Lens set based on field of view (FOV)?

[Pfsor]

Once again, a simple portable viewing frame tells you precisely what FL you would prefer in your photographic situations. No need to ask anybody else about their taste and their vision - just you, your own aesthetics and your own decision. As simple as that.

[Doremus Scudder]

Doremus, a set of lenses with 50% steps between focal lengths is interesting. Useful, too. But it isn't the only one.

I bought my first real camera, a Nikkormat FTn, in 1970. It came with a little pamphlet on the basics of photography. I learned a lot from the pamphlet and the exercises in it, still have it. Anyway, in it Nikon recommended a lens set with 100% steps. Double focal length upwards, halve it downwards. I took their advice, ended up with a kit that that had 24 mm, 55 mm, 105 mm and 200 mm lenses. I later added a 400 and (heresy!) a 35. My first longer lens was a disaster of a 1000, quickly sold off. Eventually I got a 700. When my kit was stolen I replaced the 35 with a 35-70 zoom. And there, more or less, is my 35 mm kit.

When I moved up in format to 2x3 I started with a normal lens, 101 mm, later added too many other lenses and ended up with more kit than I can carry and with focal lengths in relatively small steps. Too many choices. I've since slimmed down what I try to travel with to steps of around 50%. I see this as tidy but entirely arbitrary.

OP, my point here is there really aren't any hard and firm rules. Like it or not, you'll have to find your own way.

Dan,

I wasn't trying to chisel anything in stone, just offering a suggestion that might work for the OP. I don't follow the 50%-spacing religiously, but it does seem to provide a fairly flexible kit for 4x5 in just four lenses. I don't think I could go with a 100% spacing for 4x5 though... 90mm - 180mm - 360mm would certainly be workable, but I seem to need intermediate focal lengths often. I know the danger of getting overloaded with focal lengths too, however. I try to keep it to four or five lenses, and lightweight ones at that, when in the field. I keep a bunch in the car when I'm road tripping and sometimes end up doing things like trading a 135mm for a 150mm just to use that extra bit of negative area. In the field, I'd just use the 135mm and crop when printing. For some reason, though, the 50% spacing works well enough so that when one lens is just a bit too long, I can go to the next longer and not feel like I am cropping too much to get the image I envisioned.

But, yes, there are no hard and fast rules.

Pfsor,

I like the viewing frame. I use a Zone VI viewing filter for sizing up potential shots. Choosing the correct focal length lens is easy once you get used to judging the distance between eye and frame. I rarely have to change lenses from the one I first choose.

Best,

Doremus

[Bob Salomon]

Dan,

I wasn't trying to chisel anything in stone, just offering a suggestion that might work for the OP. I don't follow the 50%-spacing religiously, but it does seem to provide a fairly flexible kit for 4x5 in just four lenses. I don't think I could go with a 100% spacing for 4x5 though... 90mm - 180mm - 360mm would certainly be workable, but I seem to need intermediate focal lengths often. I know the danger of getting overloaded with focal lengths too, however. I try to keep it to four or five lenses, and lightweight ones at that, when in the field. I keep a bunch in the car when I'm road tripping and sometimes end up doing things like trading a 135mm for a 150mm just to use that extra bit of negative area. In the field, I'd just use the 135mm and crop when printing. For some reason, though, the 50% spacing works well enough so that when one lens is just a bit too long, I can go to the next longer and not feel like I am cropping too much to get the image I envisioned.

But, yes, there are no hard and fast rules.

Best,

Doremus

One of the best ways is to look at the horizontal coverage, in degrees, of your favorite lenses on your usual format camera and then buy lenses with similar horizontal coverage for 45.

Or, look at the images you are currently making with your current lens and then decide if you need a little wider, little shorter, much wider or much longer and base your second lens decision on that. Then live with those two lenses and after shooting with them for a while make the same decision for your 3rd lens.
Again, after being the Linhof and Wista and Rodenstock distributor in the USA for multiple decades, the most common 3 lens set was the 90, 150 and 210mm. The 180 was the most common normal lens for 57.

Of course this was for new equipment.

[pete22230]

Hi again;
Thanks to everyone! Sounds like I have some screwed up fundamentals. I was basing a lot of my thinking on the published angle of coverage data from the manufacturers. So back to school. Dan thanks for the link and Corran/Oren yes I do have an 80mm. As near as I can determine it's early 70's but I might be wrong there. It's in great shape and came in a Linoff recessed board (don't know if it was originally a Linoff lens or just ended up there). My only complaint with it is that it's big with an 85mm front lens and a rear lens that you kind of have to wiggle inside the bellows. What really got me wondering was when I set up in the backyard with a compass and measured the angle of what I was seeing. It turned out that with the 80 I measured 75 degrees and with the 180 it was 30 degrees. I like the idea of a viewing frame although I've never seen one - tried a quick search and it seemed all I got was electronic picture frames from amazon and others - Doremus I'll check out the zone VI one - thanks.
I'm still a bit confused on the angle thing. Looking at Michael Davis "Specs for new large format 4x5 lenses" here on the site I see he has a Nikor SW 120mm listed with a 105degree angle of coverage just as the Rodenstock Grandagon-N 65mm. The difference seems to be that with the 120 you get 50% excess coverage. So for my purposes 120-135mm lenses like the Nikkor SW or Fuji SW with their big image circles give me the "in between" I'm looking for with the addition of lots of movement - Correct???
Once agin let me say thanks to everyone.
Pete

[Pfsor]

...

Pfsor,
I like the viewing frame. I use a Zone VI viewing filter for sizing up potential shots. Choosing the correct focal length lens is easy once you get used to judging the distance between eye and frame. I rarely have to change lenses from the one I first choose.
Best,
Doremus

I agree. Thanks to the viewing frame I always knew exactly what lens FL I needed and I never ever sold a lens once I bought it - I knew it will serve and it does.
Cheers.

[ic-racer]

So what would you folks recommend for an in-between lens

The field of view is inversely proportional to the focal length. So, double the focal length and the field of view is 1/2.

[mdarnton]

I'd say it depends on how much money you have. 50% jumps are good--90>135>200>300, and that's what I always aim for with a new system. If you have less money, 100%: 90>180m, and done. Some people have all the money in the world, and make every jump because they can: 65>75>90>115>135>150>180>210>240>300>360. It just depends on how fat your bank account is vs how willing you are to walk to a closer or farther spot and re-set your tripod, and how close you want to stay to the car. :-)

I think more to the point is to either have a regular spacing so that you can see what the change is going to be in your mind in advance, or to have favorite lenses for various jobs, if you prefer to think that way. Or a combination of that. I'm heavy around 300-380mm because I shoot a lot of 5x7 and 8x10 portraits, and that's a nice range for that. I have yet to use anything wider than 300mm on 8x10, so there's no need for that. On the other hand, for 35mm I'm completely happy with a 21mm and 50mm, and hardly ever use anything else because I don't like a heavy bag.

The bottom line is that there are a lot of ways to think of this problem. Which is best for you?

[Greg]

I agree. Thanks to the viewing frame I always knew exactly what lens FL I needed and I never ever sold a lens once I bought it - I knew it will serve and it does.
Cheers.

Here's my finder for framing (Linhof finder on a Hasselblad handle). Works for 4x5 and 8x10 with pretty much exact framing. Also use it for whole plate and 11x14 recognizing that the framing isn't exact but way good enough to frame the image. Added micro stickers for each of my lenses for each format.

[Pfsor]

I like the idea of a viewing frame although I've never seen one - tried a quick search and it seemed all I got was electronic picture frames from amazon and others - Doremus I'll check out the zone VI one - thanks.
Pete

You don't need to buy it - make one yourself. It's very easy and you can make it from a piece of cardboard or light plastic. Simply make a frame (like a passe-partout for pictures) of the same inner dimension as your film, put a string on its lower part, make knots on the string at the focal length you want to have and put that knot on the bone under your eye socket and see through the frame. You will have a very exact vision of your lens on the film. The viewing frame is light weight, easy to carry and you can have several of them for different film formats and FLs. My frame has written notes on it to remember the sequence of FLs on the string. I never leave the house without it when going to take pics. It's a great visually educational device that helps you to find the visual element you are after in the world around you.

[pete22230]

Hi Pfsor - that sounds like a great idea - why don't I ever think of these things?? I did some searching on the the Linoff and Horseman and was a bit taken aback by the $$$. Get another lens add another knot! I'm travelling at the moment but when I get home it's off to the shop.
Pete