C. Zeiss Tessar 105/3.5

[Havoc]

Thanks. This confirms my doubt that it would be a 6x9. It's just another "normal" then.

[Dan Fromm]

Thanks. This confirms my doubt that it would be a 6x9. It's just another "normal" then.

Huh? For which format is 105 mm the normal focal length? And 150 mm?

[Mark J]

Is this a trick question ?

[domaz]

Huh? For which format is 105 mm the normal focal length? And 150 mm?

Isn't the normal focal length typically the diagonal of the format? Therefore for a 105mm lens the exact normal format is about 6cm x 8.75cm. As an aside if you measure the film gates of any "6x9" cameras or holders you will notice almost none of them are actually 9cm - they are almost all a bit short of that. The Adapt-A-Roll 620 seems to have the largest film gate of any "6x9" format camera/holder I ever encountered at 8.4cm!

[Dan Fromm]

Is this a trick question ?

Absolutely not. In post #14 above, the poster wrote "This confirms my doubt that it would be a 6x9." I think "it" is the 105/3.5 Tessar that's the subject of this discussion.

The normal focal length for 2.25"x3.25", called 2x3 in vernacular English and 6x9 in metric (same damn format, poor approximation), is 100 mm. With few exceptions, the focal length of lenses fitted to fixed lens 2x3 cameras ranges from 100 mm - 105 mm. Normal for the format, as you'd expect. Post #14 above seems nuts. To be fair, the poster may know something that I don't and should.

[Mark J]

It's post #11 Dan, now it makes sense. I hadn't read that one properly. Yes.

[Dan Fromm]

It's post #11 Dan, now it makes sense. I hadn't read that one properly. Yes.

Thanks for the correction.

[Drew Wiley]

I have a later tiny multicoated 105/3.5 Nikon M tessar. It's wonderful for 6x9 roll film backs, but won't cover 4x5 either.