking forawrd to seeing your print!!

Geert
3-Jan-2007, 05:07
What is all the fuzz about? You can see the image you are about to make on the groundglass.
If it does not fit, take another lens, or move forward or backward (if you can...) or crop while printing.

G

Ole Tjugen
3-Jan-2007, 05:49
I guess this explains why I tend to carry not only 150 and 210mm lenses, but 120, 165 and 180mm as well. And 65, 90, 240, 300 and 355mm too - just in case. AND a larger camera...

At least that's my excuse.

Joseph O'Neil
3-Jan-2007, 06:22
:) Owen's measurements are of the exposed image size, not the film size of 4x5. If the film size is used it would be 162mm.

I have an Ilex Paragon 162mm lens. I always wondered why they made that size. :)

joe

Dan Fromm
3-Jan-2007, 07:28
Ole, if you had the money and the pack mule you'd use a large camera with a huge zoom lens. You're right, though, changing focal length often beats moving the camera, especially when moving the camera isn't feasible at all.

Oren, for motion picture formats the "normal" lens is defined by convention. Hence the 25 mm normal lens for 16 mm cameras.

I've always thought that the 35 mm still "normal" lens focal length of 50 or so mm (up to 58 mm for some SLR systems) was a similar convention, strengthened by the cost of making a 43 mm lens that will perform well and clear a 35 mm SLR's mirror.

riooso
3-Jan-2007, 07:49
The reason to know what is normal is to know where to start with lens selection. I have a 90,150,240, thanks Santa for the 240! All you experienced guys and gals know where to start because you have done it for a while. I really do not want to shoot what my eyes see which is why I probably like the 150mm so much, and I do view it as a slightly wide lens. When I photograph something I often try to twist and make things conform to a particular perspective. We will not get into the neutral starting perspective point that is exhibited by the general populace of this forum, it would involve numerous members taken away in white coats:p
In Shaw's book on landscapers he mentions wide lenses "decompress" and long lenses "compress" but he uses 35mm in the book for the most part and 4x5 is radically different. Well I think I finally got the objective of the question right because of the input from all of you and I am guessing a 210 or a 240 are probably closer to what my eye sees. I somehow knew there was more to this than a simple paragraph answer. There is so much to learn. Love it!

Thanks,
Richard

naturephoto1
3-Jan-2007, 07:57
Hi Richard,

As I mentioned in comment 9 in this thread, use the linked chart to assist in comparing 35mm focal lengths with other film formats including 4 X 5:

http://lensn2shutter.com/35mmchart.html

Rich

steve simmons
3-Jan-2007, 08:28
There is not going to be an exact equivilent from 35mm to 4x5 becasue the proportions are different. You can try and match the short dimension, the long dimension, or the diagonal but nothing will be exact.

A 'normal' lens will be the one that matched the diagonal of the film. For 4x5 this is approx 162mm.

There is a comparison chart based on the longest dimension for different formats on the View Camera site under Free Articles

www.viewcamera.com


steve simmons

Jim Rhoades
3-Jan-2007, 08:38
Richard, I think that you are instinctively grasping what "normal" is. It is not the mathematical answer of diagonal of the film. While many loosely say that anything from 135 to 210 might be considered "normal" that's a pretty big range. Even when defining that as slighty wide to slighty long.

If your eyes and what you see is normal so is the lens that sees that. But that's not good enough, heres why. Your eyes can take in a wide view of the world. Hold your hands out to the side and you can see them. But you vision sees what is of intrest. A pretty girl in a bikini on the beach can focus your vision down to a real narrow perspective. The rice dryer to appear large might best be shot with a wider lens close to the dryer. This would give it the looming look that struck your vision.

The girl on the beach with the sun behind her would call for a longer lens. What we as photographers call our normal lens is that which most suites our own standard vision. I like longer lenses so for me a 210 is closer to normal or standard than is a 150 which is wide for me. My least used lens is a 90mm. I don't even carry it in my bag. Other's love their 90's or 110's. It comes down to what works well for us. That's your normal lens.

Walter Calahan
3-Jan-2007, 09:04
What on this green earth is "normal"?

It's what you think is normal.

Some photo-journalist think 28-mm or 35-mm are "normal" for their 35-mm photography 'cause the feel of the image is more how they see. Many sports photographers see normally with either a 300, 400, or 600-mm focal lengths.

Likewise of large format, 135-mm feels more normal to me on 4x5. My 240-mm feels more normal on 8x10. It's just how I see.

So that do you want to do with photography should guide you more to what is your "normal" focal length. Many shooters I know see with a 210-mm as normal on 4x5. If that winds your watch, go for it.

All these math solutions of what is "normal" are simply engineering solutions. How it translates to the final image is what counts.

So if you think a 65-mm is how you normally see, go far it. If you only see in the macro world you might want to think about getting a Nikkor 120-mm micro lens. B&H has a great price on this lens right now. For portraiture, you might "normally" see with a 240-mm or longer.

tim atherton
3-Jan-2007, 09:21
Richard, I think that you are instinctively grasping what "normal" is. It is not the mathematical answer of diagonal of the film. While many loosely say that anything from 135 to 210 might be considered "normal" that's a pretty big range. Even when defining that as slighty wide to slighty long.

If your eyes and what you see is normal so is the lens that sees that. But that's not good enough, heres why. Your eyes can take in a wide view of the world. Hold your hands out to the side and you can see them. But you vision sees what is of intrest. A pretty girl in a bikini on the beach can focus your vision down to a real narrow perspective. The rice dryer to appear large might best be shot with a wider lens close to the dryer. This would give it the looming look that struck your vision.

The girl on the beach with the sun behind her would call for a longer lens. What we as photographers call our normal lens is that which most suites our own standard vision. I like longer lenses so for me a 210 is closer to normal or standard than is a 150 which is wide for me. My least used lens is a 90mm. I don't even carry it in my bag. Other's love their 90's or 110's. It comes down to what works well for us. That's your normal lens.


Jim has it pretty much. The camera doesn't see the same way our eyes/brain do. There are lots of arguments about what lens/format reproduces most closely human vision - some say about a 35mm/40mm lens on the 35mm camera. Others say the pano view of something like a Noblex is much closer. Fact is, none of them come close to really replicating how humans see. Add with the final two dimensional representation you end up with the resulting photograph really isn't that close to human vision. The photograph is quite a different thing from what we saw with our eyes when we took it.

Steve Hamley
3-Jan-2007, 10:53
The best way to determine "normal" is by examining your work and determining if you think your compositions are "crowded" or too wide. I used a 150mm for quite a while, and after reviewing a body of my work, switched to a 135mm. I also use a 110mm quite a bit or it's lighter 120mm counterpart.

Jim said he liked longer lenses, but it's clear he likes them because they suit him in the situations he likes to shoot.

Steve

GPS
3-Jan-2007, 14:55
I shoot 4x5. I am really having a time with the concept of "normal". .. I love my 150 and shoot it most of the time. I like the in your face, perspective I get with it, yet understated a tad...Richard

Well, according to some answers you just got, if you like this (150mm) focal length... and you use it "most of the time"... then it should be just that - your NORMAL LENS!
Yet, you say " I don't think 150 mm is!"
Thus, you yourself prove that this kind of answers is not logical. How come?
If a "normal lens" is whatever you "like most" then all the other technical terms like a "wide angle", a "long focal length" is nowhere different from the "normal" lens. How come..?

riooso
3-Jan-2007, 19:13
Thanks, appreciate the time and effort.

Richard

BrianShaw
3-Jan-2007, 19:19
A 'normal' lens will be the one that matched the diagonal of the film. For 4x5 this is approx 162mm.

There is a comparison chart based on the longest dimension for different formats on the View Camera site under Free Articles


I was amused (and confused) when I saw the VC chart that doesn't conform to the accepted standard definition of "normal". Why the difference? :confused:

Jim Jones
3-Jan-2007, 19:54
Normal lenses are for normal people. Normal people aren't willing to make the effort necessary for great photos. Therefore, there should be enough latitude in defining "normal" lenses so photographers who aspire to greatness aren't embarrased by admitting to owning normal lenses.

andy bessette
3-Jan-2007, 20:22
Whether or not it does depends more on the magnification of the viewfinder than on some "mystical" property of the 50mm lens, I'm afraid.

The problem with basing the "normal" focal length on the diagonal of the film format is that different film formats have very different aspect ratios. It is easier to say that the "normal" focal length for 35mm film is 50mm, or about 1.39 times the long side of the negative (assuming 24x36mm). Multiplying that by the 120mm long side of a 4x5" film (image area) gives about 167mm. So yes, a 150mm lens on a 4x5" camera is a little wider than a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera.

But if shot from the same place the perspective would be identical, since that is only determined by the distance from lens to subject.

Yo Ole,

it has been amazing for me to see how many radically different points of view could be produced to presumably answer the original poster's question! But I believe you have answered it best HERE.

It IS important to consider the very different aspect ratio between 35mm and 4X5 formats, and choosing the long dimension (rather than the diagonal) makes the most sense, as it relates to the horizontal angle of view. As most of us only need a basis for comparison to an equivalent 35mm lens, using the ubiquitous 50mm "normal" lens as an example works well enough for our purpose.

I can confirm your calculations are correct, and would further point out that this relates to a "factor" of 3.34 (or 3 1/3) with which one could determine an equivalent 4X5 lens as it relates to any 35mm lens. If someone prefers to think of let's say a 43mm lens as "normal", fine, then 43 X 3.34 = 144mm. However I have grown accustomed to viewing a slightly longer lens as normal.

best, andy

THERE'S MORE TO OPTICS THAN MEETS THE EYE

C. D. Keth
5-Jan-2007, 13:03
The comparisons are further complicated by the aspect ratio of 4x5 being different than that of 35mm. Personally, for most things I find 180mm to be about normal on 4x5.

Doug Kerr
5-Jan-2007, 14:47
Notwithstanding a lot of spurious notions such as those about "making the camera see like the human eye" (a basically meaningless notion), as near as I can figure out the identification of a 50-mm focal length as "normal" in full-frame 35-mm practice came from the fact that manufacturers of fixed lens cameras for that format (or of interchangeble lens cameras supplied with a standard lens) at one time probably had found out that a many of their customers found most useful overall a field of view about that produced by a 50-mm lens.

Later, of course, it became common to supply fixed-lens full-frame 35-mm cameras with lenses of 45 mm focal length, and later yet, even shorter lenses (maybe even 35 mm), probably based on customer feedback as consumer tastes changed.

The fact is, this "magic number" is of little use to us as we plan a repertoire of lenses for use with a particular camera, unless of course we have little experience in photography.

With regard to determining the focal length that would provide the same field of view on some camera as a certain focal length provides on a camera of a different format (including the infamous "full-frame 35-mm equivalent focal length" so beloved to workers in the miniature formats), as was mentioned before, if the two formats do not have the same aspect ratios, this is customarily finessed by basing the comparison on diagonal field of view. This is not the most meaningful basis - in fact, it is probably the least meaningful, since rarely would we choose a focal length based on the diagonal field of view needed to embrace the subject with the composition we want. Rather, it is a handy compromise between comparisons based on the long or short dimensions of the format, one of which is probably the most meaningful in a particular situation.

Best regards,

Doug

John Kasaian
5-Jan-2007, 19:00
Only own one lens, and that lens will be your "normal" no matter the focal length ;)