150 and 210 lens angle of view

[konakoa]

Thank you to all who replied! And engl, that formula is pure gold. Using it I made paper masks of each lens I was interested in for my ground glass--that helped me tremendously to get an idea of how each lens would work. Thanks again to all the respondents!

[Once]

Would anyone have any visual examples of the angles of view of a 150mm lens compared to a 210mm lens?

I'm about to haul off for a vacation of several weeks. Two must have lenses for me are my 150mm and my 400mm lens for my 4x5 camera. There's a big gap between the 150 and 400, so I'm wondering what a 210 would look like in the scheme of things.

Any kind souls have some same-scene comparisons (landscapes) of a 150 and 210? I'm wondering if 210 is enough of a change, or if I need to locate a really nice 240 or 250.

Sincerely, I don't understand your problem. Wouldn't it be sufficient to make yourself a viewing frame and see any scene you like with whatever focal length you like? Or, what am I missing?

[jb7]

Lets work with 35mm equivalents then there is no misunderstanding. First I want to define something, a normal lens is that its focal length is equivalent to the film diagonal length. A normal lens will create a image that people will accept for real, because it is the FOV we see with. It is how we see the world every day.

I don't see in a "normal" focal length, as you describe it- in fact I don't think that's the way we see at all. In width, I see at around 24mm, maybe wider than 21mm, if I stay still. if someone did see as you described, their vision might be described as being impaired, for the purpose of obtaining a UK driving license- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_field

That's not to say that you can't choose to see like that, of course...

I'd agree with the first sentence of your definition- it's useful to have a normal / standard description of lens length to be able to compare between formats, and from there it's just simple mental arithmetic to be able to approximate wide and long lenses for those formats. Since I was a child, I've heard the standard lens described as being 'the way we see things' but it's never been anything more than a handy piece of shorthand... a line of camera shop patter, selling the sweet spots of lens designs down the ages-


j

[John NYC]

I don't see in a "normal" focal length, as you describe it- in fact I don't think that's the way we see at all. In width, I see at around 24mm, maybe wider than 21mm, if I stay still. if someone did see as you described, their vision might be described as being impaired, for the purpose of obtaining a UK driving license- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_field

j

I don't think the width of the frame compared to the width of your peripheral vision is really what people mean when they say the "normal" lens is most like we see. It has more to do with how close up objects and far away objects have size relationships to one another. I actually think in this case we see a little more like longer than a "normal" lens... maybe like 210mm perhaps.

But in any case, I simply don't believe that any human eye puts objects in a landscape scene when there are close, mid and far objects in the same perspective as a 21mm lens. Unless you are like the guy from the movie The Fly. ;-)

[Heroique]

I’m wondering what a 210 would look like in the scheme of things...

...Make yourself a viewing frame and see any scene you like with whatever focal length you like...

Thanks, Once – make that a thousand thanks.

[Frank Petronio]

A 210 in a Copal 1 is not only much lighter than a 240 in a Copal 3, but you get less shutter vibration and 1/250 and 1/500 shutter speeds that the Copal 3 lacks. So even if it isn't mathematically elegant... it works better.

[Matus Kalisky]

I would only add that while it seems (to me too) that 150 and 210 are quite close to each other, it also depends on the subject. The closer you focus the longer the effective focal length will become and so the difference between the lenses may become larger.

I used for long time 125 and 210 lenses and found the spacing very nice. Today I use 125 and 240 and sometimes the step seems a bit too large.

[rdenney]

A 210 in a Copal 1 is not only much lighter than a 240 in a Copal 3, but you get less shutter vibration and 1/250 and 1/500 shutter speeds that the Copal 3 lacks. So even if it isn't mathematically elegant... it works better.

If you can find one, the Caltar Type Y is an exception to the above. It is a 240mm f/6.something Rodenstock Ysarex that is mounted in a Copal 1.

Rick "for those more committed to arithmetic than availability" Denney

[Once]

Thanks, Once – make that a thousand thanks.

You're welcome (thousand times?)! A good thumbnail of yours BTW.

[atlcruiser]

FWIIW:
I looked up FoV for all of my lenses then got a protractor and graph paper then assigned a distance to each block of the graph. I measured on the paper the set the camera up and measured out in the world to amke sure my very bad math skills equaled reality
In this one case they did. I ended up with a very nice, easy to read set of graphs that show the realtionship of all of the lenses to each other in FoV over distance.

For example:
My 360 commerical has a FoV of 38'. I laid this out and measured and ended up with
35 feet or so at 50 feet. I got a tape measure and dbl checked and it came out very close.