Is the 47mm the widest lens, period?

[Jac@stafford.net]

The fan may not be convenient but is actually really neat. This thread is the first I've heard of it. I've tried manually dodging the center of my pinhole exposures, but with very mixed results due to hand-eye coordination. Now I'm thinking of how to adapt the fan concept to my superwide pinhole cameras.

You might find greater success using a printing mask.

[hoffner]

The fan may not be convenient but is actually really neat.
Now I'm thinking of how to adapt the fan concept to my superwide pinhole cameras.

No kidding? You are into nanotechnology, no doubt about it!

[BetterSense]

When comparing two formats, I prefer to compare horizontal angle-of-view, since I don't use dutch angles. My Omega D2 negative carriers for 6x7 and 4x5 are respectively 67mm and 118mm wide, which gives 134.5 degree AOV for the 28mm vs 136.5 degree AOV for the 47mm. Close, but the 47mm is still wider (when comparing using this method). And, by your numbers, the 47mm covers a wider angle, making it wider if you compare them without considering film format.


As Dan has pointed out, all the Hypergons should have the same 'covered angle-of-view' since they are all the same design. Film format aside, they could all be considered equally wide. If the 75mm really covers 8x10, then it may be the widest in convenient practice.

Oops, used the wrong angles. More like 103 degrees, not 136.

[hoffner]

Oops, used the wrong angles. More like 103 degrees, not 136.

No kidding? Are you sure it won't change tomorrow?

[alexn]

I would put forth that the widest rectilinear view one can achieve in a single frame would be a 35mm camera with Nikon's 13mm f/5.6 prime. There are next to none in general circulation, and they were incredibly rare even when they were released. Last one I saw for sale was sold for a whopping $25,000 AUD...

I think format has a lot to do with how wide an image FEELS. I feel 65mm on 4x5 is ridiculously wide, where as on 35mm I regularly shoot with lenses with a wider angle of view and yearn for wider... on 6x17 I wouldn't go wider than a 90mm as I feel the image starts to get a little weird...

I have not shot a 47 or 58 on 4x5 but given how a 65mm feels to me - I dare say I wouldn't get a lot of use from it....

[Jac@stafford.net]

This thread is confusing to me, but I am easily confused. Moving on regardless. I have, and will be auctioning, two cameras that use the same 47mm Super-Angulon F/5.6.

Both use the same 47mm Super Angulon F/5.6 lens.

One is a late Brooks Veriwide camera. The other is my own handmade 4x5 camera that uses the same lens. The photographer can use either.

[genotypewriter]

I would put forth that the widest rectilinear view one can achieve in a single frame would be a 35mm camera with Nikon's 13mm f/5.6 prime.

It's not a bad idea to read a thread before chiming in... for example many rectilinear lenses wider than a 13mm on the 35mm have been mentioned here.

And no... the Nikon 13 is far from it. The money people pay for lenses has very little to do with what the lenses are capable of doing... best examples are Leicas and antique Nikons.

[Drew Wiley]

Methinks the term "rectilinear" is itself being stretched quite a bit here.

[genotypewriter]

Methinks the term "rectilinear" is itself being stretched quite a bit here.

Would be interesting to hear your reasons, Drew. Always nice to learn something new.

[C. D. Keth]

Wow! Great information.

Was 2001 shot on 65mm film? (diagonal nominal 55mm) or were the HAL views on cine 35?

It was 65mm. The camera aperture was 52.48 by 23.01 mm. Projected aperture is slightly smaller, maybe a millimeter smaller in each dimension.