150 and 210 lens angle of view

[konakoa]

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

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

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

[Ken Lee]

You can simulate any length you like: just determine the corresponding film size. Move closer or further away to see the difference in compression. You can even do this with a smart phone camera: all it takes is some arithmetic. There are many sample images on the web which show the perspective changes resulting from the use of longer/shorter lenses. It's the fact that we change distance which affects perspective - but focal length can affect the distance from which we shoot, so these are two sides of the same coin.

[Ken Lee]

The difference between 150 and 210 can be substantial: less so at infinity, more so as we move in closer. Ultimately this is a matter of taste.That's why it's best for you to perform your own tests. When you see the difference in your own photos, you'll be persuaded.

[konakoa]

A followup for Ken or anyone else reading this: what I'm curious about is adding either a 210, 240 or 250 lens to fill the gap between my 150mm and 400mm lenses for landscape photography.

I don't have a 210, 240 or 250; I was thinking of getting one. The problem is which focal length.

I was hoping someone would have a side by side set of pictures where the only thing changed out was the lens--picture taken with a 150, then with a 210, so I could see just how much more magnified the image becomes.

What I don't know is if a 210 is a big enough change from a 150 in terms of magnification.

Anyone have a suggestion or examples?

[Gem Singer]

For many years, the standard three lens set for the 4x5 format has been 90-150-210.

Once you go over 210, you are getting into larger, heavier lenses that are mounted in Copal 3 shutters and require larger size screw-in filters.

Of course, there are exceptions like the Fujinon 240A, 250CM-W, and 300C. The Schneider G-Claron 240 and 270, as well as the Nikon/Nikkor 300M.

[Mick Fagan]

I don’t have the ability to show samples online, but I myself use a 4x5 camera and have 90, 150, 215, 270 and a 400T lens set.

Generally I travel with the 90/150/215 trio for weight and bulk considerations.

There is a reasonable difference between the 150 and 215, not stupidly different, but enough to be quite noticeable, especially if you cannot move the camera.

I purchased the 270 with the idea being to travel lightly with a 90/150/270 set. The 270 is fine, except I borrowed a Fujinon 240 and I will now get one of those. The spacing of the 90/150/240 trio seemed to work well for me, so I will pursue a 240 in the not too distant future.

Don’t forget coverage, with landscape, movements are not used that much, but there may be a time where some reasonable amount of movement is required.

Last year I was taking a picture of a wheat silo, the 150 was just a little too far away, I couldn’t move due to a railway line, so the 215 was used, with moderate enlargement in the darkroom I had exactly what I wanted. The 240 would have been perfect for this particular shot, but as yet I don’t have one.

However my idea of a right lens for a situation will surely be different to your right lens, so you really do need to suck it and see.

Mick.

[akfreak]

In My opinion you need a 90mm for wide angle Hard to get wide with a 210 or a 150 normal. A 90 would be a very dramatic change vs a 210. I say get both, that is just me. What exactly is your area of interest in photography. If it is to record the world as we see it the 150 is perfect and a helluva lot more as you will see below. Do you like to shoot people, the 150 can do that to, 1:1 macro on a field camera again the 150. How much bellows do you have. You say vacation so I have to assume a field camera.

Exact answers without any explanations between the 150 and a 210 (DOV= diagonal angle of view)

150mm FL lens 56° 56' DAOV
210mm FL lens 42° 20' DAOV

here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_%28photography%29)is a link about perspective distortion, it can help you see in focal lengths. And what WA does to an Image.

To understand, plug in the differences in a FOV calc then see what image represents what you are looking for in the examples from the wiki link. Remember that 4x5 is more square then 35mm. But the visual may help understand. If not I will Crop some images in Photoshop to show you 150mm then 210. DAOV will go from 56° 56' to 42° 20'

It's best to choose the right lens for the best composition. Your 150 will work just fine depending on what you want to make pictures of. If you want a Wide Angle get a 90. Remember you can always crop in the darkroom or post. Tons of info on a 4x5 neg. Remember distortion, but if you take heed you can cheat a WA lens into all sorts of shots. Where as the 400 not a chance, Compress yep, WA nope.


A little tid bit on lenses and understand what a focal length would look like. Take your favorite 35mm lenses and multiply them by a factor of three to determine a rough equivalent for the 4x5 format. In Wide angle lenses use a factor of 3.5 it is a closer approximation.



Lets work with 35mm equivalents then there is no misunderstanding. First I want to define something, a normal lens is that its focal length is equivalent to the film diagonal length. A normal lens will create a image that people will accept for real, because it is the FOV we see with. It is how we see the world every day. So now when you are working with various formats you will know what a normal lens is. ( I am assuming that you dont know any of this so I will just cover it.) 153mm is the most exact Focal length for a Normal lens in 4x5 but who has this? The 150mm is considered the normal lens for 4x5.


If you really want to know about lenses with respect to FOV and format equivalents. We must always consider aspect ratios. Comparing the final print of a square format vs a rectangle format is like comparing apples to footballs with respect to lens coverage. You must define the final print ratios or framing ratios. This will give you numbers (conversion factors) you need to plug in a FOV calculator to solve for unknown values. It's a matter of simple math and comparing diagonals. A hint using triangles can help us to do this. However there are many FOV calulators so you dont even need to do any math. (see links below)

Back to Comparing lens focal lengths between formats. Once you define framing or final print aspect ratios, It is easy to see that 80 mm and 150 mm lenses are normal focal lengths for 2 1/4 Square and 4x5 formats. I think 180 mm and 300 mm are the best portrait focal lengths for 2 1/4 Square and 4x5 formats. It's all personal taste. But you need to know the why before you can make a choice.

Before I show you what various Images looks like at different FOV's, notice I didn't say Focal length. It isn't about MM or length, it's about the Angle of View here is a FOV calculator (http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/photos/angles.html). And another one (http://imaginatorium.org/stuff/angle.htm). The second one will let you use known variables and convert to different formats, you can create a chart for any format but I will give you some 35mm and 4x5 comparisons, remember a 150 lens is a Normal lens for 4x5.

4x5 film = 101.6 x 127mm
35mm film = 24x36mm
Approximate Focal length conversions
135mm on a 4x5 is the same as a 36mm on 35mm format
150mm on a 4x5 is the same as a 40mm on 35mm format
210mm on a 4x5 is the same as a 56mm on 35mm format
250mm on a 4x5 is the same as a 66mm on 35mm format
300mm on a 4x5 is the same as a 90mm on 35mm format
360mm on a 4x5 is the same as 105mm on 35mm format
480mm on a 4x5 is the same as 135mm no 35mm format

Plugin info until you know exactly the FOV you need for making a picture containing the amount of information you need for your envisioned scene. I previsualize almost every shot now. I see in various focal lengths, I know what lens I need based on my observation of the scene and the image I want to create. Not to say I dont record the happenings of the world with my digi snapper, with that it can be so easy to spray and pray :)

Example, in 35mm I am not going to use 600mm lens to make a head shot. I am going to use 85mm. I know what that looks like, I have used it enough to know this is what I like for portraits in 35mm. If I want to document the happenings of a local car show or anything else that may be news worthy I grab the 50mm. Again I know what to expect from a 50 on 35mm so I use for that purpose. Dont get me wrong a 50mm is a walking zoom if I want to get close.

More considerations of lenses "Normal" vs telephoto"T". A 360mm "T" lens may only need 260mm of bellows to focus at infinity. But a 360 "normal" lens (rectangular design)may require 360mm of bellows extension. Using only 260mm of extension for infinity focus will allow the use of additional extension for closer focusing. Just some thoughts.

On the flip side if you know your stuff, a wide angle is a very valuable tool in the field. If you have ever packed gear for a trip you know you cant bring everything, you have to make choices, If you are smart you wont break your back and pack light. You see a long telephoto can Never, Never make a wine angle shot on a single piece of film. However being that we are working with large format, one with some skill could crop a nice big print out of a WA shot. It is about knowing your gear.


Ask yourself, if you could only take one lens to the field (on a 4x5) what would it be, For me it would be a 150mm, I can use it for landscape,portrait, stills and 1:1 macro. If I am in the studio I will use the 210 but really like the 300mm'ish for Portraits (personal taste). Working on seamless paper I like to compress.

So here is what you wanted Pictures to show you what something looks like at various focal lengths. Remember those numbers are in 35mm but as we have already talked about 4x5 equivalents. 4x5 is more of a square aspect ratio. Use a Fov Calc, do the math and see what you need to see, it's all there.
Click Here (http://www.usa.canon.com/app/html/EFLenses101/focal_length.html). (thanks Canon)


I hope that if this post doesn't help you, it may help someone. Good luck on you vacation. I hope you make some wonderful pictures. AKf

[John Kasaian]

You've answered your own question. Must haves for you are 150 and 400. Don't fall for the numbers game ie, if there is too big a gap between 150 and 400 then you feel that you have to stick something in there.
If you genuinely feel the need for another lens (like, you can't get the shots you want because you don't have the lens,) thats a different matter. Take a look at the work of Roman Loranc and John Sexton---both shoot with a 210 quite a bit (more often than not) so that should give you an idea of the 210 can do.

[Corran]

My 210mm gets used the least in a kit going from 47mm to 720mm. I use the 150mm most and then the 360mm is often used for when I need less wide. However when I use the 210mm I always really enjoy the perspective.

Personally, considering a great 210mm can be had for less than $200, why not?

[engl]

You can easily see the difference by cropping a shot you have taken with your 150mm lens. Crop an area with a the same aspect ratio and a 4.6" (sqrt(4^2 + 5^2)/(210/150)) diagonal from a shot with a 150mm on 4x5, and you will have the shot as it would have looked with a 210mm lens. This does not hold true for close focusing, but since you mentioned landscape shooting I assume your subjects are distant.

Personally I'd probably prefer something like the Fujinon A240/9 to fill a gap between 150mm and 400mm. Very sharp, very small/light, and not as close in focal length to your 150mm. Then again, 210mm lenses are dirt cheap...

[konakoa]

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

[Once]

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

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

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

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

[jb7]

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






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

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

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


j

[John NYC]

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

j

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

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

[Heroique]

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


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

Thanks, Once – make that a thousand thanks.

[Frank Petronio]

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

[Matus Kalisky]

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

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

[rdenney]

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

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

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

[Once]

Thanks, Once – make that a thousand thanks.

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

[atlcruiser]

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

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

[konakoa]

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

Apologies, I believe there's been a little confusion as to my original posting.

When I started this thread what I had in mind were these photo groupings I had seen in years past for 35mm cameras where the manufacturer takes every lens in the arsenal and photographs the same scene with every single one. The end result is this grid layout of pictures going from ultrawide fisheye to supertelephoto where you can see visually how each lens differs.

The gist of my posting was that I was curious if someone had the same thing for large format lenses. I have a 150 and 400. I had some uncertainty and second thoughts that I'd find some vista on my trip where the 150 would be too wide and the 400 far too much. What I was asking myself and the forum was that with this lens pair (as in the 35mm lens example above), what would a good in-between focal length be?

Using engl's formula I made paper masks to go on the ground glass of my camera with the 150 lens mounted. Each mask simulated what a 210, 240 and 250 lens would look like. Turns out that with my 150 and 400 lens pair, a 210 is a bit too close to my 150 lens. I needed something longer than 210. What I've ended up with is a 240. Visually it's right in-between the 150 and 400.

Just a matter now to get it cleaned up and tested before I leave on the trip!

[John Rodriguez]

If you have a smartphone with a camera, download something like Viewfinder Pro. You enter all the lens sizes you want and it will show FOV outlines for each one.

[John NYC]

If you have a smartphone with a camera, download something like Viewfinder Pro. You enter all the lens sizes you want and it will show FOV outlines for each one.

Ok that app was $16.99 for an iPhone app! But I took the leap and I love it. It is actually exactly what I have wanted, to be able to shoot a scene (complete with GPS coordinates) and have my selection of frame lines present for later reference.

The only "bad" thing about it is really not the developers fault, lenses wider than 250mm on 8x10 would require a wide angle lens attachment to see the frame lines due to the fact that the iPhone's lens is basically a 29mm-ish equivalent.

So, many thanks for that pointer!