Is it a linear progression between 90mm and 150mm?

[AdamD]

Hi all,

I'm an now a proud owner of a 90mm and 150mm lens (4x5 format). If I want a lens right in the middle of these two lenses would that simply be a 120mm?

Is it a linear progression between lenses?

I kinda don't think it is....would the "visual" middle be closer to something like 105mm?

Thank?

[Dan Fromm]

Learn to do the calculations.

But since ..., On 4x5 a 90 mm lens covers 80 degrees. A 150 covers 53 degrees. The average is 66.5 degrees. A 114 mm lens, as was fitted to some relatively high end Polaroid folding cameras, covers 66.5 degrees on 4x5.

[AdamD]

Ok so you are "doing the math" based on field of view. And based on that would correspond to the 114mm lens. Im not even sure that exists, so a 110mm or 115mm should do the trick.

[Alan Klein]

Here's a handy calculator to figure out the various angles of views for different lenses on different formats.

https://www.pointsinfocus.com/tools/depth-of-field-and-equivalent-lens-calculator/#{%22c%22:[{%22f%22:19,%22av%22:%2216%22,%22fl%22:150,%22d%22:30480,%22cm%22:%220%22}],%22m%22:0}

[Dan Fromm]

Ok so you are "doing the math" based on field of view. And based on that would correspond to the 114mm lens. Im not even sure that exists ...

I pointed you at one, you !@#$%.

[AdamD]

This is awesome!! Thank you!

[Michael R]

The next shorter lens I have after 150 is 110. I wanted the equivalent of a 35mm lens on 35mm, which is a focal length I use often. 110 is a little short, but good enough. There wasn’t really anything longer.

[Jody_S]

The difference between 114mm and 120mm is negligible. There's a reason the big lens manufacturers all made 90mm, 120mm, and 150mm lenses, this is what photographers wanted. And your 120mm lens might actually be 116mm or whatever, if you look up the specs in the lens tables.

[Lachlan 717]

I pointed you at one, you !@#$%.

(Re)incarnation of Stone III AND/or Cosmic Explorer?

[neil poulsen]

For my progressions, I've always picked a percentage, and then made each successive focal length that percent more than the last focal length. So, increasing the focal length by 33% each time would give me a progression of about . . .

90, 120, 160, 213, 284, 379.

So, this progression might match up with the following lenses . . .

90mm, 120mm, 150mm, 210mm, 300mm, and 360mm. Or, there 'bouts.

But in terms of field of view, I'm not sure this makes sense. So, I need to think about this some more??? :confused:

Will be back a little later.


Well, I'm back, and I thought about it. :)

For me, the multiplicative approach (above) works best. Every time I've increased the focal length by 1/3rd, I've "shaved" off close to 12.5% on each side of what I see on the ground glass. As a progression, I think that it makes sense to add or subtract a constant percentage of what one sees on the ground glass, each time one steps up, or steps down the progression of lenses. This is what a multiplicative progression accomplishes.

In fact, I like staying between about 25% and 33% in my progressions. That makes for more lenses; but, this enables me to "fill" the negative with a composition, once I've established a camera position. Thereby, one retains the advantage of a large format negative.

[Drew Bedo]

An interesting discussion.

Does anyone want to step into the quick-sand of comparing the L?W ratios of various LF formats with the standard 35mm film format or the several digital sensor sizes?

I think there is relevance to the OP question where angle of view is considered.

[Alan Klein]

An interesting discussion.

Does anyone want to step into the quick-sand of comparing the L?W ratios of various LF formats with the standard 35mm film format or the several digital sensor sizes?

I think there is relevance to the OP question where angle of view is considered.

Obviously, the different formats make comparison difficult. How do you compare 4x5 large format to 3:2 full-frame 35mm or 6x7 or 6x6 on 120 film? Here a chart that gives angles of view horizontally, vertically, and diagonally. So you can pick your "poison" when comparing. Personally, I like to compare the horizontal angle because that's how I "see". Also note in this chart, that there are two methods of reading the angles. They provide both.
https://www.pointsinfocus.com/tools/depth-of-field-and-equivalent-lens-calculator/#{%22c%22:[{%22f%22:19,%22av%22:%2216%22,%22fl%22:150,%22d%22:30480,%22cm%22:%220%22}],%22m%22:0}

Also, the angles provided don't match the lists provided in our forums. I suppose that list shows the angle the lens sees. But the part that is recorded in the back of the camera on the film is a smaller angle. Maybe one of our experts here can define the Angles of Coverage column on this chart. Also, what are the other columns for in particular the ones called rise falls, and tilts?
Here's the chart for 4x5. There are others there for the other LF sizes.
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/LF4x5in.html

[neil poulsen]

An interesting discussion.

Does anyone want to step into the quick-sand of comparing the L?W ratios of various LF formats with the standard 35mm film format or the several digital sensor sizes?

I think there is relevance to the OP question where angle of view is considered.

I think this makes a difference when making focal length comparisons between different formats. But for me, it wouldn't make a difference when deciding on lens progressions.

[Bernice Loui]

Making this a LOT more complex than it needs to be.

IMO, better to not try making focal length equivalent between various formats be it film or digital. Better to work with what focal lengths deliver the in image object size and ratios within the image than trying all sorts of contortions to figure out what might be similar or not similar between imager formats..

It is the imager format ration you're working with at the moment that is important, what might be is not.

Moving the camera and it's position often works wonders to deal with focal lengths -vs- image composition for the given image ratio being used.



Bernice

[drew.saunders]

120 or 125mm is a perfectly fine focal length, if it suits you, but really the only way to know is to try it. When I started up with LF, I got a Tachihara 4x5 and a Schneider 120/5.6 APO-Symmar. I've since replaced that lens with a Fujinon W single-coated 125/5.6, which has a much larger image circle than the Schneider, and I've not had any flare problems with it.

120/121/125 isn't that popular of a focal length. There are several f/8 lenses that have huge coverage (280mm and up), more than you'd need for 4x5, that are better suited for 5x7 or larger formats.

For 4x5, the most reasonable options are the Schneider 120/5.6 APO-Symmar (or, better yet, the APO-Symmar L with its larger image circle if you can find one at a good price), or one of the many Fuji 125/5.6 options.

Here's the list of all Fuji lenses, note that they made some 120/8 and 125/8 wide angle lenses, as well as what may be up to 6 versions of the 125/5.6, of which mine is from either the first or second version: http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/byfl.htm

A quick check of ebay shows that the Fuji single-coated ones are in the $110-150 range, the EBC ones are in the $200-300 range, and any Schneider seems to be over $300, so if you're set on that focal length, look for a good condition Fujinon lens.

You may end up preferring 135mm or not even wanting something between your 90 and 150.

[Drew Wiley]

In real world usage, and in terms of commonly available lenses, a 120 to 125 focal length would be the most obvious halfway house between 90 and 150. I can't think of any 110 except the very expensive Super Symmar XL, which is so close to the 90 as to be redundant unless you specially need the wider image circle. And at 115, there's just a big Grandagon. Most 105's barely cover 4x5, if at all, and are awfully close to the 90 perspective anyway. The Fuji 125W is a wonderfully lightweight lens without the distortions of wide-angle designs, if you don't need a lot of extra movements.

[AdamD]

Well, I'm back, and I thought about it. :)

For me, the multiplicative approach (above) works best. Every time I've increased the focal length by 1/3rd, I've "shaved" off close to 12.5% on each side of what I see on the ground glass. As a progression, I think that it makes sense to add or subtract a constant percentage of what one sees on the ground glass, each time one steps up, or steps down the progression of lenses. This is what a multiplicative progression accomplishes.

In fact, I like staying between about 25% and 33% in my progressions. That makes for more lenses; but, this enables me to "fill" the negative with a composition, once I've established a camera position. Thereby, one retains the advantage of a large format negative.

I love this post. Thank you Neil.

[AdamD]

In real world usage, and in terms of commonly available lenses, a 120 to 125 focal length would be the most obvious halfway house between 90 and 150. I can't think of any 110 except the very expensive Super Symmar XL, which is so close to the 90 as to be redundant unless you specially need the wider image circle. And at 115, there's just a big Grandagon. Most 105's barely cover 4x5, if at all, and are awfully close to the 90 perspective anyway. The Fuji 125W is a wonderfully lightweight lens without the distortions of wide-angle designs, if you don't need a lot of extra movements.

This is another great post. Puts it all together.

Thanks all for the explanation.

[Maris Rusis]

I used to carry a lot of lenses for the 4x5 format until I realised a well made 4x5 negative is very generous in maintaining image quality when cropped. I can crop a 90mm view out of what my 75mm lens takes in, 150mm view from the 135mm lens, 300mm view from the 210mm lens. The key thing is to put the camera in the right place for the composition required and then have a lens that at least "gets it all in".

[gary mulder]

If you take a picture with a 90mm lens and crop it to the view from a 115mm lens you will be using ±77% of your film surface. It's the same for a picture cropped from a 115mm lens to the view from a 150mm lens. That makes a good reason to have a 115mm in a set 90mm-115mm-150mm. It is not a linear progression but a second order.

[Tobias Key]

I have a 125mm Fuji 5.6 NW it's a great lens I like a lot, but I would class it as a ''general photography' lens so I wouldn't feel inclined to carry that and a 150mm, most of the time they are doing the same job. I guess it would make sense if you were an architectural photographer who frequently ran into limitations regarding where they could stand, and you could work out of your car. In the landscape you are just adding weight for marginal benefit. Most of the time you can move your camera position. I think if you own too many lenses in a sequence the temptation is to bring them with you 'just in case'. That is a better recipe for back pain than good images.

[lloyd]

4 3/8in / 111mm wa dagor

[neil poulsen]

In real world usage, and in terms of commonly available lenses, a 120 to 125 focal length would be the most obvious halfway house between 90 and 150. I can't think of any 110 except the very expensive Super Symmar XL, which is so close to the 90 as to be redundant unless you specially need the wider image circle. And at 115, there's just a big Grandagon. Most 105's barely cover 4x5, if at all, and are awfully close to the 90 perspective anyway. The Fuji 125W is a wonderfully lightweight lens without the distortions of wide-angle designs, if you don't need a lot of extra movements.

I enjoy photographing architecture, and I finally came to the conclusion that the "progression" from 90mm to my 121mm Schneider Super Angulon was too much of a jump. My solution was to purchase a Fujinon 105mm SW; for me, it perfectly fills this "gap".

For architecture, 90mm is my most used lens. For landscape, the Fuji 105mm SW is as wide as I care to go.

[Drew Wiley]

90 + 150 = 240. Divide that in two or average it, and you get 120 as the midpoint. Like I already noted, there are a number of lenses available in the 120-125 range to choose from. With 115, just a big expensive Grandagon that I'm aware of. But I think it's easy to get bogged down with just too many lenses. Best to get really comfortable first with what one or two can do, and then branch out afterwards if necessary. I worked with only a 210 for my first ten years of 4x5.

I added 90 and 120 when I started doing commercial portfolios for architects and building contractors. I have never even owned a 150. But for personal outdoor work, I gravitate toward longer lenses : 180,200,250,300, 360, 450 etc, most of which have big enough image circles for 8x10 as well as 4x5 usage.

[Doremus Scudder]

I used to carry a lot of lenses for the 4x5 format until I realised a well made 4x5 negative is very generous in maintaining image quality when cropped. I can crop a 90mm view out of what my 75mm lens takes in, 150mm view from the 135mm lens, 300mm view from the 210mm lens. The key thing is to put the camera in the right place for the composition required and then have a lens that at least "gets it all in".

Yes indeed!

While it's nice to have an even progression of lenses, but there are other considerations that determine which focal lengths are most usable, the most important of which are image circle and lens size/weight. That's the main reason that there aren't many "standard" lenses between the workhorse 90mm wide-angle designs and the Plasmat 125/135mm lenses. Making a wide-angle design lens in the 120mm area (like the Super Angulons) results in a huge, unwieldy lens for 4x5. On the other hand, Plasmats shorter than 120mm or so end up barely or not covering 4x5 at all, which prevents the use of even minimal movements.

FWIW, my basic kit progresses in roughly 50% intervals: 90mm, 135mm, 203mm (or 210mm depending on lens choice) and 300mm. Those four lenses get carried all the time and account for the majority of my work (with the 135mm getting the most use). But, when working in cities, where camera positions are more limited, I'll augment this set by eliminating the 200mm category and adding a 180mm and a 240mm to the mix (these are both Fujinon A compact lenses, so don't really add to the weight of the kit). And I have 75mm and 450mm lenses too for extreme situations. These latter don't get hauled out that much, though.

So, for the OP, I'd suggest examining what you need for image circle and portability along with focal length when considering which lens might be best to fill in a gap. If I wanted a 110mm view, I'd just use my 90mm and crop...

Best,

Doremus

[rfesk]

I am inclined to try my 135/5.6 lens first then go wider or narrower as needed for the desired composition. At present, I have 65, 90, 135, 150, 203, and 240 lenses to choose from.

[Kiwi7475]

If only we had zooms, uh? :-)

For my 4x5, over time and once I had stocked a 65, 75, 90, 125, 150, 180, 210, 240, 300, 360, 400 and 450 mm lenses I realized the only ones that see the sun are the 75, 125, 300 and 450. Of course because of size and weight, but also because of how I compose. YMMV.

If I know the location I’ll trim down further, to maybe 2 lenses, or maybe bring the 90 instead of a 75mm... small variations. Usually trimming down buys me time, because I can walk further. You can crop a picture you took but you have nothing to crop if you never got to see that location because your back wasn’t cooperating.

Truth is, unless you shoot at home or in a studio (stills/portraits/products), IMO there’s no real reason to have an intermediate between 90 and 150, once you have a 90 and a 150mm.

Except for GAS, obviously.

[Greg]

At one time I owned a 115mm Grandagon and a 120mm Angulon. I can only surmise that the Grandagon was a tad longer that 115mm and the Angulon a tad shorter than 120mm because the images cast by both lenses wasn't identical but very close to it. When I acquired my whole plate camera, sold both to get a 120mm Nikkor.

[AdamD]

So a lot of good points made here, but I just wanted to understand if the progression from 90mm to 150mm was linear.

I gather it is.

As for the "need" for something in the middle...idk. Yes I do, but do I want to carry that and the other lenses? Idk, probably not.

Cool thanks all!

[John Layton]

Adam...about your original question - could you flesh this out a bit? I'm sure its not as simple as saying that a line is defined by two points - but in terms of mentioning two specific focal lengths...just what kind of "linearity" are you alluding to? Horizontal angle of the shorter being close to vertical of the longer of these two?

It seems that most of the responses here relate to the idea of progression - which some (myself included) tend to think of in terms of percentages. So...in expressing the ratio of your two examples - 150 and 90, as 1.6666 - you would arrive at a longer FL of appx. 250mm (and appx. 55mm for a shorter one) to maintain this ratio in the progression...thereby maintaining (and defining) its linearity.

Personally, I tend to go with a (approximate) 50 percent progression...which, for 4x5, starts with 65, and adds 90/135/210/305mm lenses. But aside from this, I find certain focal lengths to be compelling in their own right, aside from whatever progression they might also fit. For example, I'm quite attached to both 120mm and 210mm focal lengths for the 5x7 format, whereas if I were to increase the 120mm by my "standard" 50 percent, I'd get 180mm - a focal length I personally find a bit "boring" in 5x7...much the same as I find 135 to be "boring" for 4x5, and have recently begun to substitute a 150 - which, again, blows away the "linearity" of my "preferred" progression.

Not trying to muddy the waters here, but it seems that to define the "progression" of 90mm to 150mm...you'd need to at least add a third lens, at the "correct" ratio (which would be something close to 55mm and/or something close to 250mm, as described above) to verify the linearity of this progression. Make sense?

[AdamD]

John,

I was not looking for a progression of lenses. And yes I do follow you.

All I was trying to do was understand if I could expect a lens mathematically dead center between 90 and 150 (which is 120) would provide a view that was exactly dead center of the look that a 90 and 150 would provide. If so, the "progression" would be linear. If it was non-linear, 120 would not be the answer.

[gary mulder]

So a lot of good points made here, but I just wanted to understand if the progression from 90mm to 150mm was linear.

I gather it is.

As for the "need" for something in the middle...idk. Yes I do, but do I want to carry that and the other lenses? Idk, probably not.

Cool thanks all!

It’s certenly not linear.
A 90mm on 4x5” will give a horizontal angle of view of 66 degrees. A 150mm on 4x5” will give a horizontal angle of view of 43 degrees. The "middle" lens should give 54,5 degrees. The lens that will give you that angle is a 115mm.

[Bernice Loui]

Question goes back to perspective as rendered-recorded on film or image recording device. IMO, focal length steps with 4x5 film format of 90mm, 115mm/125mm, 150mm is small. It might be more effective to move the camera position as needed to achieve the image composition in mind instead of trying to apply lens focal length to achieve image composition in mind. This could be a zoom lens image making habit that has followed into LF sheet film image making from using zoom lenses common in modern digital and 35mm cameras, where this habit might not, should not apply.

As for zoom lenses, they are used for a different effect in cinema and video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maz9KP76VvI

Angenieux 12- 240mm f/3.5 with side prism finder, circa 1972.
211631

Note the front to back object size differences and perspective differences as the zoom demo scenes in this video. These are a effective demo of different focal lengths in a given scene with a fixed camera position. It is common to dolly-trolley-rail the camera rig to alter camera position while zoom is applied to aid in the sense of motion in cinema or video.

Visual differences between dolly-trolley-rail (moving the camera position) -vs- zoom (often fixed camera position) images are discussed in this video.

Still images have a different set of requirements than "moving images".


Bernice

[John Layton]

Adam...thank you for clarifying. As thus, your interpretation of "linearity" would give you a multiple (from 90mm) of about 1.29X (not perfect, but close) - which would give you an FL of 116.1, and multiply this by 1.29 to get 149.77 - with the closest available FL which would ascribe to such linearity therefore being 115mm. Does this make sense?

Another way to look at this multiple would be to first originate from 90 and try to land as close to 115 as possible...then use the same multiple for this result and see where it lands you. Thus...90 x 1.278 = 115.02, then 115.02 x 1.278 = 146.995. Does a 147mm lens exist which covers 4x5? I cannot think of one offhand...which leaves you, again, at 150mm.

Which leaves us to split the difference...and use a multiple of 1.284 to realize (going from 90mm) an FL of 115.56, then applying this multiple again which gives us 148.37. Of course, you can continue to split hairs here - I guess my point being that there is no single multiple which would comply with your idea of linearity...but in terms of progression - that which goes from 90 to 115 to 150 - its pretty darn close to linear!

[Tin Can]

am I missing the posts that speak of angle of view differences from various lens design with same focal lengths

and what is minimum focus, vs 'normal' which is...

then we have various format rectangles which change

[reddesert]

When asking whether something is "linear" you always have to qualify, linear in what variable?

In this case, for example, focal length, image size on the film, field of view in degrees, or perceptual feeling of wideness or depth in the image? The latter is presumably the most important thing to think about, but it's not easily quantified and depends on what kind of photography one is doing.

Just to give an example, many photographs of architectural interiors use a very wide angle lens because they need the field of view and have a basically rectangular subject. But if you use a very wide angle to photograph a group of people, the people at the edge of the field will have elongated faces/heads due to rectilinear perspective. You don't notice converging verticals or elongated heads when looking with your eyes because your brain adjusts, but once forced onto the flat paper or screen, they become obvious and sometimes jarring. There may be a lens that is just wide enough to capture the group while allowing you to stand far back enough to minimize the egg-head effect, but it depends on your photographic aims.

A 120mm lens is somewhere in the middle between a 90 and 150mm, but trying to define the "middle" precisely is not really useful without context.

[AdamD]

Holy smokes!! Everytime I think I ask a "simple" question, you guys manage to blow it up into all kinds of detail I could never imagine existed!!

So, the question was, "Is it a linear progression between 90mm and 150mm?"

And the answer is........wait for it.......No.

If it were a YES, the answer would be 120mm but John Layton clearly shows us that it's not exactly linear, but, it's really close.

Not to make this thread totally blow up, but based on the math John shows, the divergence from a linear line would become more and more noticable as you get longer in the FL. So I think the 50mm to 90mm is probably pretty flat on the curve and between 90 and 150 is when the progression starts to be noticable, but somewhat negligible and I'm imagining that between 150 and 300 it's real, and certainly by 450 is probably substantial.

Anyone want to plot a graph?

��

[alan_b]

Anyone want to plot a graph?

How about a screenshot from a viewfinder app? :cool:

211652

[Tin Can]

I have some LF lenses with ACTUAL FL hand written on barrel which varies by sample

Obviously done on optical bench as somebody thought it important

[gary mulder]

Not with a 90mm example. But it gives a impression from different focal lengths on 4x5"

https://garymulder.nl/fotografie/focal_length_examples/

[Alan Klein]

Holy smokes!! Everytime I think I ask a "simple" question, you guys manage to blow it up into all kinds of detail I could never imagine existed!!

So, the question was, "Is it a linear progression between 90mm and 150mm?"

And the answer is........wait for it.......No.

If it were a YES, the answer would be 120mm but John Layton clearly shows us that it's not exactly linear, but, it's really close.

Not to make this thread totally blow up, but based on the math John shows, the divergence from a linear line would become more and more noticable as you get longer in the FL. So I think the 50mm to 90mm is probably pretty flat on the curve and between 90 and 150 is when the progression starts to be noticable, but somewhat negligible and I'm imagining that between 150 and 300 it's real, and certainly by 450 is probably substantial.

Anyone want to plot a graph?

��

I bet you're sorry you asked. We sound like a bunch of digital pixel peepers :)

When I started 4x5 photography for the first time early last year, I bought in quick succession a 150, then a 75, 90 and 300. Now my back hurts and I cannot carry all the stuff in my kit. My suggestion is to shoot with the two you got and see where you experience takes you. You may find out one in the middle is too much and you'd rather get a 240 or who knows? Get a feel for what the lenses are doing for you first, in any case.

[Drew Wiley]

From a practical standpoint, the lens manufacturers already plotted this for us in terms of their given focal length selections in any given series. They mainly made what was in demand, and the abundance of certain focal lengths on the used market today largely reflects that convention. Why so many 90's, 150's, 180's, 210's ? When my brother went to Brooks photo academy, which was a somewhat expensive school and many had a limited personal budget, they'd tell the students to just get a 90 WA for architecture, and a 210 for portraiture and product shots; then after they had some serious income flowing in, branch out the selection if necessary. It was good advice, and involved not only useful angles of view relative to common projects, but consideration of realistic image circles for 4x5 film.

After awhile, one settles into a certain way of composing things. My own gravitation has been to longer lenses, and after about 10 years of using a 210, decided 250 was my own notion of "normal" (forget the diagonal rule - I'm speaking of the focal length I most often reached for as my preferred personal field of view). On a long backpacking trip, I think I could do almost anything I needed with just 200 and 300 Nikkor M's. But the past couple of decades, it has generally been 180, 250, and 360 Fuji A's. As I get deeper into my 70's, it's likely to be 6x9 roll film backs with 105, 200, and 300 Nikkor M's, or a 125 Fuji W instead of the 105M if I also have some 4x5 holders along. I'm not necessarily recommending this selection to others. We all see things a little differently, and this is just an example of how the ball detents in my own head seem to most comfortably click into position, at least with respect to 4x5 field camera usage. It just feels right for me personally.

[Bernice Loui]

It was recommended to me decades ago during the first ventures into 4x5 two focal lengths, 90mm and 210mm. Those two focal length worked GOOD for the vast majority of 4x5 image marking needs. Eventually added a 135mm and 300mm. That pretty much covered all that was needed unless something very special was needed.

These days the most commonly used focal lengths for 5x7 is much the same:

115mm f6.8 Grandagon, 165mm f6.8 Angulon, 10" Commercial Ektar or 240mm Xenar or 12" Commercial Ektar, 16.5" or 19" APO artar.

This will do for 90+ % of images made these days. Exceptions are when something special is planned and demands other focal lengths which are swapped out as needed.

IMO, this discussion is much about learning what image perspective is relative to lens focal length -vs- camera position. This is a very basic photography skill that MUST be mastered as part of learning what composition should be. Again, IMO zoom lenses so common to digital and 35mm roll film formats often makes for image making habits that do not translate well for LF image making.


Bernice

[John Layton]

Adam...you'd mentioned that the amount of "deviation from linear" would be greater and greater as FL increases. While this may be true in numerical terms, do keep in mind that, when this "greater" deviation value is considered in proportion to the increasing focal length values, the net change of this deviation should be negligible. Make sense?

Hmmm...(scratching head :confused:) - then again, this works both ways, doesn't it? In other words...while the numerical deviation changes in both directions - the actual (proportional) deviation must also, because we had to start someplace. Still, it does seem somewhat "safer" to use, as a starting value, a shorter focal length and move upwards, rather than a longer one and move downwards...which would kind of put the kibosh on my theory of a possible, proportionally derived deviation constant. Ugh...I'm really confusing myself now! :p

[Alan Klein]

From a practical standpoint, the lens manufacturers already plotted this for us in terms of their given focal length selections in any given series. They mainly made what was in demand, and the abundance of certain focal lengths on the used market today largely reflects that convention. Why so many 90's, 150's, 180's, 210's ? When my brother went to Brooks photo academy, which was a somewhat expensive school and many had a limited personal budget, they'd tell the students to just get a 90 WA for architecture, and a 210 for portraiture and product shots; then after they had some serious income flowing in, branch out the selection if necessary. It was good advice, and involved not only useful angles of view relative to common projects, but consideration of realistic image circles for 4x5 film.

After awhile, one settles into a certain way of composing things. My own gravitation has been to longer lenses, and after about 10 years of using a 210, decided 250 was my own notion of "normal" (forget the diagonal rule - I'm speaking of the focal length I most often reached for as my preferred personal field of view). On a long backpacking trip, I think I could do almost anything I needed with just 200 and 300 Nikkor M's. But the past couple of decades, it has generally been 180, 250, and 360 Fuji A's. As I get deeper into my 70's, it's likely to be 6x9 roll film backs with 105, 200, and 300 Nikkor M's, or a 125 Fuji W instead of the 105M if I also have some 4x5 holders along. I'm not necessarily recommending this selection to others. We all see things a little differently, and this is just an example of how the ball detents in my own head seem to most comfortably click into position, at least with respect to 4x5 field camera usage. It just feels right for me personally.

I don't hike, and my back's giving out at 75. I often shoot nearby my car, using my 300mm with my 4x5. It saves packing the gear and tracking across a tick-infested field to get closer. Like you said, everyone has their own needs and preferences. I guess that's why they make so many lenses.

[Tin Can]

I shot only one Pentax 35mm with OE 'normal' 50mm lens for 5 decades, age 7 to age 60

That's how I NOW SEE!

Longer lens for format I find very interesting

What We See Is What We Get

[Michael R]

I kind of feel like OP would benefit from something like the Stroebel book, which is quite comprehensive, covers all of the topics he has asked about and more, and is easy to read.

[Tin Can]

https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/view-camera-technique_leslie-stroebel/320206/item/24048528/?mkwid=%7cdc&pcrid=448938662877&pkw=&pmt=&slid=&plc=&pgrid=109793399012&ptaid=pla-894509663962&gclid=CjwKCAiA6aSABhApEiwA6Cbm_wnsR-o3gBh04lV3h9C-GwwStwcCWg3-gErcknAaw4aeaomdHMUfWRoCGtsQAvD_BwE#idiq=24048528&edition=5365085



I kind of feel like OP would benefit from something like the Stroebel book, which is quite comprehensive, covers all of the topics he has asked about and more, and is easy to read.

[Michael R]

...not that I’m trying to discourage Adam from posting the questions here, of course. I’m just suggesting particularly when starting out it is good to have some quality resources at your fingertips to go along with “live” feedback/discussion like this. Can’t hurt.

[AdamD]

That’s really funny comment about reading first, then ask questions....after re-reading the Ansel Adam’s series of books, at least this question came to me when he talked about building a kit. Then when I finally got to the point where I actually had two lenses to look through, it occurred to me to ask if I should expect the mid point between 90 and 150 would actually appear as the midpoint should I try it.

But I hear you....

[Bernice Loui]

AA's books are good for the "technical" and related aspects of photography. In one of AA's books there is mention of using a viewing card. Simply a card with a cut-out in the ratio of your fit format of choice. By moving this card near-away from a single eye (one eye closed, one eye open) this allows a rough assessment of what a given focal length lens might produce on camera.

The far more refined and developed tool that does this is a director's viewfinder. These are what film and video directors use to determine lens focal length and camera position goals. Consider getting one of these as a viewing tool to aid in lens focal length selection and camera position set up. There might come a time when this tool is no longer needed once enough images are made and enough hard earned experiences gained.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Directors-Accessories/ci/5724/N/4028759376


Bernice




That’s really funny comment about reading first, then ask questions....after re-reading the Ansel Adam’s series of books, at least this question came to me when he talked about building a kit. Then when I finally got to the point where I actually had two lenses to look through, it occurred to me to ask if I should expect the mid point between 90 and 150 would actually appear as the midpoint should I try it.

But I hear you....

[Daniel Casper Lohenstein]

I used to carry a lot of lenses for the 4x5 format until I realised a well made 4x5 negative is very generous in maintaining image quality when cropped. I can crop a 90mm view out of what my 75mm lens takes in, 150mm view from the 135mm lens, 300mm view from the 210mm lens. The key thing is to put the camera in the right place for the composition required and then have a lens that at least "gets it all in".

People always think of focal lengths only in terms of getting something into the picture ... To achieve that, I can also move my butt and reposition myself with the camera. Or crop the image.

IMHO, the interesting thing about focal lengths is the change in perspective while keeping the scale of the main subject the same. If I shoot a cactus at 90 mm from a shorter distance, but at the same size as at 210 mm from further away, the volume of the cactus and the volume of the space around it will appear quite different.

Besides: with 210 mm, you can eliminate distracting things. With 90mm you get them into the picture and even enlarge them if they are too close.

[Alan Klein]

People always think of focal lengths only in terms of getting something into the picture ... To achieve that, I can also move my butt and reposition myself with the camera. Or crop the image.

IMHO, the interesting thing about focal lengths is the change in perspective while keeping the scale of the main subject the same. If I shoot a cactus at 90 mm from a shorter distance, but at the same size as at 210 mm from further away, the volume of the cactus and the volume of the space around it will appear quite different.

Besides: with 210 mm, you can eliminate distracting things. With 90mm you get them into the picture and even enlarge them if they are too close.

You're right. This is why you have to be careful shooting wide to capture everything to crop afterward. Perspectives change with each lens. If you miss the right perspective in the camera with a wider lens, there may be no way to capture it by cropping later.

[Corran]

Perspectives change with each lens.

This is incorrect. Perspective is only changed by positioning of the camera. This misconception comes from the inherent moving of the camera when switching lenses to match framing/composition of the lens prior. If you compose a little loose with a wider lens and then crop later, you still have the same perspective regardless.

[Drew Wiley]

But all things might not be equal when it comes to illumination falloff or image distortion, Corran. Longer lenses make sense for more reasons than just perspective.

[Corran]

I have no idea why you are responding to my post regarding misconceptions about perspective vs. lens choice as if I said something about the use or usefulness of longer lenses. Nothing I wrote has anything to do with what you just said.

[Drew Wiley]

Just the notion of cropping from a wider image instead of framing with a longer focal length lens. Nice in theory or conservatively applied, but not always practical in terms of real-world composition. Of course, the more ridiculous comment that comes up is when someone tells you to just walk closer to the subject. Yeah, with a tree in the way, or a cliff a few steps ahead, or a 7000 ft deep canyon in between, or the angle of view totally changed from the preferred position. Just speaking in principle. Don 't take it personal. My posts aren't necessarily rebuttals.

[Corran]

Of course there are practical concerns, like cliffs or what have you. My impression from the previous discussion is cropping, say, a 90mm lens to a 115mm FoV. This is very little change. Of course, cropping from 90mm to a 210mm FoV is a much different situation and wasting a lot of film to boot. I can think of one user who said in the past that he carried something like 10 lenses, at 20-30mm increments. This is just silly, IMO. A couple steps forward or back and maybe a slight crop if needed is a much more reasonable approach, especially if you actually go somewhere with your gear.

For me, I generally do not bring anything between 90mm and 150mm. Usually 58-90-150-240. Anything in between those focal lengths I think is easily gotten with a bit of movement or cropping if needed, though admittedly I greatly prefer composing full-frame as that is the way I "see." If I know I am going somewhere that might need longer or shorter, I bring those as well or instead of the previously mentioned lenses.

[Alan Klein]

This is incorrect. Perspective is only changed by positioning of the camera. This misconception comes from the inherent moving of the camera when switching lenses to match framing/composition of the lens prior. If you compose a little loose with a wider lens and then crop later, you still have the same perspective regardless.

You're right.

[Alan Klein]

Of course there are practical concerns, like cliffs or what have you. My impression from the previous discussion is cropping, say, a 90mm lens to a 115mm FoV. This is very little change. Of course, cropping from 90mm to a 210mm FoV is a much different situation and wasting a lot of film to boot. I can think of one user who said in the past that he carried something like 10 lenses, at 20-30mm increments. This is just silly, IMO. A couple steps forward or back and maybe a slight crop if needed is a much more reasonable approach, especially if you actually go somewhere with your gear.

For me, I generally do not bring anything between 90mm and 150mm. Usually 58-90-150-240. Anything in between those focal lengths I think is easily gotten with a bit of movement or cropping if needed, though admittedly I greatly prefer composing full-frame as that is the way I "see." If I know I am going somewhere that might need longer or shorter, I bring those as well or instead of the previously mentioned lenses.

For example, there's only about 10 degrees difference horizontally between a 75mm and a 90mm in 4x5. (80 degrees vs 70 degrees).

[Daniel Casper Lohenstein]

This is incorrect. Perspective is only changed by positioning of the camera. This misconception comes from the inherent moving of the camera when switching lenses to match framing/composition of the lens prior. If you compose a little loose with a wider lens and then crop later, you still have the same perspective regardless.

This is a very special quibble that has been repeated over and over for many years, because it can be found in textbooks where the pipe-smoking authors set their cameras on tripods and make hypothetical considerations while drinking tea from a thermos.

What Corran is describing is only one single and very rare special case of perspective representation, namely the modification of the focal length and thus of the image section while the point of view next to the car remains the same. Of course Corran is right, but this special case is completely irrelevant for serious pictorial photography, where you have to use your feet to find an adequate perspective.

Every photographer who screws on a short focal length lens instead of a normal lens will confirm the experience that, in order to achieve a constant object size, he or she moves closer to the object. This changes the visual penetration of the space, and thus the view from the eye of the objects distributed in the space changes. "Perspective" comes from "perspicere", and that means: "look closely, take a closer look, examine, sample", not only "look inside". There is always an object included that is looked at more closely. Albrecht Dürer already recognized this, cf. http://public.media.smithsonianmag.com/legacy_blog/durer-perspective1.jpg

Thus, lateral objects are no longer seen frontally from the front, but more from the side, which emphasizes the depth-space extension, compared to objects seen frontally. Take some cacti in in a landscape with mountain on the horizon: if you want them to stay the same size, you have to get closer with a short focal length, which is why you see them more from below, perhaps, making them appear larger relative to the mountains in the background. While a long focal length emphasizes a more real ratio between cacti and mountains, cf. Andreas Feininger.

Perspective is unthinkable without perspective origo, and the chosen perspective origo is the essential characteristic of the photographic author's point of view. The way he sees things, he valorizes or devalues them, relates them. And a short focal length thereby emphasizes the difference between front and back, while a long focal length creates pure frontality.

[afotandolaciudad]

If you want to compose the exact picture on the ground glass and never ever crop the negative, the use of close up lenses may be interesting.
You can carry three lenses and 1 or 2 good achromatic lenses. For example: 90mm, 150mm and 300mm with 2 diopter close up give you (aprox.) 75mm, 115mm and 190mm.

[Corran]

Of course Corran is right

That's all that needed said. A good number of photographers think perspective is a property of the lens, and one can see the abuse of wide-angle lenses frequently online by hobbyist photographers everywhere. The (correct) distinction between focal length and "perspective" as a property of camera location (get closer) should not be dismissed as mere textbook knowledge.

PS: When I started photography I also thought "wide-angle = wider perspective" or whatever too, and shot an awful lot of mediocre images with a 14mm lens on my digital camera. It wasn't until I started to understand that I needed to get closer and pay attention to the real perspective as presented by my location (and camera) and not rely on focal length that I began making good wide-angle images.

[Drew Wiley]

A lot depends on the objective. With a personal landscape shot, I'm apt to compose it with whatever best-fit lens I happen to have along, from whatever spot simply feels the best. With a commercial architectural shot, the client might very well dictate what belongs in the confines of the image frame; and the amount of working space available behind it will determine the lens choice. I always scouted out architectural jobs in advance with respect to lighting and lens requirements. Studio work is different still because things can be arranged.

[neil poulsen]

This is incorrect. Perspective is only changed by positioning of the camera. This misconception comes from the inherent moving of the camera when switching lenses to match framing/composition of the lens prior. If you compose a little loose with a wider lens and then crop later, you still have the same perspective regardless.

I think that it's important to treat framing independently from perspective, the latter being camera position. In approaching a composition, I like to explore different camera positions without considering framing. One for the relationships of different elements in the composition to each other, and those relationships change as camera position changes.

Once I've decided on camera position, only then do I use a cut-out card to determine the strongest framing. One reason I like multiple lenses, is that once I've decided on framing, I can select the lens that best fills the format, yet which retains all the elements within the frame.

[Michael R]

All you’re doing here is confirming the facts, I think, and in my opinion they constitute more than a “quibble”. They are pretty fundamental and every beginning photographer should be aware of them to avoid aimlessly moving around and changing lenses without an understanding of how these things alter the picture either individually or in combination. Of course there are rendering subtleties, the imperfections of lenses etc. But I think it is good for people to understand at least directionally what is going on. That is:

Moving the camera changes perspective. Changing the focal length of the lens is a crop factor.

The photographer is free to use these two properties together to control near-far relationships, perspective, relative sizes of objects etc.


This is a very special quibble that has been repeated over and over for many years, because it can be found in textbooks where the pipe-smoking authors set their cameras on tripods and make hypothetical considerations while drinking tea from a thermos.

What Corran is describing is only one single and very rare special case of perspective representation, namely the modification of the focal length and thus of the image section while the point of view next to the car remains the same. Of course Corran is right, but this special case is completely irrelevant for serious pictorial photography, where you have to use your feet to find an adequate perspective.

Every photographer who screws on a short focal length lens instead of a normal lens will confirm the experience that, in order to achieve a constant object size, he or she moves closer to the object. This changes the visual penetration of the space, and thus the view from the eye of the objects distributed in the space changes. "Perspective" comes from "perspicere", and that means: "look closely, take a closer look, examine, sample", not only "look inside". There is always an object included that is looked at more closely. Albrecht Dürer already recognized this, cf. http://public.media.smithsonianmag.com/legacy_blog/durer-perspective1.jpg

Thus, lateral objects are no longer seen frontally from the front, but more from the side, which emphasizes the depth-space extension, compared to objects seen frontally. Take some cacti in in a landscape with mountain on the horizon: if you want them to stay the same size, you have to get closer with a short focal length, which is why you see them more from below, perhaps, making them appear larger relative to the mountains in the background. While a long focal length emphasizes a more real ratio between cacti and mountains, cf. Andreas Feininger.

Perspective is unthinkable without perspective origo, and the chosen perspective origo is the essential characteristic of the photographic author's point of view. The way he sees things, he valorizes or devalues them, relates them. And a short focal length thereby emphasizes the difference between front and back, while a long focal length creates pure frontality.

[Drew Wiley]

I've never used a cutout card in my life.

[Salmo22]

Just the notion of cropping from a wider image instead of framing with a longer focal length lens. Nice in theory or conservatively applied, but not always practical in terms of real-world composition. Of course, the more ridiculous comment that comes up is when someone tells you to just walk closer to the subject. Yeah, with a tree in the way, or a cliff a few steps ahead, or a 7000 ft deep canyon in between, or the angle of view totally changed from the preferred position. Just speaking in principle. Don 't take it personal. My posts aren't necessarily rebuttals.

As a follow-up to your comment, in the scene below there is water (over 6' deep) on the other side of this concrete buttress. There was no moving the tripod to get closer to the next buttress without going for a swim. The only option I had was to change lenses until I found the focal length that helped me achieve the composition I had envisioned. While I could not get it 100% perfect, it is very close. In my opinion, a much better result than if I'd gone wide and cropped it tighter in the darkroom. My father, a commercial photographer, taught me to get my desired composition as close as possible "in camera". It is a practice I try to follow. Zooming with my feet rarely works well for me. Maybe this is nothing more than a creative mental block my father placed long ago ;)

211706

211707

[Michael R]

I've never used a cutout card in my life.

It can be a pretty useful tool, especially given it costs virtually nothing, so a lot of bang for your buck. And it isn’t just useful for “beginners” or as a teaching tool. I know of a few highly accomplished artists who use them. They are useful not only for getting a sense of focal length per se, but also for general composition and framing, what to include/exclude etc. This can be handy for dealing with complex compositions and/or dense/cluttered subject matter, or even for preliminary worth it/not worth decisions before setting up a camera.

Of course I’m not suggesting YOU need one, but generalizing.

[Daniel Casper Lohenstein]

YES.

However, I would like to mention a particular aspect that becomes effective during cropping or amplification.

Suppose I see a landscape at 300mm for 4x5. Then I see things rather frontally. If I now look at the same landscape with a 90mm on the same camera position, without performing even a shift, tilt, rise, swing, then I will see more things in the picture. These things are on all four sides of the original 300mm image. Of course, the center frame of the picture with the 90mm lens is the same as that of the 300mm lens. But there are a few more objects on the sides, on the ground, and in the sky.

The perspective remains the same, but I don't see these objects from the front, but from above or below or from the side, because they aren't in the center of the image, where the vanishing point of the perspective construction normally lies. And by seeing them from the side, I see them differently than the objects in the center of the image, which I see from the front, as with the 300mm. Harvey Shaman describes this very clearly in "The View Camera. Operations and Techniques". Thats why we create an impression of spatial depth by lowering the front standard or rising the back standard ...

This is a very interesting discussion here.


All you’re doing here is confirming the facts, I think, and in my opinion they constitute more than a “quibble”. They are pretty fundamental and every beginning photographer should be aware of them to avoid aimlessly moving around and changing lenses without an understanding of how these things alter the picture either individually or in combination. Of course there are rendering subtleties, the imperfections of lenses etc. But I think it is good for people to understand at least directionally what is going on. That is:

Moving the camera changes perspective. Changing the focal length of the lens is a crop factor.

The photographer is free to use these two properties together to control near-far relationships, perspective, relative sizes of objects etc.

[AdamD]

I don’t even remember what the original post was about! This conversation has clearly moved on. I love it.

I think I agree that there’s definitely no need to carry any lens between 90mm and 150mm. BUT, there still may be a need for a lens in the middle to carry by itself.

As for getting closer and perspective and composition and all that, no lens is going to help me overcome my failures on that front. BUT more lenses will just give me more opportunities to screw it up!!

I love this shit!

[BrianShaw]

LOL... more lenses will likely lead to more missed shots.

[Havoc]

LOL... more lenses will likely lead to more missed shots.

Just as less lenses will lead to less shots taken.

[grat]

Just as less lenses will lead to less shots taken.

Only if the number of lenses goes below "1".

[Alan Klein]

It can be a pretty useful tool, especially given it costs virtually nothing, so a lot of bang for your buck. And it isn’t just useful for “beginners” or as a teaching tool. I know of a few highly accomplished artists who use them. They are useful not only for getting a sense of focal length per se, but also for general composition and framing, what to include/exclude etc. This can be handy for dealing with complex compositions and/or dense/cluttered subject matter, or even for preliminary worth it/not worth decisions before setting up a camera.

Of course I’m not suggesting YOU need one, but generalizing.
It seems Stephen Speilberg still uses viewfinders at 72.
211766

[Daniel Casper Lohenstein]

buy yourself a zoom

[Drew Wiley]

More lenses means just more stuff my heirs have to figure out how to get rid of. Even one more lens means me getting kicked out of the house and sleeping on the front porch with the cat.

[Havoc]

More lenses means just more stuff my heirs have to figure out how to get rid of. Even one more lens means me getting kicked out of the house and sleeping on the front porch with the cat.

Who cares about what his/her heirs have to figure out. Maybe time they start using their brains instead of tapping away on their smartphones. And if you have to sleep on the porch because of an extra lens, then that cat is a better compagnon. At least they give love without second thoughts.

Sorry if this offends, had a bad couple of days. But I take a cat any day.

[AdamD]

More lenses means just more stuff my heirs have to figure out how to get rid of. Even one more lens means me getting kicked out of the house and sleeping on the front porch with the cat.

Why is the cat sleeping inside!!!!!

[Drew Wiley]

Cat hair ain't so good for camera gear. And fleas ain't so good for me. All outside are basically kittens; even the mom and pop are less than two years old. But the indoor cats are now all old. A little old lady brown cat maybe 19, but still playful. A pair of flametip 17 yr twins - a male who now limps a bit, and his sister, a 3-legged amputee due to cancer. That means I have only one male ally in the house, and three females always bossing us around - one with two legs, one with three legs, and one with four ! But I love em all.

[AdamD]

Haha! Awesome!

[John Kasaian]

Of course there are practical concerns, like cliffs or what have you.
.

I find bulls in the pasture to be a practical concern.
Rather too thrilling, in fact!

[Drew Wiley]

Gosh. I can remember being out on Wilbur Plaugher's ranch with his older son over a mile or two from the nearest fence, with the ground fog starting to lift, and one of his numerous ornery-bred rodeo Brahma bulls squinting our direction, getting down low on the ground and crawling toward the slightest dip or ravine in the field. Then over in Mrs. McKenzies's meadow below what is now the Table Mtn preserve, there was a furious black bull serving as watchdog in that meadow. I'd tempt it to charge my direction, then quickly scramble up a tree while my cousin on the other side of the meadow would make a little progress through it. Then it was his turn to tempt it while I ran up the meadow further. Back n' forth we'd go.

Directly across the road from our property was a former sheepherder pasture of about 500 acres, with a single stunted scrub oak in the middle of it. The Fresno sky diving club liked to land in there, but without permission. So the owner put his meanest bull in there. I came home one day after some rock scrambling uphill to see seven skydivers all hanging onto that one little tree! The rancher just left them there until evening. Then he came in with two Jeeps. As the bull charged one of them, he'd ferry out a few guys at a time from that little tree with the other Jeep. That sure taught them a lesson, and they never returned.

[Nigel Smith]

B----A
|
|
C----D

I use to have to get from A to D... I could go A->B->C->D or take the direct A->D through the bull paddock... I'm sure the bull's name was Harry... "are ya feeling lucky.. punk".

During part of the year, B->C was also fraught with danger... dive bombing territorial Magpies!

The joys of living outside 'town'.