Focal length advice please

[Hany Aziz]

I think it really depends. Try using a 135mm on the Pacific coastline and get in the very difficult proportions with the rocks/cliffs/ocean/etc. A 47-55mm lens would be my only guess at what could manage to get the scene in "if" you can somehow pull off movements with lenses that don't have any...

For people that live out in flat states or landscape that doesn't involve the West Coast ocean (aka N. Cali-on up), then 135mm makes plenty of sense. Then again, what about waterfalls and getting an entire scene in instead of just the waterfall. There's no way one can get tight corridors in countries around the world such as Italy without a very wide lens.

Again, it depends on the context one is going to shoot and where the person will primarily use their lenses.

I'd rent the wider focal lengths and just get an idea out in the field what they look like...can even do it in a home...

True. Lens choice does depend quite a bit on one's way of "seeing" and subject matter. I do still maintain that even with the grand vistas of the west the original poster will use a 90 mm lens far more frequently than a 58 mm, and will likely use a 135 mm lens even more. I particularly like the "gentle wide" look of a 135 mm lens and still usually do carry one despite my ideal lens spacing (75, 110, 150, 210, 300) suggesting that I leave the 135 and 90 mm lenses at home. I still find myself grabbing the 135 mm lens more than any other. Since I usually also take the 90, I do occasionally use that though I am now frequently using the 110 mm more than the 90 mm. The 110 also comes in very handy if significant movements are needed.

Sincerely,

Hany.

[jb7]

I compared 35mm to 4x5 using horizontal angle of view.


75 same as 22

Apologies for the selective quotation,
but I made a little test today-
A picture of a tall building up close with a 72mm Xl, with a lot of rise-

I also took a picture on a DX DSLR,
and taking a picture with the camera tilted up, I would have needed to shoot at 10mm (35mm equivalent 15mm) in order to leave enough image to allow the transformation of the geometry, and bring the verticals back to parallel. Those transformations would result in the loss of up to 40% of the DSLR picture area-

In this test, the width was the important dimension, (in the portrait orientation) and some of the image would be cropped off the bottom of the digital frame to match the 4x5 proportion- a virtual rise, off-axis crop.

So, as has been mentioned earlier, working with a complicated camera is completely different to working with a simple camera- though different people might have different views about which is which-

The examples you chose (47mm and 58mm) are not really representative of the view camera experience, in my opinion- neither allows much room for movements, and you might end up using them axially- just like a 35mm-

The 72mm XL has been suggested already, and if you want to go wide, that might be an optimum for length and coverage- though a 90mm might be just as good for you, with more choice for less money-

And depending on the pictures you want to make, you might not need to go as wide as you might think...

joseph