Which wide angle lens for Bronica ETRsi

[patricia de roeck]

I'm looking at buying a Zenzazon PE wide..seems they made a 40mm and a 50mm-
would the 50mm be about equivalent to a 35mm format 35mm lens? Would prefer that it takes 62mm filters and wonder if the 40mm is too wide for this and may also be on the fish-eye end of the scale. The next size lens I own is the 75mm.
Thanks everyone. Trisha

 

[Ole]

Both are very good lenses.

The 40mm is visibly wider than the 50mm.

Both are wider than a 35mm lens would be on 35mm film: For "wide", think the long side in landscape orientation. A 35mm film image area is 24x36mm, so a 35m lens is just about the same as the long dimension. The ETRSi is 45x58mm, so both lenses will give a wider view than the 35/36 equivalent.

I would say the 40mm feels about as wide as a 20mm on 135, while the 50mm feels about like a 28.

And before you ask - yes, i have both, but the 40mm gets more use. Then again I love 15 and 21mm lenses on 35mm film...

 

[benjiboy]

I would think Trisha for general wide angle photography in terms of usefulness the 50mm would be of more use, It's equivalent in angle of view in 35mm to a 36mm lens, whereas the 40 mm is the same as a 25mm lens.

 

[wiltw]

The Bronica ETRSi frame is precisely 42.5mm x 55mm. 50mm is 1.18x the short dimension of the frame (better comparison because of the long dimension of the overly long 135 format frame), which would be 28mm equivalent in the 135 format. The 40mm lens on Bronica is like having 23mm lens on 135 format. In shooting weddings, I have found that the 50mm allows me to shoot without worry of induced perspective distortion to body parts of people standing nearby, while the 40mm requires real care to avoid that issue. The 40mm is far better than 50mm for taking the scene-establishing shots of the location.

 

[hadeer]

I agree that the 40mm has the risk of distortion when you use it for photographing people. But I think it is a great lens for landscapes. I own both and use the 50mm for interior portraits and people photography for which it does a great job, but I find that the 40mm gives me optimal results in landscape photography. So, it is all a question of what subjects you prefer.

 

[patricia de roeck]

Thanks everyone for all the info - will probably go with the 50mm as this is the nearest
to the 28mm in 35 - had one of those yonks ago and it was just right for landscape work without causing any distortion. Now to find the money and the lens.
Trisha in Tassie

 

[lxdude]

Using the usual .6 multiplier, the 40mm equates to a 24mm in 135, the 50mm to a 30mm, and the 60mm to a 36mm.

Look through here and you'll see that is what Bronica claims for equivalents. Click on ETR, then on lenses.

www.tamron-usa.com/bronica/slr_archives.asp

 

[BrianL]

I have a 50 and 40 on my ETRS and over the years found I almost never mounted the 50. I'm not usually into wide angle but the 40mm on the 645 back really seems to be a match for what I shoot. Now, I do not generally shoot humans but when I do, I usually will mount the 75 or 105 mm lens. I thought I would like the 50 as I tend towards the 40mm on 35mm for a normal lens. Now, admittedly, part of this preference is possibly that I carry a 35mm back as well as the 120s and try to limit my carry kit to only 1 lens. When walking around I'm as apt to have the 35mm back mounted as the 120. I do find the emotion of the 40mm to be more to my liking. The 50mm seems a little more analytical that affects the feeling I get from an image.