Message #6737909 edits · « 2 new lenses, 17 and 24mm TSE »

Visit the FM Store · Image Upload · Buy & Sell
Previous versions of RalphJ's message #6737909 « 2 new lenses, 17 and 24mm TSE »

RalphJ
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Re: 2 new lenses, 17 and 24mm TSE

cineski wrote:Slapping a 28 on medium format vs 47mm on 4x5 vs. 16mm on 35mm gives very different results. Same field of view, but different distortion and diminishing backgrounds.

No, actually if the field of view is the same, then the distortion and diminishing backgrounds will be the same too. (Perspective distortion, that is; lens distortion such as barrel and pincushion is usually lesser with larger format lenses because there aren't the retrofocus-related issues to designing around an SLR's mirror box.)

Feb 18, 2009 at 10:52 PM

RalphJ
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Re: 2 new lenses, 17 and 24mm TSE

cineski wrote: Ralph, field of view is why photographers chose medium format over 35 (Aside from resolution). Especially for architectural shooting.

"Field of view" is NOT why photographers choose medium (or large) format over 35; in fact, that has nothing to do with it. A lens that is "normal" on 35mm (~50mm) gives the same field of view as does a lens on 4x5 that is also "normal (~150mm). A lens that is about half the normal focal length on 35mm (~24mm) gives exactly the same field of view as does a lens on 4x5 that is also half the normal focal length (72mm). Etc.

Photographers in each format choose the field of view that works best for the subject, but all photographers in all formats have access to the same fields of view, from super-wide to telephoto. No format is limited in its available fields of view.

cineski wrote:Large format is even better because you can slap a 47mm on and you are both very wide with very little distortion compared to its 35mm counterpart that needs a 16mm to get the same field of view... Distortion on a 16mm lens is huge compared to 47mm, although the field of view will be the same.

Actually, perspective distortion** with the 16mm (on 35mm) and the 47mm (on 4x5) is the same: huge. Sorry.

I couldn't find many 4x5 47mm XL examples online -- the massive amount of perspective distortion renders it an extremely special-effects lens, like a 15mm on 35mm -- but here's a flickr picture taken with the 47mm on only 2x3" film (6x9cm) and the distortion is already huge; on the much larger 4x5" negative the perspective distortion would be much worse! (I can find more examples if you don't believe me.)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/hannueskelinen/584265618/

Update: Here's a photo taken with the 47mm on 4x5:

http://www.peterkrogh.com/Pages/Capabilities/Cambowide.html

cineski wrote:Slapping a 28 on medium format vs 47mm on 4x5 vs. 16mm on 35mm gives very different results. Same field of view, but different distortion and diminishing backgrounds.

This is just flat out wrong. If the field of view is the same and the formats are even remotely similar in their rectangularity (as 4x5 and 35mm are), then the "distortion and diminishing backgrounds" will be the same too.

I've been shooting 4x5 and 8x10 for more than 20 years and Canon TS-E's for more than 10, so I've compared just about every angle of view across formats that one can.

Bottom line: If the field of view is the same, the effects of "distortion and diminishing backgrounds" are exactly the same-- regardless of the format being used (35mm, medium-format, or large-format).

**I'm not going to side with one respondent who suggested you meant "barrel distortion," because I think you would have said that if you'd meant it, and most PC lenses [including the TS-E's] are quite well corrected for b-d anyway.

Feb 18, 2009 at 09:52 PM

RalphJ
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Re: 2 new lenses, 17 and 24mm TSE

cineski wrote: Ralph, field of view is why photographers chose medium format over 35 (Aside from resolution). Especially for architectural shooting.

"Field of view" is NOT why photographers choose medium (or large) format over 35; in fact, that has nothing to do with it. A lens that is "normal" on 35mm (~50mm) gives the same field of view as does a lens on 4x5 that is also "normal (~150mm). A lens that is about half the normal focal length on 35mm (~24mm) gives exactly the same field of view as does a lens on 4x5 that is also half the normal focal length (72mm). Etc.

Photographers in each format choose the field of view that works best for the subject, but all photographers in all formats have access to the same fields of view, from super-wide to telephoto. No format is limited in its available fields of view.

cineski wrote:Large format is even better because you can slap a 47mm on and you are both very wide with very little distortion compared to its 35mm counterpart that needs a 16mm to get the same field of view... Distortion on a 16mm lens is huge compared to 47mm, although the field of view will be the same.

Actually, perspective distortion** with the 16mm (on 35mm) and the 47mm (on 4x5) is the same: huge. Sorry.

I couldn't find many 4x5 47mm XL examples online -- the massive amount of perspective distortion renders it an extremely special-effects lens, like a 15mm on 35mm -- but here's a flickr picture taken with the 47mm on only 2x3" film (6x9cm) and the distortion is already huge; on the much larger 4x5" negative the perspective distortion would be much worse! (I can find more examples if you don't believe me.)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/hannueskelinen/584265618/

Update: Here's a photo taken with the 47mm on 4x5:

http://www.peterkrogh.com/Pages/Capabilities/Cambowide.html

cineski wrote:Slapping a 28 on medium format vs 47mm on 4x5 vs. 16mm on 35mm gives very different results. Same field of view, but different distortion and diminishing backgrounds.

This is preposterous and just flat out wrong. If the field of view is the same and the formats are even remotely similar in their rectangularity (as 4x5 and 35mm are), then the "distortion and diminishing backgrounds" will be the same too.

I've been shooting 4x5 and 8x10 for more than 20 years and Canon TS-E's for more than 10, so I've compared just about every angle of view across formats that one can.

Bottom line: If the field of view is the same, the effects of "distortion and diminishing backgrounds" are exactly the same-- regardless of the format being used (35mm, medium-format, or large-format).

**I'm not going to side with one respondent who suggested you meant "barrel distortion," because I think you would have said that if you'd meant it, and most PC lenses [including the TS-E's] are quite well corrected for b-d anyway.

Feb 18, 2009 at 09:48 PM

RalphJ
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Re: 2 new lenses, 17 and 24mm TSE

cineski wrote: Ralph, field of view is why photographers chose medium format over 35 (Aside from resolution). Especially for architectural shooting.

"Field of view" is NOT why photographers choose medium (or large) format over 35; in fact, that has nothing to do with it. A lens that is "normal" on 35mm (~50mm) gives the same field of view as does a lens on 4x5 that is also "normal (~150mm). A lens that is about half the normal focal length on 35mm (~24mm) gives exactly the same field of view as does a lens on 4x5 that is also half the normal focal length (72mm). Etc.

Photographers in each format choose the field of view that works best for the subject, but all photographers in all formats have access to the same fields of view, from super-wide to telephoto. No format is limited in its available fields of view.

cineski wrote:Large format is even better because you can slap a 47mm on and you are both very wide with very little distortion compared to its 35mm counterpart that needs a 16mm to get the same field of view... Distortion on a 16mm lens is huge compared to 47mm, although the field of view will be the same.

Actually, perspective distortion** with the 16mm (on 35mm) and the 47mm (on 4x5) is the same: huge. Sorry.

I couldn't find many 4x5 47mm XL examples online -- the perspective distortion renders it an extremely special-effects lens, like a 15mm on 35mm -- but here's a flickr picture taken with the 47mm on only 2x3" film (6x9cm) and the distortion is already huge; on the much larger 4x5" negative the perspective distortion would be much worse! (I can find more examples if you don't believe me.)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/hannueskelinen/584265618/

Update: Here's a photo taken with the 47mm on 4x5:

http://www.peterkrogh.com/Pages/Capabilities/Cambowide.html

cineski wrote:Slapping a 28 on medium format vs 47mm on 4x5 vs. 16mm on 35mm gives very different results. Same field of view, but different distortion and diminishing backgrounds.

This is preposterous and just flat out wrong. If the field of view is the same and the formats are even remotely similar in their rectangularity (as 4x5 and 35mm are), then the "distortion and diminishing backgrounds" will be the same too.

I've been shooting 4x5 and 8x10 for more than 20 years and Canon TS-E's for more than 10, so I've compared just about every angle of view across formats that one can.

Bottom line: If the field of view is the same, the effects of "distortion and diminishing backgrounds" are exactly the same-- regardless of the format being used (35mm, medium-format, or large-format).

**I'm not going to side with one respondent who suggested you meant "barrel distortion," because I think you would have said that if you'd meant it, and most PC lenses [including the TS-E's] are quite well corrected for b-d anyway.

Feb 18, 2009 at 09:47 PM

RalphJ
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Re: 2 new lenses, 17 and 24mm TSE

cineski wrote: Ralph, field of view is why photographers chose medium format over 35 (Aside from resolution). Especially for architectural shooting.

"Field of view" is NOT why photographers choose medium (or large) format over 35; in fact, that has nothing to do with it. A lens that is "normal" on 35mm (~50mm) gives the same field of view as does a lens on 4x5 that is also "normal (~150mm). A lens that is about half the normal focal length on 35mm (~24mm) gives exactly the same field of view as does a lens on 4x5 that is also half the normal focal length (72mm). Etc.

Photographers in each format choose the field of view that works best for the subject, but all photographers in all formats have access to the same fields of view, from super-wide to telephoto. No format is limited in its available fields of view.

cineski wrote:Large format is even better because you can slap a 47mm on and you are both very wide with very little distortion compared to its 35mm counterpart that needs a 16mm to get the same field of view... Distortion on a 16mm lens is huge compared to 47mm, although the field of view will be the same.

Actually, distortion with the 16mm (on 35mm) and the 47mm (on 4x5) is the same. Sorry.

I couldn't find many 4x5 47mm XL examples online -- the perspective distortion renders it an extremely special-effects lens, like a 15mm on 35mm -- but here's a flickr picture taken with the 47mm on only 2x3" film (6x9cm) and the distortion is already huge; on the much larger 4x5" negative the perspective distortion would be much worse! (I can find more examples if you don't believe me.)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/hannueskelinen/584265618/

Update: Here's a photo taken with the 47mm on 4x5:

http://www.peterkrogh.com/Pages/Capabilities/Cambowide.html

cineski wrote:Slapping a 28 on medium format vs 47mm on 4x5 vs. 16mm on 35mm gives very different results. Same field of view, but different distortion and diminishing backgrounds.

This is preposterous and just flat out wrong. If the field of view is the same and the formats are even remotely similar in their rectangularity (as 4x5 and 35mm are), then the "distortion and diminishing backgrounds" will be the same too.

I've been shooting 4x5 and 8x10 for more than 20 years and Canon TS-E's for more than 10, so I've compared just about every angle of view across formats that one can.

Bottom line: If the field of view is the same, the effects of "distortion and diminishing backgrounds" are exactly the same-- regardless of the format being used (35mm, medium-format, or large-format).

(I'm not going to side with one respondent who suggested you meant "barrel distortion," because I think you would have said that if you'd meant it, and most PC lenses [including the TS-E's] are quite well corrected for b-d anyway.)

Feb 18, 2009 at 09:44 PM

RalphJ
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Re: 2 new lenses, 17 and 24mm TSE

cineski wrote: Ralph, field of view is why photographers chose medium format over 35 (Aside from resolution). Especially for architectural shooting.

"Field of view" is NOT why photographers choose medium (or large) format over 35; in fact, that has nothing to do with it. A lens that is "normal" on 35mm (~50mm) gives the same field of view as does a lens on 4x5 that is also "normal (~150mm). A lens that is about half the normal focal length on 35mm (~24mm) gives exactly the same field of view as does a lens on 4x5 that is also half the normal focal length (72mm). Etc.

Photographers in each format choose the field of view that works best for the subject, but all photographers in all formats have access to the same fields of view, from super-wide to telephoto. No format is limited in its available fields of view.

cineski wrote:Large format is even better because you can slap a 47mm on and you are both very wide with very little distortion compared to its 35mm counterpart that needs a 16mm to get the same field of view... Distortion on a 16mm lens is huge compared to 47mm, although the field of view will be the same.

Actually, distortion with the 16mm (on 35mm) and the 47mm (on 4x5) is the same. Sorry.

I couldn't find many 4x5 47mm XL examples online -- the perspective distortion renders it an extremely special-effects lens, like a 15mm on 35mm -- but here's a flickr picture taken with the 47mm on only 2x3" film (6x9cm) and the distortion is already huge; on the much larger 4x5" negative the perspective distortion would be much worse! (I can find more examples if you don't believe me.)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/hannueskelinen/584265618/

Update: Here's a photo taken with the 47mm on 4x5:

http://www.peterkrogh.com/Pages/Capabilities/Cambowide.html

cineski wrote:Slapping a 28 on medium format vs 47mm on 4x5 vs. 16mm on 35mm gives very different results. Same field of view, but different distortion and diminishing backgrounds.

This is preposterous and just flat out wrong. If the field of view is the same and the formats are even remotely similar in their rectangularity (as 4x5 and 35mm are), then the "distortion and diminishing backgrounds" will be the same too.

I've been shooting 4x5 and 8x10 for more than 20 years and Canon TS-E's for more than 10, so I've compared just about every angle of view across formats that one can.

Bottom line: If the field of view is the same, the effects of "distortion and diminishing backgrounds" are exactly the same.

(I'm not going to side with one respondent who suggested you meant "barrel distortion," because I think you would have said that if you'd meant it, and most PC lenses [including the TS-E's] are quite well corrected for b-d anyway.)

Feb 18, 2009 at 09:43 PM

RalphJ
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Re: 2 new lenses, 17 and 24mm TSE

cineski wrote: Ralph, field of view is why photographers chose medium format over 35 (Aside from resolution). Especially for architectural shooting.

"Field of view" is NOT why photographers choose medium (or large) format over 35; in fact, that has nothing to do with it. A lens that is "normal" on 35mm (~50mm) gives the same field of view as does a lens on 4x5 that is also "normal (~150mm). A lens that is about half the normal focal length on 35mm (~24mm) gives exactly the same field of view as does a lens on 4x5 that is also half the normal focal length (72mm). Etc.

Photographers in each format choose the field of view that works best for the subject, but all photographers in all formats have access to the same fields of view, from super-wide to telephoto. No format is limited in its available fields of view.

cineski wrote:Large format is even better because you can slap a 47mm on and you are both very wide with very little distortion compared to its 35mm counterpart that needs a 16mm to get the same field of view... Distortion on a 16mm lens is huge compared to 47mm, although the field of view will be the same.

Actually, distortion with the 16mm (on 35mm) and the 47mm (on 4x5) is the same. Sorry.

I couldn't find many 4x5 47mm XL examples online -- the perspective distortion renders it an extremely special-effects lens, like a 15mm on 35mm -- but here's a flickr picture taken with the 47mm on only 2x3" film (6x9cm) and the distortion is already huge; on the much larger 4x5" negative the perspective distortion would be much worse! (I can find more examples if you don't believe me.)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/hannueskelinen/584265618/

Update: Here's a photo taken with the 47mm on 4x5:

http://www.peterkrogh.com/Pages/Capabilities/Cambowide.html

cineski wrote:Slapping a 28 on medium format vs 47mm on 4x5 vs. 16mm on 35mm gives very different results. Same field of view, but different distortion and diminishing backgrounds.

This is preposterous and just flat out wrong. If the field of view is the same and the formats are even remotely similar in their rectangularity (as 4x5 and 35mm are), then the "distortion and diminishing backgrounds" will be the same too.

I've been shooting 4x5 and 8x10 for more than 20 years and Canon TS-E's for more than 10, so I've compared just about every angle of view across formats as one can.

Bottom line: If the field of view is the same, the effects of "distortion and diminishing backgrounds" are exactly the same.

(I'm not going to side with one respondent who suggested you meant "barrel distortion," because I think you would have said that if you'd meant it, and most PC lenses [including the TS-E's] are quite well corrected for b-d anyway.)

Feb 18, 2009 at 09:43 PM

RalphJ
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Re: 2 new lenses, 17 and 24mm TSE

cineski wrote: Ralph, field of view is why photographers chose medium format over 35 (Aside from resolution). Especially for architectural shooting.

"Field of view" is NOT why photographers choose medium (or large) format over 35; in fact, that has nothing to do with it. A lens that is "normal" on 35mm (~50mm) gives the same field of view as does a lens on 4x5 that is also "normal (~150mm). A lens that is about half the normal focal length on 35mm (~24mm) gives exactly the same field of view as does a lens on 4x5 that is also half the normal focal length (72mm). Etc.

Photographers in each format choose the field of view that works best for the subject, but all photographers in all formats have access to the same fields of view, from super-wide to telephoto. No format is limited in its available fields of view.

cineski wrote:Large format is even better because you can slap a 47mm on and you are both very wide with very little distortion compared to its 35mm counterpart that needs a 16mm to get the same field of view... Distortion on a 16mm lens is huge compared to 47mm, although the field of view will be the same.

Actually, distortion with the 16mm (on 35mm) and the 47mm (on 4x5) is the same. Sorry.

I couldn't find many 4x5 47mm XL examples online -- the perspective distortion renders it an extremely special-effects lens, like a 15mm on 35mm -- but here's a flickr picture taken with the 47mm on only 2x3" film (6x9cm) and the distortion is already huge; on the much larger 4x5" negative the perspective distortion would be much worse! (I can find more examples if you don't believe me.)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/hannueskelinen/584265618/

Update: Here's a photo taken with the 47mm on 4x5:

http://www.peterkrogh.com/Pages/Capabilities/Cambowide.html

cineski wrote:Slapping a 28 on medium format vs 47mm on 4x5 vs. 16mm on 35mm gives very different results. Same field of view, but different distortion and diminishing backgrounds.

This is preposterous and just flat out wrong. If the field of view is the same and the formats are even remotely similar in their rectangularity (as 4x5 and 35mm are), then the distortion and diminishing backgrounds will be the same too.

I've been shooting 4x5 and 8x10 for more than 20 years and Canon TS-E's for more than 10, so I've compared just about every angle of view across formats as one can.

Bottom line: If the field of view is the same, the effects of "distortion and diminishing backgrounds" are exactly the same.

(I'm not going to side with one respondent who suggested you meant "barrel distortion," because I think you would have said that if you'd meant it, and most PC lenses [including the TS-E's] are quite well corrected for b-d anyway.)

Feb 18, 2009 at 09:42 PM

RalphJ
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Re: 2 new lenses, 17 and 24mm TSE

cineski wrote: Ralph, field of view is why photographers chose medium format over 35 (Aside from resolution). Especially for architectural shooting.

"Field of view" is NOT why photographers choose medium (or large) format over 35; in fact, that has nothing to do with it. A lens that is "normal" on 35mm (~50mm) gives the same field of view as does a lens on 4x5 that is also "normal (~150mm). A lens that is about half the normal focal length on 35mm (~24mm) gives exactly the same field of view as does a lens on 4x5 that is also half the normal focal length (72mm). Etc.

Photographers in each format choose the field of view that works best for the subject, but (now, with the 17mm) all photographers in all formats have access to the same fields of view, from super-wide to telephoto.

cineski wrote:Large format is even better because you can slap a 47mm on and you are both very wide with very little distortion compared to its 35mm counterpart that needs a 16mm to get the same field of view... Distortion on a 16mm lens is huge compared to 47mm, although the field of view will be the same.

Actually, distortion with the 16mm (on 35mm) and the 47mm (on 4x5) is the same. Sorry.

I couldn't find many 4x5 47mm XL examples online -- the perspective distortion renders it an extremely special-effects lens, like a 15mm on 35mm -- but here's a flickr picture taken with the 47mm on only 2x3" film (6x9cm) and the distortion is already huge; on the much larger 4x5" negative the perspective distortion would be much worse! (I can find more examples if you don't believe me.)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/hannueskelinen/584265618/

Update: Here's a photo taken with the 47mm on 4x5:

http://www.peterkrogh.com/Pages/Capabilities/Cambowide.html

cineski wrote:Slapping a 28 on medium format vs 47mm on 4x5 vs. 16mm on 35mm gives very different results. Same field of view, but different distortion and diminishing backgrounds.

This is preposterous and just flat out wrong. If the field of view is the same and the formats are even remotely similar in their rectangularity (as 4x5 and 35mm are), then the distortion and diminishing backgrounds will be the same too.

I've been shooting 4x5 and 8x10 for more than 20 years and Canon TS-E's for more than 10, so I've compared just about every angle of view across formats as one can.

Bottom line: If the field of view is the same, the effects of "distortion and diminishing backgrounds" are exactly the same.

(I'm not going to side with one respondent who suggested you meant "barrel distortion," because I think you would have said that if you'd meant it, and most PC lenses [including the TS-E's] are quite well corrected for b-d anyway.)

Feb 18, 2009 at 09:40 PM

RalphJ
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Re: 2 new lenses, 17 and 24mm TSE

cineski wrote: Ralph, field of view is why photographers chose medium format over 35 (Aside from resolution). Especially for architectural shooting.

"Field of view" is NOT why photographers choose medium (or large) format over 35; in fact, that has nothing to do with it. A lens that is "normal" on 35mm (~50mm) gives the same field of view as does a lens on 4x5 that is also "normal (~150mm). A lens that is about half the normal focal length on 35mm (~24mm) gives exactly the same field of view as does a lens on 4x5 that is also half the normal focal length (72mm). Etc.

cineski wrote:Large format is even better because you can slap a 47mm on and you are both very wide with very little distortion compared to its 35mm counterpart that needs a 16mm to get the same field of view... Distortion on a 16mm lens is huge compared to 47mm, although the field of view will be the same.

Actually, distortion with the 16mm (on 35mm) and the 47mm (on 4x5) is the same. Sorry.

I couldn't find many 4x5 47mm XL examples online -- the perspective distortion renders it an extremely special-effects lens, like a 15mm on 35mm -- but here's a flickr picture taken with the 47mm on only 2x3" film (6x9cm) and the distortion is already huge; on the much larger 4x5" negative the perspective distortion would be much worse! (I can find more examples if you don't believe me.)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/hannueskelinen/584265618/

Update: Here's a photo taken with the 47mm on 4x5:

http://www.peterkrogh.com/Pages/Capabilities/Cambowide.html

cineski wrote:Slapping a 28 on medium format vs 47mm on 4x5 vs. 16mm on 35mm gives very different results. Same field of view, but different distortion and diminishing backgrounds.

This is preposterous and just flat out wrong. If the field of view is the same and the formats are even remotely similar in their rectangularity (as 4x5 and 35mm are), then the distortion and diminishing backgrounds will be the same too.

I've been shooting 4x5 and 8x10 for more than 20 years and Canon TS-E's for more than 10, so I've compared just about every angle of view across formats as one can.

Bottom line: If the field of view is the same, the effects of "distortion and diminishing backgrounds" are exactly the same.

(I'm not going to side with one respondent who suggested you meant "barrel distortion," because I think you would have said that if you'd meant it, and most PC lenses [including the TS-E's] are quite well corrected for b-d anyway.)

Feb 18, 2009 at 09:36 PM

RalphJ
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Re: 2 new lenses, 17 and 24mm TSE

cineski wrote: Ralph, field of view is why photographers chose medium format over 35 (Aside from resolution). Especially for architectural shooting.

"Field of view" is NOT why photographers choose medium (or large) format over 35; in fact, that has nothing to do with it. A lens that is "normal" on 35mm (~50mm) gives the same field of view as does a lens on 4x5 that is also "normal (~150mm). A lens that is about half the normal focal length on 35mm (~24mm) gives exactly the same field of view as does a lens on 4x5 that is also half the normal focal length (72mm). Etc.

cineski wrote:Large format is even better because you can slap a 47mm on and you are both very wide with very little distortion compared to its 35mm counterpart that needs a 16mm to get the same field of view... Distortion on a 16mm lens is huge compared to 47mm, although the field of view will be the same.

Actually, distortion with the 16mm (on 35mm) and the 47mm (on 4x5) is the same. Sorry.

I couldn't find many 4x5 47mm XL examples online -- the perspective distortion renders it an extremely special-effects lens, like a 15mm on 35mm -- but here's a flickr picture taken with the 47mm on only 2x3" film (6x9cm) and the distortion is already huge; on the much larger 4x5" negative the perspective distortion would be much worse! (I can find more examples if you don't believe me.)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/hannueskelinen/584265618/

Here's photo taken with the 47mm on 4x5:

http://www.peterkrogh.com/Pages/Capabilities/Cambowide.html

cineski wrote:Slapping a 28 on medium format vs 47mm on 4x5 vs. 16mm on 35mm gives very different results. Same field of view, but different distortion and diminishing backgrounds.

This is preposterous and just flat out wrong. If the field of view is the same and the formats are even remotely similar in their rectangularity (as 4x5 and 35mm are), then the distortion and diminishing backgrounds will be the same too.

I've been shooting 4x5 and 8x10 for more than 20 years and Canon TS-E's for more than 10, so I've compared just about every angle of view across formats as one can.

Bottom line: If the field of view is the same, the effects of "distortion and diminishing backgrounds" are exactly the same.

(I'm not going to side with one respondent who suggested you meant "barrel distortion," because I think you would have said that if you'd meant it, and most PC lenses [including the TS-E's] are quite well corrected for b-d anyway.)

Feb 18, 2009 at 09:30 PM

RalphJ
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Re: 2 new lenses, 17 and 24mm TSE

cineski wrote: Ralph, field of view is why photographers chose medium format over 35 (Aside from resolution). Especially for architectural shooting.

"Field of view" is NOT why photographers choose medium (or large) format over 35; in fact, that has nothing to do with it. A lens that is "normal" on 35mm (~50mm) gives the same field of view as does a lens on 4x5 that is also "normal (~150mm). A lens that is about half the normal focal length on 35mm (~24mm) gives exactly the same field of view as does a lens on 4x5 that is also half the normal focal length (72mm). Etc.

cineski wrote:Large format is even better because you can slap a 47mm on and you are both very wide with very little distortion compared to its 35mm counterpart that needs a 16mm to get the same field of view... Distortion on a 16mm lens is huge compared to 47mm, although the field of view will be the same.

Actually, distortion with the 16mm (on 35mm) and the 47mm (on 4x5) is the same. Sorry.

I couldn't find many 4x5 47mm XL examples online -- the perspective distortion renders it an extremely special-effects lens, like a 15mm on 35mm -- but here's a flickr picture taken with the 47mm on only 2x3" film (6x9cm) and the distortion is already huge; on the much larger 4x5" negative the perspective distortion would be much worse! (I can find more examples if you don't believe me.)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/hannueskelinen/584265618/

cineski wrote:Slapping a 28 on medium format vs 47mm on 4x5 vs. 16mm on 35mm gives very different results. Same field of view, but different distortion and diminishing backgrounds.

This is preposterous and just flat out wrong. If the field of view is the same and the formats are even remotely similar in their rectangularity (as 4x5 and 35mm are), then the distortion and diminishing backgrounds will be the same too.

I've been shooting 4x5 and 8x10 for more than 20 years and Canon TS-E's for more than 10, so I've compared just about every angle of view across formats as one can.

Bottom line: If the field of view is the same, the effects of "distortion and diminishing backgrounds" are exactly the same.

(I'm not going to side with one respondent who suggested you meant "barrel distortion," because I think you would have said that if you'd meant it, and most PC lenses [including the TS-E's] are quite well corrected for b-d anyway.)

Feb 18, 2009 at 09:26 PM

RalphJ
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Re: 2 new lenses, 17 and 24mm TSE

cineski wrote: Ralph, field of view is why photographers chose medium format over 35 (Aside from resolution). Especially for architectural shooting.

"Field of view" is NOT why photographers choose medium (or large) format over 35; in fact, that has nothing to do with it. A lens that is "normal" on 35mm (~50mm) gives the same field of view as does a lens on 4x5 that is also "normal (~150mm). A lens that is about half the normal focal length on 35mm (~24mm) gives exactly the same field of view as does a lens on 4x5 that is also half the normal focal length (72mm). Etc.

cineski wrote:Large format is even better because you can slap a 47mm on and you are both very wide with very little distortion compared to its 35mm counterpart that needs a 16mm to get the same field of view... Distortion on a 16mm lens is huge compared to 47mm, although the field of view will be the same.

Actually, distortion with the 16mm (on 35mm) and the 47mm (on 4x5) is the same. Sorry.

I couldn't find many 4x5 47mm XL examples online -- the perspective distortion renders it an extremely special-effects lens, like a 15mm on 35mm -- but here's a flickr picture taken with the 47mm on only 2x3" film (6x9cm) and the distortion is already huge; on the much larger 4x5" negative the perspective distortion would be much worse! (I can find more examples if you don't believe me.)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/hannueskelinen/584265618/

cineski wrote:Slapping a 28 on medium format vs 47mm on 4x5 vs. 16mm on 35mm gives very different results. Same field of view, but different distortion and diminishing backgrounds.

This is preposterous and just flat out wrong. If the field of view is the same and the formats are even remotely similar in their rectangularity (as 4x5 and 35mm are), then the distortion and diminishing backgrounds will be the same too.

I've been shooting 4x5 and 8x10 for more than 20 years and Canon TS-E's for more than 10, so I've compared just about every angle of view across formats as one can.

The effects are exactly the same. (I'm not going to side with one respondent who suggested you meant "barrel distortion," because I think you would have said that if you'd meant it, and most PC lenses [including the TS-E's] are quite well corrected for b-d anyway.)

Feb 18, 2009 at 09:25 PM

RalphJ
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Re: 2 new lenses, 17 and 24mm TSE

cineski wrote: Ralph, field of view is why photographers chose medium format over 35 (Aside from resolution). Especially for architectural shooting.

"Field of view" is NOT why photographers choose medium (or large) format over 35; in fact, that has nothing to do with it. A lens that is "normal" on 35mm (~50mm) gives the same field of view as does a lens on 4x5 that is also "normal (~150mm). A lens that is about half the normal focal length on 35mm (~24mm) gives exactly the same field of view as does a lens on 4x5 that is also half the normal focal length (72mm). Etc.

cineski wrote:Large format is even better because you can slap a 47mm on and you are both very wide with very little distortion compared to its 35mm counterpart that needs a 16mm to get the same field of view... Distortion on a 16mm lens is huge compared to 47mm, although the field of view will be the same.

Actually, distortion with the 16mm (on 35mm) and the 47mm (on 4x5) is the same. Sorry.

I couldn't find many 4x5 47mm XL examples online -- the perspective distortion renders it an extremely special-effects lens, like a 15mm on 35mm -- but here's a flickr picture taken with the 47mm on 6x9 and the distortion is huge; on the much larger 4x5 negative the perspective distortion would be much worse!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/hannueskelinen/584265618/

cineski wrote:Slapping a 28 on medium format vs 47mm on 4x5 vs. 16mm on 35mm gives very different results. Same field of view, but different distortion and diminishing backgrounds.

This is preposterous and just flat out wrong. If the field of view is the same and the formats are even remotely similar in their rectangularity (as 4x5 and 35mm are), then the distortion and diminishing backgrounds will be the same too.

I've been shooting 4x5 and 8x10 for more than 20 years and Canon TS-E's for more than 10, so I've compared just about every angle of view across formats as one can.

The effects are exactly the same. (I'm not going to side with one respondent who suggested you meant "barrel distortion," because I think you would have said that if you'd meant it, and most PC lenses [including the TS-E's] are quite well corrected for b-d anyway.)

Feb 18, 2009 at 09:21 PM


Previous versions of RalphJ's message #6737909 « 2 new lenses, 17 and 24mm TSE »