Focal length comparison chart

[mikemeskin]

Here is a simple chart to help us spend some more money on a second or third lens -<div></div>

[vinay_patel]

Now we need one for 1.33 :-)

[al_kaplan1]

All that chart tells me is that most of us already have way too many seldom used lenses in our kit.

[frank uhlig]

And the angles of view you have used to draw this diagram are for the diagonal, or so it appears to me. (The 90.9 degree angle for a 21mm lens that you quote refers to the film diagonal field of view for example.)

 

It would be nicer and more useful for us to have wide side (36mm film) angles displayed to understand the left to right angle of view in landscape format.

 

Can you retry. I never judge across the diagonal, nor - I would assume - does anyone else.

[al_kaplan1]

...then Canon made a 19mm, there have been a couple of 60mm lenses, the 65mm Elmar, numerous 85mm's, 100mm, 105mm, both Leitz and Astro made 125mm, Kilfit and Astro produced 150mm, and then there was the 180mm Elmarit. Did I miss any?

[john_shriver]

Shows me why I like the 35/50/90 (or 100) combo. Three really distinct focal lengths.

 

I've done this on vacation with my Leica IIIa and like-vintage Leitz lenses (Elmar/Summar/Elmar), and with my Canon 7s and Canon lenses (35/1.8, 50/1.5, 100/3.5). I've rarely ever wanted anything longer than a 100, it has always been a favorite length since my Topcon), 135's have never sent me. I do have a Canon 28, but quite a few of the shots with that have been cropped back to 35mm FOV anyways...

[mikemeskin]

I selfishly included only the lenses that I have considered for myself... but the point of this

was to get a rough idea of what might be a good choice for a second lens. It seems like a

35/75 combination would cover a lot of ground, but then again, it depends on the situation.

 

Frank, - I think you can simply scale the chart to about 91.2% horizontaly to get an idea of

what the "side to side" angles would look like. Al - sorry I did not include the rest of them...

Anyway, here is the updated chart, with the 40, 15, and 12mm. -

:)<div></div>

[al_kaplan1]

Mike, I was kidding about all those in between focal lengths. Just trying to point out the absurdity of trying to cover all the bases. It's best to learn a few lenses well, so you can visualize their coverage before you ever raise your camera to your eye.

[mikemeskin]

Al - that's the idea. For some reason I find it difficult visualizing a 50mm. A 75 or 90 seem

easier, maybe because they are more distinct from the 35mm. Idealy I think it could be

25/35/75.

[Troll]

A 40 Cron and 90 TE pretty well cover it for me, (CL). Sometimes I feel frisky and take 35, 50, and 90 Elmars, (IIIf).

[Rob F.]

Nice job, Mike. I might use the first one as a graduated gray scale ;<)