Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 73,059   Posts: 1,611,254   Online: 966
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 12 of 12

Thread: 4x5 Lens on 6X9

  1. #11

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Multi Format
    Quote Originally Posted by 250swb View Post
    The 'standard' focal length on almost any traditional folding 6x9 camera is 105mm. So a 180mm lens would be a medium verging on long telephoto equivalent if you accept the 105mm standard lens analogy. So for instance a 90mm (Angulon perhaps) would therefore be a slightly wider than standard lens, perhaps (off the top of my head) a 40mm equivalent in 35mm terms.

    Funny you should say that. Nominal 6x9 is more or less 56 x 81, whence its normal focal length is 100 mm. Slightly longer tessar types were used on 6x9 folders to improve image quality in the corners a little. 35 mm still is 24 x 36, whence its normal focal length is 43 mm. That 35 mm cameras are usually supplied with 50 mm lenses is due to an historical accident.

    The two formats have the same aspect ratio, so comparisons between them are easily made. A 90 mm on a 2x3 (nominal 6x9 is actually 2.25" x3.25", usually called 2x3; 6x9 is a lousy metric approximation) is sees the same view as a (90/100)*43 = 39 on 35 mm still. A 180 on 2x3 sees the same view as 1.8 * 43 = 77 on 35 mm still. Short verging on medium tele, I'd say.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    8x10 Format
    105 was the mfg "norm" for both taking and enlarging lenses per 6x9. For example, Both Fuji and Nikon
    make 105 plastmats, and I personally own one of the relatively rare 105 Nikkor M tessars. But what is
    "normal" to your personal way of looking at things is a completely different issue. I mostly use 85mm
    with my Nikon 35mm camera, a 165 with 6x7, 180 or 200 with 6x9, 250 with 4X5, 450 with 8X10;
    in other words, all these have an analogous angle of view which is natural for me. Someone else might
    have a completely different notion of first base. Strictly defined, normal is equal to the diagonal of the
    film; but who gives a damn?

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin