Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/03/25
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]You can also go here and download a nice little spreadsheet to do two types of comparisons http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/lenses3.html Tim > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of Johnny > Deadman > Sent: March 25, 2001 3:29 PM > To: LUG > Subject: Re: [Leica] lens equivalences (was Rolly 3.5f) > > > on 3/25/01 4:17 PM, Dave Jenkins at djphoto@vol.com wrote: > > > Doug, wonderful though both the 75mm Xenotars and Planars are, they are > > actually equal to a 49mm lens on a 35mm camera *in side to side* > > coverage. The commonly used diagonal measurement of coverage is > > confusing because it can only be valid if the frames are the same shape. > > Otherwise, you're comparing apples and oranges. > > I went into this a while ago for my own satisfaction and really there are > three different ways of looking at equivalences and none of them > are really > satisfactory. You can look at the short side, long side or > diagonal. So for > example a 75mm lens on 6x6 can be considered equivalent to a > 110mm, 135mm or > even 150mm on 4x5 depending on which side you choose to compare. Whichever > one you choose it still never looks the same on a different aspect ratio. > > Certainly the 75mm Xenotar FEELS a lot wider than a 49mm on 35. > I'd say the > 41mm equivalence reflects my own experience. But like I say there are no > 'right' answers to this one. > -- > Johnny Deadman > > http://www.pinkheadedbug.com > > >