35mm 2.0 AI-S / 135mm 2.8 AI-S angle of view?

<p>Hi, with plans to travel soon inside a particularly scenic spot of the Dolomiti mountains in Italy, I am trying in advance to locate on a 1/25000 map where I could bring my hardware and (hopefully) get some fine photos of a spectacular summit ("Civetta") at sunset. To choose good spots, I need first to know the angle of view of my lenses. I cannot find this spec for two of them: the 35mm 2.0 Nikkor AI-S and the 135mm 2.8 AI-S. Can anybody help me to find them? Thanks in advance.</p>

<p>35mm<br>

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/28mmnikkor/index.htm<br>

135mm<br>

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/135mmnikkor/index.htm</p>

 

<p>It'll depend on the format of your camera body. A 35mm lens has approximately a 64-degree angle of view diagonally on 35mm film/FX.</p>

<p>As I recall, angle of view of 35mm is 64 degrees diagonal and 135 about 18.</p>

<p>A diagonal angle-of-view, as given in most lens specifications, is absolutely useless in practical use since nobody (normally) tips their camera at such an angle. The given angles-of-view only hold for infinity or long-distance focus BTW. At close distances the AOV becomes narrower with unit-focussing lenses such as those Ai-S ones.</p>

<p>The theoretical horizontal AOV of a 35mm lens on full frame is a little over 54 degrees; the vertical AOV is just under 38 degrees. I believe it's the theoretical diagonal AOV that Nikon gives in their spec sheets anyway.</p>

<p>For a 135mm lens the AOVs are: Horizontal 15.2 degrees, Vertical 10.2 degrees.</p>

<p>On the DX format the Horizontal AOV becomes the same as the vertical on FF, and the FF vertical AOV has to be divided by 1.5 (approximately)<br /> <br /> Happy mapping!</p>

<p>The diagonal measure is as useful for comparing lenses as any other dimension, given the same aspect ratio. Until recently, lens specifications seldom included any angle of view besides the diagonal.</p>

Thank you everybody, Of course there is this MIR site, I should have remembered it. Something I don't understand is why this angle is

dependant on the camera body? ( a F3 for me)

<p>Not on the camera body but on the camera`s format. The smaller the format, the narrower angle of view (and vice versa).<br>

Just cut a hole on a paper, and look through it; if you make the hole bigger, the field of view will be bigger, too.</p>

<p>The angle of view depends on the size and shape of the sensor. Besides FX and film cameras (36x24 mm), the same lenses can be used with APS-C (1.5x crop) and 4/3rds (2x crop) cameras, even video cameras with a 16:9 aspect ratio in FX or Super-35 (APS-C) width.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"...lens specifications seldom included any angle of view besides the diagonal."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's before they realised how useless such a parameter was! ;-)</p>

<p>Thank you for the precision, obviously I need to learn more on optics..<br /> So on my map the minimal horizontal angle of view for this photo would be 44° (at a distance of ~6.25km). Thus my 50mm ZF2 is insufficient (38°), but the 35 mm would be ok (54°). Vertically, the interesting part would be included inside an angle of 14° (1400m above 1600m, not counting the sky). Again the 35mm (38°) would be fine. So, I am set, see Rodeo, angles are not that useless..<br>

Below is this summit taken years ago from a distance of 11.5km at dusk, when I was traveling in the area. When I saw that, I stopped my car and made this photo with the 135mm 2.8 and Tmax 400, f4 1/250. Time to go back closer..</p><div></div>

<p>The photo taken with a 135 mm lens looks good to me. How will the view improve if you get closer? The closer you get to a mountain, the less you see of it, regardless of which lens you use. Wide angle lenses tend to reduce moutain ranges to an irregular line on the horizon, while capturing way to much sky and dirt. Intervening ridges may obscure the peal altogether. I can see Mt. Evans from Denver, but only the front range from Boulder. Not even the front range - the Flatirons.</p>

<p>How does it look on Google Earth? That may be a good way to spot your tripod without hiking for miles to no avail.</p>

<p>Edward this is just a thumbnail compared to a real print on A4, A3 fine paper, which is the usual output for the photos I want to keep. Despite having used a polarizing filter, I had to make some heavy contrast adjustment in post processing to get some details, and on paper it does not look good at all. <br /> I agree with you that getting closer does not mean always getting a better result, but imho this mount is worth a try. In this case, the hills closest to the summit are probably too close (~1.25km). The spot I have selected on the map is probably somewhere on top of the black hill with the house on the right, and outside the frame of the photo, which would place the camera quasi perpendicular to the mountain ridge. His elevation (~1850m) would be higher than the elevation of the photo above (~1400m), so I should get more of the mountain foot.<br>

Seen through Google Heath it does not look so good (see below, 46°23'52.43"N 12°01'43.90"E). Unfortunately GH tends to flatten things a lot, so it is difficult to make a conclusion. Nevertheless this is a good idea to do more virtual hiking around, and see the potential obstacles.</p>

<p>Here is the GH view</p><div></div>

<p>Didier, I never wrote that knowing angles of view was useless, just that knowing the diagonal AOV as given in most lens specifications is useless. Unless you're going to tip your camera at a diagonal angle to "get it all in".<br>

For example, the 63 degree angle quoted by makers for a 35mm FL lens is very misleading unless one realises that it's across the diagonal of the frame.</p>

<p>Sorry, I missed your point. Maybe the rationale for giving this diagonal angle is the same as for TV screens, which I am missing too.</p>