Stupid Question - Wide Angle Lens

[DanK]

A stupid question, I'm sure...but...

I have a 'Sterling Improved Wide Angle 11x14'....

It looks to be around 10 inch focal length...

Here's the stupid question....

Would it still be considered 'wide angle' on a smaller format, say 4x5, or 5x7...?

I'm curious because 10 inch seems to be a severe wide angle for 11x14....

If based on focal length alone it would be long for 4x5, slightly long for 5x7...but is there something that would alter that being so wide for 11x14?

Hope that makes sense to someone....lol

Thanks in advance,
Dan King

[Vaughn]

No -- "wide" and "normal" and "long" for any particular focal length is in relation to a particular format size.

The 159mm (6.25") I use on the 8x10 is very wide, but used on my 5x7 it is only slightly wide -- and if I used it on my 4x5 it would be normal.

[DanK]

No -- "wide" and "normal" and "long" for any particular focal length is in relation to a particular format size.

The 159mm (6.25") I use on the 8x10 is very wide, but used on my 5x7 it is only slightly wide -- and if I used it on my 4x5 it would be normal.

Thanks for the response....

From what I understand it is based on the diagonal of the film size....so this 10 inch is long for both 4x5 and 5x7....correct?

Wouldn't this lens be considered extremely wide for 11x14.....10 inch seems awful short for that format...

Thanks,
Dan

[Nathan Potter]

With the diagonal of 11X14 at about 18 inches, a 10 inch FL lens would provide a coverage angle of close to 90 degrees - quite wide but not extremely wide. Of course the lens would need to be designed to be sharp over the 18 inch circle of coverage (450+ mm.).

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[Brian C. Miller]

Yes, 10" would be short for 11x14.

If you accept for a moment that a 50mm lens on 35mm film is "normal" then that leads to the following:
35mm = 50mm
645 = 84mm
6x6 = 92mm
6x7 = 105mm
4x5 = 192mm (7-1/2")
8x10 = 384mm (15")
11x14 = 533mm (21")

But really, "normal" is what is usually used, not what is "perfect."

[Jan Pedersen]

Brian, I don't know how you came up with these numbers but 150mm is generally considered "normal" on 4x5
300mm is considered "normal" on 8x10

[Brian C. Miller]

Yeah, like I prefaced the numbers, "if you consider 50mm to be normal on 35mm", and ended with ""normal" is what is usually used."

I first computed the diagonal of 35mm film, 24mm x 35mm, and then computed the ratio of a 50mm lens to that (1.178). Then I applied it to the various formats via a spread sheet. For instance, Pentax 6x7 "normal" is 105mm, but normal for 645 is 75mm, and 6x6 is 80mm.

[DanK]

Thanks all for the responses....

I guess what it boils down to is... does the angle of coverage affect the final image in any way beyond simply focal length....ie. because this lens is designed to cover 11x14, yet only 10 inch focal length, does it affect the image on smaller formats? Would there be an obvious difference in the scene between this 10 inch and a 10 inch lens designed to cover only 5x7....??

Thanks again,
Dan

[Jan Pedersen]

I guess what it boils down to is... does the angle of coverage affect the final image in any way beyond simply focal length....ie. because this lens is designed to cover 11x14, yet only 10 inch focal length, does it affect the image on smaller formats? Would there be an obvious difference in the scene between this 10 inch and a 10 inch lens designed to cover only 5x7....??

Most likely yes.
The lens in question is fairly old and would not in anyway be comparable to a more modern 250mm for a 5x7

Another problem is the large image circle, imagine you have this huge image behind the lens but nowhere to put it except the inside of your bellows, only a small part of the image will hit the film.
All this extra light inside the bellows will reduce contrast and possibly also introduce glare on the film.

[DanK]

Thanks Jan, sure appreciate the response.
Dan