My stupid lens question.

[David Karp]

Oh yeah,

There are lots of lenses in the 90mm focal length that are considered wide angle lenses for a 4x5, and which offer plenty of coverage plus some movements.

[C. D. Keth]

100mm is a wide angle lens on 4x5. Just because people don't always call it that doesn't amke it true. Large format tends to do without a lot of the characterizations of smaller formats.

Telephoto in large format does not in any way describe the focal length of the lens. Telephoto lenses in lf indicate a particular optical design that requires less bellows extension than a lens of a normal design. A 300mm lens of normal design will require 300mm of bellows to focus at infinity. A telephoto 300mm will require less, so more like 210-220mm of extension.

The tessar is not a wide angle lens because a tessar-design lens has a narrower angle of coverage. You could use it on a 4x5 but the whole frame would not be sharp. To have the whole frame sharp with that lens you would end up using smaller film which would make the angle of view greater than what we would call wide-angle.

Edit: Wow. I must type slow. I thought I was gonna be first to answer all those questions :P

[Nick_3536]

More confusing take the same 105mm lens and mounted it on a smaller format [say 6x7] and it's no longer a wide lens.

A wide focal length is shorter then "normal" for the format.

[Brian Ellis]

"Thanks for all the suggestions ... but one thing confuses me ...If a 150mm is "normal" ... (50mm on 35 cameras) ... why is a 100mm not considered wide angle... its 30 percent shorter than the 150 ... What makes a 105 Nikor a wide angle but a 100 Tessar ... which is shorter ... not wide angle? Why are lenses of the same focal length often given different designations ... some 210s described as tele and others are not ..."

For present purposes there are three types of lens designs, wide angle, normal, and telephoto. These terms are often misused. For example, the term "wide angle" lens is often used synonomously with "short focal length" and the term "telephoto" lens is often used synonomously with long focal length. But these usages aren't technically correct. The term "wide angle" lens refers to a lens design in which the diameter of the circle of good definition and the angle of coverage are greater than a normal lens of the same or similar focal length. So two lenses of the same or close to the same focal length (e.g. 100mm and 105mm in this discussion) wouldn't necessarily both be considered "wide angle" lenses. The dividing line between a "wide angle" lens and a normal lens of similar focal length is to some extent arbitrary and different manufacturers use the term differently (i.e. one might call a lens a lens having a particular circle of good definition and angle of coverage a "wide angle" lens and another might not).

The term "telephoto" lens is a more precise term than "wide angle" lens. The term "telephoto lens" refers to a particular type of lens design in which the lens-to-film distance is shorter than a normal lens of the same focal length. The difference is usually about 25%. The only reason for using a telephoto lens is if the camera's bellows length is too short to accomodate a normal lens of a given focal length. For example, a 300mm normal lens wouldn't be practical to use on a camera with a maximum bellows extension of 12" (300mm) because the lens couldn't focus at anything closer than infinity. But if the 300mm lens was a telephoto design it would be very practical to use with a 12" bellows because the physical extension required to focus at infinity would only be about 225mm and closer focusing would then become feasible.

I could go into more detail, and the above is somewhat oversimplified but hopefully it gives you an idea of what the terms mean.

"I've spent a lot of time on line trying to figure this out ... can someone steer me to a site that explains this?"

I'm sure there must be discussions of this on line but the best discussion I know of is in the book "View Camera Technique" by Leslie Stroebel. That book is excellent for many other reasons and I highly recommend it.

[Matus Kalisky]

Hello, it is nice to see somebody new trying to enter the LF. The confusion is rather standard one. I have started less than a year ago and have spent ~ 3 months to figure out what is what and what would be reasonable to start with.

You mentioned that you like 35mm lenses on small format. In 4x5 it translates somewhere around 115 mm (My "favourite" factor is 3.2). Well - now if you would like to get more advices - it would be usefull if you would also mention what type of photography you do most. Landscapes, architecture, macro, studio, portraits..? You will get different advices not only on the lens but also on the camera.

I may just mention the way I went. I also like the view of 35mm lens and after searching the market I ended up buying (used) Fujinon CMW 125/5.6 which translates to ~ 40mm in small format. This lens with its coverage of 204mm allows for movements wich are more than enough for landscapes (my main concern at that time) and is usually enough for architecture photography. Technically speaking it just allows me for full rise (3.5 cm) on my Tachihara at portrait orintation. Here I touched the second subject - the camera. I wanted to go light and did not have mych money so I decided for Tachihara. It is great camera for landcapes and general photography, but I would look somewhere else if arichitecture (more movements), macro (longer bellows and stability) or portrait (ability to hold longer and havy lens like Heliar 210 or so).

Just for completeness; my setup consists from aforemetioned Fujinon CMW 125/5.6, Geronar II-E 210/6.8 (small, simple, cheap and quite good) and the latest Osaka 400/8 (tephoto design, still managable and at infinity reasonably stable).

Couple words mor about the lenses. As much as I like the view of the 125mm, sometimes it is simpler to cut the sceen a bit down (often means to simplify) and then I go for the 210.

good luck.

[Brian Ellis]

"A 105mm Nikon LF lens is "wide angle" because it's amount of coverage is wide enough to cover 4x5 corner to corner, and sharply."

Sorry but that's not correct. Any lens that adequately covers 4x5 isn't a "wide angle" lens. As I mentioned above, the term "wide angle" lens means a lens whose circle of good definition and angle of coverage are greater than a normal lens of the same focal length. Borrowing from the Stroebel book also referred to above:

"Wide angle lenses are characterized by having greater covering power than normal lenses of the equal focal length. Since covering power is measured in terms of the diameter of the circle of good definiton and the angle of coverage, both of these factors will be relatively large with wide angle lenses. The diameter of the circle of good definition will be considerably larger than the focal length, and the angle of coverage will be considerably larger than 53 degrees, the angle produced when the diameter of the circle of good definition is equal to the focal length. . . . Some lens manufacturers classify lenses with an angle of coverage of 65 degrees, only 12 degrees higher than the 53 degrees that can be expected with normal lenses, as wide angle lenses. Angles of 80 degrees to 100 degrees are more representative of this type of lens. . . . "

[Brian Ellis]

"A wide focal length is shorter then "normal" for the format"

Sorry but this isn't correct either. The term "wide angle lens" isn't the same thing as a short focal length lens.

[Nick_3536]

"Wide angle lenses are characterized by having greater covering power than normal lenses of the equal focal length. "

That sounds like marketing talk to me.

The 150mm Super Symmar XL has far more coverage then normal lenses of the same focal length. But it's angle of view is totally dependent on the format behind it.

Yes a wide angle lens tends to have a higher angle of coverage but it's the format it's stuck on that defines it.

Good defination also varies. The factory claims the G-Claron doesn't cover 4x5 very well. Some people claim it covers far more then 5x7. So is it a wide angle lens? With more coverage then the average 150? Is it a normal 150mm? or is it long because the factory rated spec is so much worse?

[C. D. Keth]

"A 105mm Nikon LF lens is "wide angle" because it's amount of coverage is wide enough to cover 4x5 corner to corner, and sharply."

Sorry but that's not correct. Any lens that adequately covers 4x5 isn't a "wide angle" lens. As I mentioned above, the term "wide angle" lens means a lens whose circle of good definition and angle of coverage are greater than a normal lens of the same focal length. Borrowing from the Stroebel book also referred to above:

"Wide angle lenses are characterized by having greater covering power than normal lenses of the equal focal length. Since covering power is measured in terms of the diameter of the circle of good definiton and the angle of coverage, both of these factors will be relatively large with wide angle lenses. The diameter of the circle of good definition will be considerably larger than the focal length, and the angle of coverage will be considerably larger than 53 degrees, the angle produced when the diameter of the circle of good definition is equal to the focal length. . . . Some lens manufacturers classify lenses with an angle of coverage of 65 degrees, only 12 degrees higher than the 53 degrees that can be expected with normal lenses, as wide angle lenses. Angles of 80 degrees to 100 degrees are more representative of this type of lens. . . . "

If you take that quote in context, yes, it is correct. A 105mm that sharply covers 4x5 will be a wide angle lens on that format. The reason it was stated like this is that it was compared to a tessar of the same focal length that will illuminate the format, but not cover it sharply. For this reason the tessar was not called a wide angle lens on 4x5 but the Nikon was.

[Brian Ellis]

"That sounds like marketing talk to me"

Why? It's a quote from a book. The author isn't selling lenses.

"The 150mm Super Symmar XL has far more coverage then normal lenses of the same focal length. But it's angle of view is totally dependent on the format behind it. Good defination also varies. The factory claims the G-Claron doesn't cover 4x5 very well. Some people claim it covers far more then 5x7. So is it a wide angle lens? With more coverage then the average 150? Is it a normal 150mm? or is it long because the factory rated spec is so much worse."

So what's your point, that there's no such thing as a wide angle lens because different people have different ideas as to what constitutes an acceptable image circle? Or that there's no such thing as a wide angle lens because the angle of view varies with the film format? Or that Stroebel doesn't know what he's talking about?

I think we all understand that angle of view varies with film size. Normally angles of view are quoted with reference to a particular format. For example, the angle of view of a 150mm Super Symmar XL would normally be quoted with reference to 4x5 film since that's the film size for which it's designed to be used. We know that if we could put the Super Symmar XL on a 35mm camera the resulting angle of view would be far narrower than it is with 4x5 film. But we wouldn't normally base its angle of view on 35mm film because that isn't the film format on which the lens is intended to be used. But so what?

People presumably have found that the G Claron will cover more than the factory specs indicate either because they are using smaller apertures than the aperture the factory used as the basis for its image circle specs or because their ideas of good definition vary from the factory's or both. I used a 210mm G Claron with 8x10 film even though the specs don't show a 318mm circle of good definition. But I stopped down to at least f22 and usually smaller, which improved definition at the edges. I also was making contact prints so I didn't have any magnfication factor to worry about. And perhaps the factory just had a more stringent definition of "acceptable" than I did.