Is 60mm wide enough?

<p>I currently shoot an 80mm 2.8 C on my Hasselblad 500cm, but I really cannot stand the almost telephoto look of the lens. So I have been looking into some 50 and 60mm lenses. Would a 60mm 3.5 CF be considered wide or should I go bigger and look for a 50mm? or is 60 pretty close to normal. On my 8x10 camera I shoot a 240 which is slightly wide so that is what I am used to.<br>

Thanks</p>

<p>60mm on 6x6 seems to be equivalent to 35mm focal length on 35mm film. I don't find that wide enough for my purposes. The 50mm is much more useful for me. JR</p>

<p>I have 40mm and 50mm CF lenses in my Hasselblad kit, but no 60mm.</p>

<p>It seems too close to the 80mm to waste the money, and take up space in the very full 712 case.</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

<p>I have the 50mm and had the 40mm. When I had it, I thought the 40mm was too wide, but now I often find the 50mm not wide enough. One of my favorite lenses on 4x5 is the 120mm (equiv to the 240 on 8x10), so I think the 50mm might be better for you. I think my own bias towards the wider is just that I shoot a lot of ultra-wide these days and have gotten used to it. I love the 35mm on the H system, for instance.</p>

<p>Isn't the actual size of 6x6, 56mm or so? Anyway, if you do the math, 80mm on this format is even closer to the diagonal of the image than 50mm is on a 35mm format (24x36mm).<br>

I don't personally find my 45mm or 50mm lens on my 6x6 to be particularly wide, though. Frankly for wide angle, I wish I had something even shorter.</p>

<p>So it may be that 50mm would work well for you as a 'normal' lens. Lots of people like 40mm lenses on "small-picture" (="Kleinbild") film and some even shoot with 35mm on them.</p>

<p>Oddly, I guess, I find the 80mm fairly wide. I really like the 60mm for perspective. For a long time I skipped the 80mm and used the 60/100mm combination for my kit. 60mm definitely feels wider to me. It has the same feel as a 35mm does on a 35mm camera.</p>

<p>Here is something shot with a 45. No signs of perspective lines to me (if that was what you were really asking).<br>

This was a Kiev, but I think it's more of a focal length question.</p>

<p><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2784/4549504281_8663aa766b_d.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Shooting 6x6 for me I need at least 50mm before I start thinking of a lens as "wide". I'd think of a 60mm as a standard lens for someone who tends to like a rather wider angle of view than usual. The complicating factor to me is that if you use a 60mm as std, then what do you buy if you want to buy a real wide-angle? A 50mm is too close, but 40mm lenses tend to be more scarce , expensive.</p>

<p>One way I have always compared lenses is based on the width of the film I was using. So, roughly, if you compare a 240mm lens over 10 inches that would be equivalent to 54mm over 2-1/4 inches--again this is a rough equalizer.</p>

<p>Before I got the 4x5, I used a 65mm on an RB and found that close to the 120mm I got with the 4x5, so again, using the same formula, 66mm would be the same as your 240(8x10) or my 120(4x5) on this 70mm width camera.</p>

<p>You might love wider, but the 60 would still be a bit long whereas the 50 right about the same perspective. Sure, you might fin you like an even wider view, but wider is wider, not the same.</p>

Time to 'plug' <a ref="http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/HW/HWequifoc.aspx" target="_blank">the focal length comparator that <i>does</i> take the different aspect ratios into account</a>, perhaps.

<p>Q.G., the link's not working.</p>

<p>Hasselblad lenses seem wider compared to 35mm than the arithmetic would indicate. This is due to the extra height compared to a 3:2 aspect ratio, which one tends to use (because it's there). After a short time with MF, you start thinking in that media, and pick lenses for what they are, not their 35mm equivalent.</p>

<p>The most useful lenses in conjunction with an 80 and film are the 50 and 150, in that order. The CFx50/4 FLE is a better design than the non-FLE 50 (which is the same design as the C50), and gives better sharpness in the corners. The 150 gives good perspective for portraits and makes a nice long lens for landscapes.</p>

<p>The CF60/3.5 is a very sharp lens, a wide-normal focal length for film. It is just right for candids and formal groups at weddings, and minimizes the need for swapping lenses. I bought it mainly for use as a "normal" lens with a CFV-16 digital back. The 80 is too long (effective length 120 mm) in that application.</p>

<p> </p>

Apologies for that, Jeff.<br><br>So here is <a href="http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/HW/HWequifoc.aspx" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">the focal length comparator that <i>does</i> take the different aspect ratios into account</a>.

<p>Is there a big difference in sharpness with the 60mm and the 50mm non fle?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>So here is <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/HW/HWequifoc.aspx" target="_blank">the focal length comparator that <em>does</em> take the different aspect ratios into account</a>.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I find it easier to work with the horizontal angle of view rather than the diagonal. </p>

<p>That eliminates the whole question of aspect ratio. </p>

<p>And it makes more sense, since we don't normally view the world with our heads tilted at an angle.</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

 

<p>I agree with Leigh absolutely - horizontal angles of view are the most sensible comparison. Diagonal AOV on differing aspect ratios is somewhat misleading when comparing focal lengths.</p>

I also agree that we tend to fit in our subjects as they are, along either side.<br><br>But only comparing one dimension does not give the entire picture (in every sense).<br>That's why you get all on the page linked to.

Joe,<br><br>No. There is a difference, but not one you would notice without trying ridiculously hard.

<p>The calculator really shows the 80 or 100 fitting right in as a normal lens compared to 35mm, but it's all up to you and how you find your vision through the viewfinder corresponds to your vision not looking through a camera.<br>

Many folks found a 35mm lens on a 35mm camera to be their everyday lens. Me? I find the 100 to be my choice on Hasselblad. <br>

Buy the 60, try living with it and see how you feel. I'd buy the 60 before the 50 as a general use lens, much as I love the 50 as a wide angle lens. </p>

That's 'my take' on it too.<br>The 60 mm is a (favourite) 'wide standard', the 50 mm is the 'normal wide, and i go shorter for 'really wide'.<br><br>The 60 mm combined with the 150 mm make a very nice two lens kit.

<p>The thing with the 60mm, as with the choice of using a 35mm lens as standard on 35mm film, is that it gives great coverage for many applications, especially in walkabout 'mode', where you can often step closer or further back to alter the coverage with no noticeable distortion. In this way it is possible, if your shooting style fits/adapts to this, to not have to carry/use a 50mm or 80mm. For a wider way of seeing you may then consider something like a 40mm which could give your picture making a nicer dynamic than the 50 + 80 'standard'. Food for thought.</p>

<p>Thanks for the help guys! I ended up purchasing the 60mm 3.5 CF and it should arrive next week. Can't wait to shoot with it!</p>

<p><em>That's why you get all on the page linked to.</em><br>

Well, there's a sentence that makes no sense.</p>

<p><em>That's why you get all on the page linked to.</em><br>

Well, there's a sentence that makes no sense.</p>

<p>Is there a big difference in sharpness with the 60mm and the 50mm non fle?</p>

 

There is a difference. The 50 non-FLE achieves fine sharpness at f/8; while the edges (not the corners) peak halfway between 11 and 16, by which point the center has lost some definition. My 60mm (I have both the CT* and the CF) already achieves very good definition to the edges by f/5.6, very-good-to-excellent by f/8, and a little better still at f/11. I consider it to be a "wide-normal" or "normal-wide."

 

I upgraded from the 50 CF to the FLE. Much better lens, and for me, an indispensable focal length!