normal lens for 8x10

[Percy]

Hi.

I find that I use the 80mm lens for 6x6 more than any other, and am quite comfortable with it. I am planning on moving on to 8x10, and want a similar perspective. I thought that 300 might approximate the 80, but 6x6 and 8x10 are quite different in terms of aspect ratio. It was recommended that I try a 270. As I live in an area where LF gear is extremely difficult to come by (4x5, let alone 8x10), going to a shop and seeing for myself is not a possibility. I find the normal (50mm) for 35mm to be quite different from the normal (80mm) for 6x6. I don't care much for "normal" in 35mm terms, but adore "normal" in 6x6 terms. Which lens?

If this makes sense to you, please advise.

Thank you.

[Armin Seeholzer]

Hi Percy

On my Rodenstock list the 65mm on 6x6 is 240mm in 8x10 and the 90mm in 6x6 is 360mm in 8x10 so I think with a 300mm you would doing fine!

[Bill_1856]

80mm on 6x6 format is very close to the diagonal of the image (56x56=78mm), which is like 44mm on 35mm film (24x36). The image area of 8x10 is approximately 195x245 giving a diagonal of 315mm, so you'd probably like a 300mm (12") lens.

[Leonard Evens]

As you are aware, it is difficult to compare formats which differ in aspect ratio. The usual choices are to compare the short dimension, the long dimension, or the diagonal. (Of course, for 6 x 6, the short and long dimension are the same.) Often, the diagonal is chosen as the best compromise. The actual film area for 6 x 6 is 56 x 56 mm, and the diagonal is just under 80 mm. So that would be considered a normal focal length. I don't know the actual exact dimensions of the 8 x 10 film when you subtract the margins, but I would guess it is about 190 x 240 mm. So the diagonal is about 306 mm. That means that 300 mm would be about right for a "normal lens".

The 35 mm format, 24 x 36 mm, has a diagonal of about 43 mm, but for historical reasons, the "normal" focal length is usually considered to be in the range 50-55 mm, which is a bit longer than the diagonal.

I once did 6 x 6 photography, but I invariably cropped to 4:5 aspect ratio to print on 8 x 10 (or larger) paper. So in effect my image format was about 45 x 56 mm, with a diagonal about about 72 mm. 80 mm would be a trifle long. Comparing diagonals between 8 x 10 and cropped 6 x 6, you get a ratio of about 306/72 = 4.25. So an equivalent angle of view from an 80 mm lens would be about 340 mm.

The only way to get 270 mm would be to compare the short dimension of the 8 x 10 film (about 190 mm) to the side of the square 6 x 6 format (56 mm). The ratio would be 190/56 ~ 3.4, and multiplying 80 by that would yield about 270 mm. But I think that wouldn't make sense unless you plan to crop your 8 x 10 film to a square 190 x 190 format. Except for this possibility, 270 mm would be a bit wide compared to what you are used to.

[John Kasaian]

percy,

To my eyes, the larger the format the "wider" normal lenses look. On 8x10, a 14" (which would be the long end of normal) looks pretty wide to me. A 240mm oddly enough doesn't look all that wide but thats probably because I tend to get up close and personal when I'm using the 240mm. My suggestion is if you like shooting at distances go with longer lenses (14", even 16-1/2 or 19") When shooting close up go with wider lenses (270mm, 250mm 240mm) What you'll see on the gg and in your prints will look "normal"---at least it does to me---YMMV of course.

[John_4185]

Your question is a difficult one. Short answer - the recommendation for a 270mm (11") is mathematically close if you crop to (nominal) 8x8', 276mm is equivalent (see qualifiers below), and 300mm is close enough.

I have the same impression that you might - that a square format, 6x6 on MF in particular, feels 'wider' with a normal lens than the same lens on a nonsquare, wide-dominant aspect ratio at normal viewing distance.

So, presuming you will crop to 8x8 (actually, 195mm x 195mm or 7.7" because that's the exposed area of the 8" dimension), a 276mm lens gives the same _mathematically_ as your 56mm square on 6x6cm. But you still have to reconcile the visual impression of the more shallow DOF at the viewing distance you choose (which is an unknown here.)

The problem is not really solved with simple math. We don't know your viewing distance, and the different qualities of DOF and other personal, impressionistic qualities. It has to be tried. But you have a good starting point.

[Oren Grad]

You may find that you don't use an 8x10 camera in quite the same way as you do a 6x6. Also, as has already been pointed out, it depends on whether/how you're going to crop and view the resulting prints. But just as a general observation, if you like the "feel" of an 80 on 6x6, I'd start with nothing shorter than a 300. My own favorite standard lens for 8x10 is a 270, but the feel of that focal length on 8x10 is distinctly wide compared to that of a "true" normal based on the format diagonal.

[N Dhananjay]

As others have said, comparisons across formats can be difficult. Further, a comparison across 6x6 and 8x10 is particularly difficult because the two formats seem to have little in common aesthetically (my opinion here!) I find I work very differently in 8x10 than I did in smaller formats and many others echo my experience. So, my suggestion is that you think about the kind of work you are likely to be doing. If you are interested in near-far kinds of compositions, look at wide angle lenses (8-10" or less). If you are interested in more abstracted kind of work that emphasizes the picture plane, look at longer lenses(16.5" or more). If you are working in close, confined spaces, you might want shorter lenses. If you are unsure and want a general lens, try a normal (12 to 14"). If you are looking for a general lens to start out with, that is a pretty decent place - lenses provide good coverage, are simple designs and tend to be well made, even old lenses perform smashingly. If you are really unsure, try a triple convertible lens that might help you tinker around to find what you want. Since LF holds its value reasonably well, sell anything that does not work for you and look for things that do. Good luck, DJ

[Alan Davenport]

I find that the "3X" focal length rule for comparing 35mm to 4x5 isn't quite the way I see the finished product. Simply put, a 150mm lens on 4x5 "feels" a bit wider (subjectively: to me) than a 50mm lens on 35mm film. I'm sure it has to do with the aspect ratio of the film and my reaction to the image. Since 8x10 shares an aspect ratio with 4x5, you might find a 300mm lens acceptable.

[jantman]

My "choice" lens for a format depends on more than just the aspect ratio. A lot of it also has to do with how I use the camera and, of course, the quality of the specific lens itself.

In 35mm I tend to like something a little wide, usually around a 35, but in 6x6 I love the 80mm.

When I move up to 8x10, my 14" does very well, mostly because with a camera that large, it is often difficult to get in as close to the subject as I would like.

That being said, for my rarely-used Bronica 6x4.5, I truly love the 40mm PE, it is a beautiful lens with a beautiful image.

Try some lenses, see what you like. The LF market is pretty stable. If you buy from E*Bay, you can probably sell it there if you don't like it, without taking much of a loss.

[jonathan smith]

Technical comparisons aside, I LOVE my 270 G-claron. I have a 300 Nikkor M and generally things look a little crowded with it. I tend to shoot trees, and they need just that extra bit of room.

Depends on your subject matter. I think for me the extra space given by the shorter choice for whateverer type of subject is what 8x10 is all about.

I think the 270 has the most natural feeling perspective even though it technically is a slight wide angle. 240 tends to show a little too much foreground for me, 300 looks a little compressed.

[Mark Sawyer]

"Normal lens for 8x10?"

I've shot with this format for nearly thirty years, and have finally decided that there is no such thing as a "normal" lens for an 8x10. Go ahead and try to name one.

[Struan Gray]

Don't forget movements. If you use back tilt to lay the plane of focus along the ground the photo looks much more wide angle than it is. Conversely, you can use those same back movements to make a wide angle lens look more normal.