What is a wide angle on large format?

[rdenney]

Can't believe there's 18 non-answers so far. A wide angle lens in LF is a lens that is capable of casting a sharp image corner to corner over an angle of at least 100 degrees.

My post said much the same, but without the specific angle. Is that some formal definition that I missed somewhere along the line?

Rick "suspecting that the nomenclature has drifted over time" Denney

[C. D. Keth]

Can't believe there's 18 non-answers so far. A wide angle lens in LF is a lens that is capable of casting a sharp image corner to corner over an angle of at least 100 degrees.

That means that on 4x5 a lens isn't "wide angle" until you hit 68mm, and that's even giving your method the benefit of the doubt by using a diagonal field of view. It's more like a 52mm if you use a horizontal field of view. That's much wider than where most conversations on this forum start calling it a wide lens.

[Dan Fromm]

Can't believe there's 18 non-answers so far. A wide angle lens in LF is a lens that is capable of casting a sharp image corner to corner over an angle of at least 100 degrees. 90 degree lenses like the f6.8 Angulon are "wide field" lenses. A true wide angle can see 100+ degrees. The normal variety modern ones are all 105 degrees. I think the Schneider XL's are 110 degrees. The vintage Zeiss Protar V was 110 degrees - mostly. some of the giants were less.

Jimbo, time was when 80 degrees meant wide angle. 90 degrees and wider meant ultra-wide angle. If you want to get absurd, shooters of 35 mm still (diagonal 43 mm) will say that a 35 mm lens (63 degrees on 24x36) is a wide angle lens.

The only safe definition is that lenses that cover a format and are shorter than normal (the format's diagonal) are wide angle lenses with respect to the format. This definition subsumes all definitions that are more specific and avoids the wrangling that they cause. Similarly, lenses that cover and are longer than normal are narrow angle lenses.

Following my simpleton's definition, my little 100/6.3 Weitwinkel Aristostigmat is a normal lens for 2x3, but depending on who you believe it will cover up to (or nearly) 5x7. I wouldn't use it as a normal lens on 2x3, there are better lenses for that purpose, but could see taking advantage of its coverage on larger formats (no larger than 5x7).

Cheers,

Dan

[Jim Galli]

A little wrangling helps the OP understand some of the variables and the impossibility of such a subjective question. Since no format is delineated, you can only talk about angles of view. That, as you say, is totally subjective to the viewer and the photographer. For me, a 210 is plenty wide on 8X10 and seldom used. Still, a 210 on 8X10 is a Wide Field lens. I do get tired of all the moronic ads on ebay telling me a 105mm tessar from an old folding camera is a wide angle for my 8X10. Like to choke those guys.

Jimbo, time was when 80 degrees meant wide angle. 90 degrees and wider meant ultra-wide angle. If you want to get absurd, shooters of 35 mm still (diagonal 43 mm) will say that a 35 mm lens (63 degrees on 24x36) is a wide angle lens.

The only safe definition is that lenses that cover a format and are shorter than normal (the format's diagonal) are wide angle lenses with respect to the format. This definition subsumes all definitions that are more specific and avoids the wrangling that they cause. Similarly, lenses that cover and are longer than normal are narrow angle lenses.

Following my simpleton's definition, my little 100/6.3 Weitwinkel Aristostigmat is a normal lens for 2x3, but depending on who you believe it will cover up to (or nearly) 5x7. I wouldn't use it as a normal lens on 2x3, there are better lenses for that purpose, but could see taking advantage of its coverage on larger formats (no larger than 5x7).

Cheers,

Dan

[Dan Fromm]

I do get tired of all the moronic ads on ebay telling me a 105mm tessar from an old folding camera is a wide angle for my 8X10. Like to choke those guys.

I'm with you on that.

[Jim Galli]

I'm with you on that.

Oh, you're with me on more than that, we just enjoy semantic wars