• Originally Posted by Dan Fromm
1:1, with feathers now ruffled, wrote:

Standard? Really? (120/36)*50 = 167. (180/120)*36 = 75. Check your arithmetic before posting and remember that the long side of the 4x5 gate is 120 mm. (210/120)*50 = 87.5. That's more than twice normal (43 mm) for 35 mm still. More than a rch long, I think.

If you use a pseudonym for a screen name and use a real name in your tag line you must expect a little confusion about who you are.
Did you even read what I wrote? A 180 lens on large format has the same horizontal AOV of a 50 lens on small format. Both are close to 40 degrees. A 210 has a horizontal AOV close to that of a 58 lens (33-34 degrees). Again, I was attempting to equate the 50mm lens specifically with a 4x5 equivalent by using horizontal AOV, not to define what a normal lens for 4x5 is.

"Standard" is decidedly different than the technical photographic definition of "normal." When I say standard lens, I mean your default, commonly used lens for the format, that is generally within a certain range of "normal." Standard lenses can vary. 150 is certainly one of them, but 210 is more commonly used as a standard lens for 4x5. Neither one of them are "normal." But 210 is the most common standard lens for 4x5. 50mm is a standard lens for 35mm format, not a normal lens. 80mm is standard on 6x6 cm, but it is not normal. So what is your beef? My posts have not only been accurate, but very carefully stated to avoid the confusion that you are introducing.

I used standard conventions for quoting Tyner. Quotation marks around the statement, followed by a break, then a dash with the writer's name following. If I was the one who wrote the statement, I wouldn't need to use quotations or name the author. So, I "must" not have expected any confusion, though I do not hold it against anyone. I just find odd the idea that I must have expected it. Regardless, my screen name is clearly 2F/2F, so that or 2F is the obvious way to address me if you don't know my name, not by the name of the guy I quoted.

Additionally, to prevent any further snarky mathematical "reduction" or "restatement" of "2F/2F" (except by Tim; that's ok ), I should say that it is not a ratio, but a port/starboard division. It's main coolant pump orientation in a submarine nuclear power plant; two MCPs at fast speed on the port side, and two at fast speed on the starboard side. Seriously, Dan; do I call you D'Afro or something similarly silly and snarky when I disagree with you?