What does 47mm, 65mm, 90mm look like on 4x5?

[jcc]

Has anyone ever done a comparison between 4x5 wide-angle lenses' field of view? I've combed the internets, and a lot of numbers (angles of view, comparative 35mm-format focal lengths, etc.) get tossed about, but no photos showing how the different focal lengths vary. Is there a visual example out there?

 

[AgX]

If you got the figures you just can take any photo of which you know the parameters. Take into account the different aspect ratios and for which parameter the angle of view will apply (height, width or diagonal). Consider the scale too, as in LF you easily get into the macro range, with altered effective angle of view.
So you might end up cropping photos to gain comparable samples.

The only diffrences that would remain would be depth of focus. But that was not your concern anyway.

 

[Ian Grant]

It's not a simple Question/Answer, if you look at the published differences between a Hasselblad SWC with a 38mm Biogon and the regular40mm Distagon you would appreciate the differences between a true wide angle design (the Biogon) where there's no constraints caused by accommodating a mirror and a retro focus design needed when there is a mirror. There's less distortion with a true wide angle lens and that's the same with LF wide angles so you don't get quite so great exaggerations at the edges and the corners.

Of course you can use any WA to exaggerate perspective so the wide angle the lens the greater the effect but you'ed acrefully it's harder to ttell what lens was used.

A 65mm is the widest lens I use and then rarely but when I do I invariably get excellent results, I prefer a 75mm and a 90mm.

This is the 65mm

The 90mm

Ian

 

[jcc]

If you got the figures you just can take any photo of which you know the parameters. Take into account the different aspect ratios and for which parameter the angle of view will apply (height, width or diagonal). Consider the scale too, as in LF you easily get into the macro range, with altered effective angle of view.
So you might end up cropping photos to gain comparable samples.

The only diffrences that would remain would be depth of focus. But that was not your concern anyway.

I was just thinking of focusing at infinity, as going macro would certainly change the ball game.

What the numbers don't say is how much distortion is being created and where. I'll just assume barrel distortion since these are wide-angle lenses, but how big is the sweet spot of the lens? I think for that, I need some actual images to look at.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Distortion? What are you thinking? Nearly all wide angle lenses for large format are rectilinear.

 

[AgX]

Yes, distortion and other artefacts are a valid point. But I thought the question was only about the effective angle of view.

 

[jcc]

It's not a simple Question/Answer, if you look at the published differences between a Hasselblad SWC with a 38mm Biogon and the regular40mm Distagon you would appreciate the differences between a true wide angle design (the Biogon) where there's no constraints caused by accommodating a mirror and a retro focus design needed when there is a mirror. There's less distortion with a true wide angle lens and that's the same with LF wide angles so you don't get quite so great exaggerations at the edges and the corners.

Of course you can use any WA to exaggerate perspective so the wide angle the lens the greater the effect but you'ed acrefully it's harder to ttell what lens was used.

A 65mm is the widest lens I use and then rarely but when I do I invariably get excellent results, I prefer a 75mm and a 90mm.

This is the 65mm

The 90mm

Ian

These are wonderful photos, Ian! Thanks for sharing them. I use a 90mm, and like in your photo, there's no noticeable distortion, but the 65mm seems to start smearing the outer edges already.

As for design, you got me thinking. Now I'm curious to see what the 75mm Biogon looks like... *I'll be back after googling*.