Is the 47mm the widest lens, period?

[BetterSense]

I've been doing some medium format with 6x7 and 50mm lens. It's nice and wide but could be wider. There is a 45mm available on the Pentax 67 but even that is barely shorter than the 47mm XL which covers 4x5 film! This leads me to conclude that the 47mm lenses on 4x5 are wider than anything else available. A 15mm lens on 35mm would be similar I believe but there are no such lenses made. I would really like a 35mm or less lens that covers 6x7 or 6x9 medium format but I have never come across one.

[Roger Hesketh]

Their is a Russian 30mm for Pentacon 6 mount http://www.pentaconsix.com/30mmpt2.htm

[austin granger]

I believe there is a 35mm lens for the Pentax 67, and when I was working at a camera shop years ago, I remember playing with some 14mm lenses for 35mm. I'm sure other people will be chiming in momentarily with other super-wides.

[BetterSense]

The 67 35mm is a fisheye whereas the 47mm Schneider lenses are relatively distortion free if I am correctly informed.

[mdarnton]

Are we talking all formats here? Voigtlander makes a rectilinear 12mm for 35mm format in Leica RF mount. That's the widest lens I'm familiar with. They also make a 15mm, which I have and is a lot of fun. Vivitar makes a 14mm which appears to be optically identical to the Bower/Rokinon/many-other-names 15mm, for 35mm SLRs, and I believe Nikon made or makes a 13mm.

I love wide wides, and you are not a friend of my bank account to have pointed out that the 47mm XL covers 4x5--something I wasn't aware of, previously.

[Nathan Potter]

Yes the 47 mm XL by Schneider covers 4 X 5 without vignetting and is what one would call rectilinear (no fisheye effect) but it is far from distortion free. In order to achieve sharp focus at the image corners the lens design distorts, for example, a circle into an oblong in a serious way.

For the 35 mm format certainly the recently designed 14 to 24 mm zoom Nikkor is an ultra wide tour de force with almost unmatched performance for that format.

For 6X7 format I'm aware of two rectilinear ultra wide lenses. The Mamiya 43 mm for the Mamiya II and the older Pentax 45 mm for the Pentax 67.

Also the Hasselblad CFE4/40 for 6X6 format has a 90 degree field of view but of course vignettes on 6X7.

Look for the angle of view for a particular ultra wide on 6X7 and go for that. It may be that the 120 degree field of view with the Schneider 47 XL will still yield the widest angle of view on 6X7 format but the image quality from the 43mm Mamiya will surpass the Schneider by a measurable bit.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[Darin Boville]

My widest is a 10.5 Nikkor with the built-in shade removed...

--Darin

[Nicolasllasera]

You could buy a Schneider 38mm XL to use in a 6x9 tecnical camera. Or a 4x5 camera with a 6x7 or 6x9 film back.

[Nicolasllasera]

It even covers 6x12.

[Jac@stafford.net]

For up to the nominal 6x12 cm there is also the 35mm Rodenstock Grandagon.

[koh303]

Bronica had a fisheye lens for the 6X6 system (SQ) though i am sure it covers at least up to 6X8.

[George Hart]

I use a Rodenstock Apo-Sironar-Digital 35/4.5 on a Fotoman 69. Extremely sharp, and only just covers the 6x9 format without movements. Would not cover 6x12. For a similar ultrawide perspective on the 5x7 format there is the Schneider Super-Angulon XL 72/5.6 which again covers the format, but with little room to spare.

[BetterSense]

Thanks; I was not aware of the 35mm Grandagon.

[Francisco J. Fernández]

There are some options in formats 35 mm, medium format and large format.

It's the old series of Zeiss Biogon 38mm, 45 mm, 53 mm, 75 mm and all f: 4.5.

Zeiss manufactured the model 38 for Hasselblad SWC series (and ALPA series) and then fabricate large format to the other 3.

I've used 4 and are truly wonderful, just that 75 is too heavy (like a dead cow) and is too big. But they all give superb quality even after many years. A I think they're better than most current wide angle lenses for large format ... but everything is a matter of weight, so use modern Super Angulon.

For 35mm there are also several Zeiss Biogon (for Contax G and Leica M mount). They are very good, but they've only tasted the Contax G. The others do not know.


http://www.ebay.es/itm/Hasselblad-905SWC-905-SWC-38mm-Biogon-T-CFi-E12-Latest-Set-MINT-/161185740079?pt=Film_Cameras&hash=item25876b352f&_uhb=1


http://www.ebay.es/itm/Very-rare-Linhof-Carl-Zeiss-Biogon-4-5-45mm-on-Linhof-Technika-6x9-Board-/190588650617?pt=DE_Foto_Camcorder_Objektive&hash=item2c5ff80479&_uhb=1

http://www.ebay.es/itm/Carl-Zeiss-f-Linhof-Technika-53-mm-1-4-5-Biogon-/231147258729?pt=DE_Foto_Camcorder_Objektive&hash=item35d1734369&_uhb=1


http://www.ebay.es/itm/Linhof-Selected-Carl-Zeiss-75-mm-f-4-5-Biogon-Wide-Angle-Lens-for-Large-Format-/151167342367?pt=UK_Photography_VintagePhotography_VintagePhotoAccessories&hash=item233246971f&_uhb=1




The deformation or curvature lines on a Biogon is almost negligible , I once read that if photographs , a lamppost straight on the edge of an image of the Hasselblad SWC ( Biogon 38 ) and then the large image, the 1x1 meter ... distortion is less than 1 mm at the side . I later found that this is true.

[Jac@stafford.net]

I use a Rodenstock Apo-Sironar-Digital 35/4.5 on a Fotoman 69. Extremely sharp, and only just covers the 6x9 format without movements. Would not cover 6x12.

That makes me wonder if my Horseman 6x12 is really 12cm wide. I'll have to get it from storage to measure it.
I would not be surprised if it is not. For example, the two kinds of 6x9 Veriwides have different widths.

[Dan Fromm]

jac, for most makers of cameras and roll holders nominal 6x12 is 56 x 112. Linhof is the big exception, they make a roll holder with gate 56 x 120.

Francisco, the 38/4.5 Biogon -- I use one on a 2x3 Graphic -- covers only 84 mm. Total darkness outside of 86 mm. Lens for 6x6 and no larger format, but of course an 84 mm circle gives interesting cropping opportunities.

[Francisco J. Fernández]

jac, for most makers of cameras and roll holders nominal 6x12 is 56 x 112. Linhof is the big exception, they make a roll holder with gate 56 x 120.

Francisco, the 38/4.5 Biogon -- I use one on a 2x3 Graphic -- covers only 84 mm. Total darkness outside of 86 mm. Lens for 6x6 and no larger format, but of course an 84 mm circle gives interesting cropping opportunities.


Now, I know that ... and so my Biogon 38 is my SWC. The other Biogon 45, 53 and 75 are in my large format cameras.

[Jac@stafford.net]

jac, for most makers of cameras and roll holders nominal 6x12 is 56 x 112.

I remember now. It is a 1:2 ratio. Thank you for the nudge.

[genotypewriter]

The widest modern rectilinear lens is 131 degrees:
http://genotypewritings.blogspot.com/2013/08/widest-ultra-wide-angle-lens.html

[Jac@stafford.net]

There is also the Goerz Hypergon.
A good chart here (http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_fotografici/Hypergon_Topogon_Biogon_Hologon/01.gif).

Fall-off to the edges is profound.

[neil poulsen]

Not quite as wide as others mentioned, but giving excellent performance, is a Mamiya Press with a 6x9 back and the 50mm Biogon design Mamiya lens. The Mamiya backs provide good film flatness.

[hoffner]

I can only agree with you. It is an excellent lens, very easy to take pictures with. Easy to use at a hyperfocal distance too. With its detachable viewfinder you can check the pictures even before you take the camera out of a box. Not a LF, of course.

[Dan Fromm]

Not quite as wide as others mentioned, but giving excellent performance, is a Mamiya Press with a 6x9 back and the 50mm Biogon design Mamiya lens. The Mamiya backs provide good film flatness.Fine lens, by all accounts, not a Biogon type. I don't know why people repeat the myth.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Fine lens, by all accounts, not a Biogon type. I don't know why people repeat the myth.

Perhaps it is time to once again define the Biogon(s) including cross-sections. Dan, you are the expert.

[neil poulsen]

Fine lens, by all accounts, not a Biogon type. I don't know why people repeat the myth.

I have to admit that I'm probably repeating what people repeat. :)

[Dan Fromm]

Jac, here's a link to an f/4.5 Biogon cross section: http://books.google.com/books?id=OJrJrEJ-r9QC&pg=PA151&lpg=PA151&dq=biogon+bertele+patent&source=bl&ots=YZ8n6Nt2cx&sig=h-dfDUalpCkEFpxkRvWIx5ZzIUM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pEY3U_KhC_W1sAS884CoCQ&ved=0CFoQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=biogon%20bertele%20patent&f=false

Here's a link to a link to a 50/6.3 Mamiya cross-section: http://www.butkus.org/chinon/mamiya/mamiya_press_super_23/mamiya_press_super_23.htm Once there, click for the third section of the manual. The cross-section is on p. 19.

I've had this discussion before, have been told that a lens with two large meniscii at one end and one large meniscus at the other is the same as a lens with one large meniscus at each end. I didn't buy that, still don't.

[C. D. Keth]

The point of view of HAL9000 in 2001: A Space Odyssey was shot with a Fairchild-Curtiss 6mm f2.8. It covers the full still 35mm frame to show 160 degrees. That's like a 22mm lens on 4x5.

[Bernice Loui]

Leaving the rectilinear world and 35mm world and enter the 16mm - 8mm and CCD imager world there are fish eye lenses like this Fujinon:
1.4mm, f1.4-f1.6 that will produce a 185 degree field of view. Developed for security camera and have found their way into sky camera and other applications that require a large angle of view and large aperture.

https://www.fujifilmusa.com/products/optical_devices/security/fish-eye/5-mp/fe185c046ha-1/


Another classic is the Knioptik 9.8mm f1.8 Tegea (35mm film format) made famous by Stanley Kubrick in the film Clock Work Orange. This same lens has been used by NASA for space imaging work.


Bernice


I've been doing some medium format with 6x7 and 50mm lens. It's nice and wide but could be wider. There is a 45mm available on the Pentax 67 but even that is barely shorter than the 47mm XL which covers 4x5 film! This leads me to conclude that the 47mm lenses on 4x5 are wider than anything else available. A 15mm lens on 35mm would be similar I believe but there are no such lenses made. I would really like a 35mm or less lens that covers 6x7 or 6x9 medium format but I have never come across one.

[Jac@stafford.net]

The point of view of HAL9000 in 2001: A Space Odyssey was shot with a Fairchild-Curtiss 6mm f2.8. It covers the full still 35mm frame to show 160 degrees. That's like a 22mm lens on 4x5.

Wow! Great information.

Was 2001 shot on 65mm film? (diagonal nominal 55mm) or were the HAL views on cine 35?

[Francisco J. Fernández]

I had to use for years ultra wide angle lens, but do not like me, was all work and not enjoyed them. I do not like even today. prefer a panoramic photo of 2X factor (or 3X) before a super wide angle.

I keep many of my era of wide angle architectural photography, but I do not like. I just felt comfortable with Biogon and Super Angulon ... but not with other lenses.

even in 35mm format I prefer a Hass Xpan before an ultra wide angle.

I'm getting old.

[mdarnton]

As are a couple of other lenses mentioned along the way here, the Fairchild Curtis is a fisheye. If we expand the discussion there, there are lots of possiblities.

[Dan Fromm]

Well, if you want absurdities there's the mythical 23/5 Tropel that covers 120 degrees wide open. If that, illumination wide open goes to 0 at 60 degrees off-axis. There's also the semi-mythical 44/5.6 Super Aviogon that covers 120 degrees wide open and that's a bit more than two stops down at 60 degrees off-axis.

I've never seen the Tropel, did once get to dandle a 44 Super Aviogon lens on my knee.

[koh303]

Just remmebered - it is nor bronica - but Mamiya who made a 37mm super wide for the RZ67 system - this lens easily covers 9X9cm.

[Dan Fromm]

Just remmebered - it is nor bronica - but Mamiya who made a 37mm super wide for the RZ67 system - this lens easily covers 9X9cm.

Have you checked coverage yourself?

I think the idea that lenses for Mamiya RBs have to cover 9x9 is another Internet myth. To cover 6x7, a lens has to cover a 90 mm circle. A nominal 6x7 rectangle (actual size 2.25" x 2.75", around 56 mm x 70 mm) will fit in a 90 mm circle in any orientation. A 90 mm square isn't needed.

[VictoriaPerelet]

....I would really like a 35mm or less lens that covers 6x7 or 6x9 medium format but I have never come across one.

Maybe this ? http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/LF6x7cm.html

[koh303]

Have you checked coverage yourself?

I think the idea that lenses for Mamiya RBs have to cover 9x9 is another Internet myth. To cover 6x7, a lens has to cover a 90 mm circle. A nominal 6x7 rectangle (actual size 2.25" x 2.75", around 56 mm x 70 mm) will fit in a 90 mm circle in any orientation. A 90 mm square isn't needed.

Well, i shot lots of 6X9 with rb and rz lenses, so i can safely say it covers at least 9X9. Perhaps more, but that would take testing in some self made camera.

[Dan Fromm]

Well, i shot lots of 6X9 with rb and rz lenses, so i can safely say it covers at least 9X9. Perhaps more, but that would take testing in some self made camera.

Arithmetic error. Nominal 6x9's diagonal is 100 mm. 9x9's diagonal is 127 mm.

Or perhaps a conceptual error. The rectangle is inscribed in a circle, the circle isn't inscribed in a square.

[hoffner]

Well, i shot lots of 6X9 with rb and rz lenses, so i can safely say it covers at least 9X9.


A logical error.

[koh303]

A logical error.

I think the logic problem is yours.
The RB and RZ shoot both vertical and horizontal, on the same axis - making the square area the film covers 9X9cm.
While a single orientatiol rectangle of 6X9 might be covered with a smaller image circle, but in order to cover both orientations the image circle needs to cover a square area - and it does.

[hoffner]

You are very much mistaken.
A circle of a 100 mm diameter can cover both horizontally and vertically inserted 6x9 film area. It does not follow logically that the same circle can cover a 9x9 mm film area. Draw such a circle and see for yourself.

[Dan Fromm]

Logic error. Draw a picture. A rectangle with a 100 mm diagonal will fit in a 100 mm circle in any orientation. Horizontal, vertical, in between, it will fit.

[koh303]

You are very much mistaken.
A circle of a 100 mm diameter can cover both horizontally and vertically inserted 6x9 film area. It does not follow logically that the same circle can cover a 9x9 mm film area. Draw such a circle and see for yourself.

Yes - that is correct, i stand corrected.

[hoffner]

A real pleasure to see your honesty! Cheers!

[genotypewriter]

Well, if you want absurdities there's the mythical 23/5 Tropel that covers 120 degrees wide open. If that, illumination wide open goes to 0 at 60 degrees off-axis. There's also the semi-mythical 44/5.6 Super Aviogon that covers 120 degrees wide open and that's a bit more than two stops down at 60 degrees off-axis.

They don't sound all that absurd, Dan. Lenses that do 122 wide open aren't uncommon in smaller formats. Some even as bright as f/4.5 and none of that 0 relative illumination stuff either. I gave a link in an earlier post (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?112349-Is-the-47mm-the-widest-lens-period&p=1124998&viewfull=1#post1124998) in this thread to a lens that does 131 degrees but I've only used it at f/16. It definitely does 125.5 degrees wide open at f/4 without a severe fall-off.

[angusparker]

Couldn't resist throwing these cameras into the mix since they are on the verge of LF. If you want wide these negatives are wide. You have to be careful to keep your fingers out of the picture!

The Noblex 150UX swing lens camera provides a 146° panoramic view using a 50mm f4.5 lens to create a 50x120mm (or 6x12cm) image.
The Noblex 175UX swing lens camera provides a 138° panoramic view using a 75mm f6.5 lens to create a 50x175mm (or 6x17cm) image.

[NancyP]

I shoot d..d........d......digital (there, I said it, the "swear word") 135 format as well, and I have a very nice all manual Samyang 14mm f/2.8 that I particularly like for night sky landscape. Cheap - $300.00 new. Samyang has a circular fisheye for 135 for the same price (it is is sold primarily for APS-C format)
On the other end of the price range is the Hasselblad fisheye 30mm lens, 180 degrees coverage, ~ $5,000.00 used at BH, and some digital equivalent for digital Hasselblads.
And then there is the "priceless" category of 135 format ultra-wide-angle lens, the famous and ridiculous Nikkor 6mm f/2.8 fisheye that has 220 degrees coverage, ie, it sees behind itself.
And the Hypergon: http://www.cameraquest.com/hyper.htm
http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_fotografici/Hypergon_Topogon_Biogon_Hologon/00_pag.htm
http://www.phsc.ca/hypergon.html
The smallest Hypergon covered 5 x 7

[genotypewriter]

The Noblex 150UX swing lens camera provides a 146° panoramic view using a 50mm f4.5 lens to create a 50x120mm (or 6x12cm) image.
The Noblex 175UX swing lens camera provides a 138° panoramic view using a 75mm f6.5 lens to create a 50x175mm (or 6x17cm) image.

I think it's fair to say that the OP is asking about wide lenses, not wide image acquisition techniques. If you're getting in to the realm of stitching then 360x180 degrees has been done ages ago and some people do it on a regular basis. There are lots of tools available for that sort of thing too.

[BetterSense]

I wasn't interested in fisheye lenses either, but that didn't stop anyone from discussing them over and over.

[hoffner]

I wasn't interested in fisheye lenses either, but that didn't stop anyone from discussing them over and over.

Maybe because you did not stop them either.

[genotypewriter]

I would really like a 35mm or less lens that covers 6x7 or 6x9 medium format but I have never come across one.

Schneider's Super-Digitar XL 28/5.6 ("apo") is rated as having a 90mm image circle, capable of fitting a full-width 6x7 (56x70) frame. It will have more coverage but you'll need to get your hands on one to see how much.

In addition to the Rodenstock Apo-Sironar-Digital 35/4.5 mentioned in post #12, the Schneider's 35/5.6 Apo-Digitar XL should also be able to cover 6x7 because it is rated as having a 90mm image circle.

[jnantz]

There is also the Goerz Hypergon.
A good chart here (http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_fotografici/Hypergon_Topogon_Biogon_Hologon/01.gif).

Fall-off to the edges is profound.

hi jac

do you mean fall off with or without the star-fan ?

http://www.cameraquest.com/hyper.htm

the manufacturer suggests with the fan @ f31 5x7 "plate covered sharp"
( whatever that means ) ...
someone here had one and posted images from it years ago
wish i could find the post+links ...

[Jac@stafford.net]

[...] someone here had one and posted images from it years ago
wish i could find the post+links ...

This page has a sample, and if you scroll down he has a lot of good info on the Hypergon 90mm lens.

http://www.glennview.com/note1.htm

[jnantz]

This page has a sample, and if you scroll down he has a lot of good info on the Hypergon 90mm lens.

http://www.glennview.com/note1.htm


thanks, i forgot about glennview's page and sample ..
his assessment of his 90mm + dramatic fall off was on his 8x10, not 4x5
so it seems that smaller formats wouldn't have had much trouble ?

thanks again for the link, i always forget to go to his site ..

[BetterSense]

So, in summary, ignoring fisheye lenses:

The widest lens for 6x7 is probably the 28mm Super Digitar XL, which I did not know about. It's good to know I can achieve an angle-of-view on 6x7 almost (but not quite as) wide as the 47mm on 4x5, if I could only afford such a lens as the 28mm Digitar.

The widest rectilinear lens PERIOD is probably NOT the 47mm XL on 4x5, but the 90mm Hypergon, which I did not know about, on 8x10.

[Bernice Loui]

Looking at the Schneider data sheets. The 28mm Super Digitar XL has an 115 degree angle of view, same as the 72mm Super Angulon XL which covers 5x7. Big difference here is there will be more actual resolution/information put on film or imager with the 72mm SAXL due to the image circle produced.

If the 72mm SAXL is diffraction limited at f22 which results in about 70 LPM, the 28mm SDXL would need to resolve more than twice that or 140+ LPM to equal the 72mm SAXL.

Some years ago, on an impulsive whim, went shopping for the wides possible rectilinear optic for film format 5x7 - 8x10. Turns out, the newly introduced 72mm SAXL specified a 115 degree angle of view and covered 5x7. It was the only thing like it at the time. Turns out, since owning this lens (still sitting in the pile today), it has been used only a few times due to the extreme fore-ground to back-ground perspective distortion. If you're after this "look" or rendition, this lens would do it. The light fall off is enough that a center filter is a must to even out the illumination from corner to corner.. if this matters to you.

If one wants to "push lens coverage, put the 72mm SAXL on a 8x10 film camera and crop out the image as desired. Larger film formats produce HUGE amounts of information with high performance optics.

There is so much discussion about lens coverage and apparent "sharpness", yet light fall off is not often considered much if at all.

The 90mm Gorez Hypergon is a historic optic designed and built a long time ago. It covers 8x10 and has a novel way of correcting light fall off. There is a squeeze bulb to squirt air at the fan in from of the lens, this action behaves like a graduated center filter to compensate for the light fall off during exposure. They are kinda rare and a speciality lens. When these do appear on the market, they often do not have the fan in front of the lens or the air squeeze bulb. They are often sought after by collectors for it's novelty.


Bernice



So, in summary, ignoring fisheye lenses:

The widest lens for 6x7 is probably the 28mm Super Digitar XL, which I did not know about. It's good to know I can achieve an angle-of-view on 6x7 almost (but not quite as) wide as the 47mm on 4x5, if I could only afford such a lens as the 28mm Digitar.

The widest rectilinear lens PERIOD is probably NOT the 47mm XL on 4x5, but the 90mm Hypergon, which I did not know about, on 8x10.

[Huub]

The widest rectilinear lens PERIOD is probably NOT the 47mm XL on 4x5, but the 90mm Hypergon, which I did not know about, on 8x10.

It seems that even the 75 mm Hypergon covers 8x10 - so that would be the widest then.
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?37633-widest-lens-that-covers-8x10/page2

[BetterSense]

Ignorance: the 28 AD XL covers 116 degrees and that's its angle of view on nominal 6x7. The 47/5.6 SA XL covers 120 degrees, its angle of view on nominal 4x5 is 116 degrees. See https://www.schneideroptics.com/ecommerce/CatalogItemDetail.aspx?CID=168&IID=1841


When comparing two formats, I prefer to compare horizontal angle-of-view, since I don't use dutch angles. My Omega D2 negative carriers for 6x7 and 4x5 are respectively 67mm and 118mm wide, which gives 134.5 degree AOV for the 28mm vs 136.5 degree AOV for the 47mm. Close, but the 47mm is still wider (when comparing using this method). And, by your numbers, the 47mm covers a wider angle, making it wider if you compare them without considering film format.


It seems that even the 75 mm Hypergon covers 8x10 - so that would be the widest then.
As Dan has pointed out, all the Hypergons should have the same 'covered angle-of-view' since they are all the same design. Film format aside, they could all be considered equally wide. If the 75mm really covers 8x10, then it may be the widest in convenient practice.

[Jac@stafford.net]

As Dan has pointed out, all the Hypergons should have the same 'covered angle-of-view' since they are all the same design. Film format aside, they could all be considered equally wide. If the 75mm really covers 8x10, then it may be the widest in convenient practice.

The Hypergons with the fan are far from convenient to use.

[hoffner]

The Hypergons with the fan are far from convenient to use.

No kidding? Who would say that!

[BetterSense]

The fan may not be convenient but is actually really neat. This thread is the first I've heard of it. I've tried manually dodging the center of my pinhole exposures, but with very mixed results due to hand-eye coordination. Now I'm thinking of how to adapt the fan concept to my superwide pinhole cameras.

[Jac@stafford.net]

The fan may not be convenient but is actually really neat. This thread is the first I've heard of it. I've tried manually dodging the center of my pinhole exposures, but with very mixed results due to hand-eye coordination. Now I'm thinking of how to adapt the fan concept to my superwide pinhole cameras.

You might find greater success using a printing mask.

[hoffner]

The fan may not be convenient but is actually really neat.
Now I'm thinking of how to adapt the fan concept to my superwide pinhole cameras.

No kidding? You are into nanotechnology, no doubt about it!

[BetterSense]

When comparing two formats, I prefer to compare horizontal angle-of-view, since I don't use dutch angles. My Omega D2 negative carriers for 6x7 and 4x5 are respectively 67mm and 118mm wide, which gives 134.5 degree AOV for the 28mm vs 136.5 degree AOV for the 47mm. Close, but the 47mm is still wider (when comparing using this method). And, by your numbers, the 47mm covers a wider angle, making it wider if you compare them without considering film format.


As Dan has pointed out, all the Hypergons should have the same 'covered angle-of-view' since they are all the same design. Film format aside, they could all be considered equally wide. If the 75mm really covers 8x10, then it may be the widest in convenient practice.

Oops, used the wrong angles. More like 103 degrees, not 136.

[hoffner]

Oops, used the wrong angles. More like 103 degrees, not 136.

No kidding? Are you sure it won't change tomorrow?

[alexn]

I would put forth that the widest rectilinear view one can achieve in a single frame would be a 35mm camera with Nikon's 13mm f/5.6 prime. There are next to none in general circulation, and they were incredibly rare even when they were released. Last one I saw for sale was sold for a whopping $25,000 AUD...

I think format has a lot to do with how wide an image FEELS. I feel 65mm on 4x5 is ridiculously wide, where as on 35mm I regularly shoot with lenses with a wider angle of view and yearn for wider... on 6x17 I wouldn't go wider than a 90mm as I feel the image starts to get a little weird...

I have not shot a 47 or 58 on 4x5 but given how a 65mm feels to me - I dare say I wouldn't get a lot of use from it....

[Jac@stafford.net]

This thread is confusing to me, but I am easily confused. Moving on regardless. I have, and will be auctioning, two cameras that use the same 47mm Super-Angulon F/5.6.

Both use the same 47mm Super Angulon F/5.6 lens.

One is a late Brooks Veriwide camera. The other is my own handmade 4x5 camera that uses the same lens. The photographer can use either.

[genotypewriter]

I would put forth that the widest rectilinear view one can achieve in a single frame would be a 35mm camera with Nikon's 13mm f/5.6 prime.

It's not a bad idea to read a thread before chiming in... for example many rectilinear lenses wider than a 13mm on the 35mm have been mentioned here.

And no... the Nikon 13 is far from it. The money people pay for lenses has very little to do with what the lenses are capable of doing... best examples are Leicas and antique Nikons.

[Drew Wiley]

Methinks the term "rectilinear" is itself being stretched quite a bit here.

[genotypewriter]

Methinks the term "rectilinear" is itself being stretched quite a bit here.

Would be interesting to hear your reasons, Drew. Always nice to learn something new.

[C. D. Keth]

Wow! Great information.

Was 2001 shot on 65mm film? (diagonal nominal 55mm) or were the HAL views on cine 35?

It was 65mm. The camera aperture was 52.48 by 23.01 mm. Projected aperture is slightly smaller, maybe a millimeter smaller in each dimension.