Lenses for Medium Format and equivalences between medium format and 35 mm format

[Henry Alive]

I know that a 50 mm lens in 24x36 format is similar to a 80 mm one in 6x6 format. I want to know which lenses would be equivalent to 28 mm, 105 mm and 135 mm. Additionally, I would appreciate your recommendations for my Hasselblad 501CM. I already have the 80 F2.8 CFT lens, but I do not know which angular and tele I should get.
Thank you,
Henry.

 

[Q.G.]

Have a look here.

What wide angle and tele to get depends on your taste, on what you like a lot. But a 'classic' kit contains a 50 mm + 80 mm + 150 mm lens.

 

[lxdude]

From the specs on the Bronica SQ series (6x6):

50=28
180=100
200=110
250=135

These are equivalents, and are not necessarily exact numerical matches.

 

[jeffreyg]

As mentioned the 50mm(FLE) has a 75o diag /57o horiz angle of view focus 1ft 7in to infinity. Then a 150 30o/21o 4ft 6in to infinity or 180 24o/17o 5ft to infinity whichever is most available at the best price all three take the same filters as well as the 250 17o/12o 8ft 6in to infinity

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/.

 

[Wishy]

Probably best you don't try and equate then directly.

A 50mm is a standard wide (At least in the modern era), 80mm a normal and 150mm is portraitish. (Same way as the standard would be a 28mm prime, 50mm prime and 85mm prime)

You've really got to use them to get an idea how they work. I use a 24mm rather than 28 in 35mm, but a 50mm (28mm equiv) seems fine to me on 6x6.

Anyway, there is a reason why 50/(75 or 80)/150 is the standard set, and these lenses should be the easiest to get hold of.

 

[wiltw]

The 135 format uses an overly long FL (50mm) for its 'normal' lens, compared to the diagonal measure of the frame (43mm). And the 135 format is also an overlong format (long dimension vs. short dimension) while 6x6 is square.

Compare short dimension of the 135 frame vs. FL.

• 50mm = 2 * 24mm
• 28mm = 1.17 * 24mm
• 105mm = 4.4 * 24mm
• 135mm = 5.6 * 24mm

So compared to 55mm frame height, the four lenses equate to vertical AOV provided by 65mm, 110mm, 240mm, and 310mm

 

[Slixtiesix]

The 120/4 and 180/4 make a great combo if you like super sharp lenses. The 150/4 and 250/5,6, which I have in SL66-mount, do have a quite distinct look from "modern lenses". They lack some sharpness compared to the aforementioned two. They are sharp nonetheless, but not as super-sharp as the newer lenses. Rather smooth than crisp. Their look sometimes reminds me of older LF-lenses, to exaggerate things a little bit. It depends on your taste.

Best, Benjamin

 

[Neil Grant]

I know that a 50 mm lens in 24x36 format is similar to a 80 mm one in 6x6 format. I want to know which lenses would be equivalent to 28 mm, 105 mm and 135 mm. Additionally, I would appreciate your recommendations for my Hasselblad 501CM. I already have the 80 F2.8 CFT lens, but I do not know which angular and tele I should get.
Thank you,
Henry.

This question, or variations on it, come up regularly. Camera brochures make comparisons for convenience sake - but they are just rough and ready. It's very hard to judge which 6x6 lenses are equivalent to 35mm format lenses that you are familiar with because the formats are such a different shape. Matters would be more straightforward/meaningful if you were trying to compare 35mm and 6x9cm. Perhaps this helps explain the range of opinion in the posts generated by your question.

 

[Christopher Walrath]

Easiest way is just about the ratio of convert miles to km. 5 miles is 8 km, right? 50mm lens for 35 would equate to 80mm for a 645 and slightly longer for slightly larger. That's the simplest means I have ever seen.

 

[Q.G.]

This question, or variations on it, come up regularly. Camera brochures make comparisons for convenience sake - but they are just rough and ready. It's very hard to judge which 6x6 lenses are equivalent to 35mm format lenses that you are familiar with because the formats are such a different shape.

No, it's not.

Just have a look here (to quote that famous U.S. philosopher: "It's deja vu, all over again").

 

[Pumalite]

Even though they are equivalent; things change when you compose.

 

[Neil Grant]

No, it's not.

Just have a look here (to quote that famous U.S. philosopher: "It's deja vu, all over again").

The info on the page proves my point. No lens matches the fov of any other lens in all three directions, horizontal, vertical and diagonal. Additionally, the shape of the camera's negative has a very profound effect on composition so, although cropping is possible later the photographer is very often conditioned to 'work' around the shape of the negative.

 

[film_man]

Having both 35mm and 6x6, I'll agree that you have to look at this from a horizontal/vertical point of view. 80mm in 6x6 is 50mm in 135 if all you look at is the diagonal, but the 80mm on 6x6 look is definitely wider than the 50mm 135 view. Similarily, 50mm on 6x6 is not as wide as 28mm on 135.

And the composition always ends up quite different when I switch from 6x6 to 135.