been thinking about focal lengths...

[back alley]

i have always liked the 40mm on a full frame camera...had one for the canon dslr i had...had one on my cle...
tried one and then another on my fuji aps-c cameras and just never seemed the same. i got rid both fuji 27s that i bought.

anyone else have a hard time translating favourite focal lengths from full frame to a smaller format?

 

[semilog]

i have always liked the 40mm on a full frame camera...had one for the canon dslr i had...had one on my cle...
tried one and then another on my fuji aps-c cameras and just never seemed the same. i got rid both fuji 27s that i bought.

anyone else have a hard time translating favourite focal lengths from full frame to a smaller format?

No, not really. FoV is FoV.

 

[back alley]

No, not really. FoV is FoV.

while i know that intellectually...it's not fitting practically for me.

 

[Roger Hicks]

while i know that intellectually...it's not fitting practically for me.

Seconded. Also, you can't really compare focal lengths on different shaped formats: http://rogerandfrances.eu/photography/focal-length-equivalents

Cheers,

R.

 

[d__b]

Seconded. Also, you can't really compare focal lengths on different shaped formats: http://rogerandfrances.eu/photography/focal-length-equivalents

Cheers,

R.

You can compare them on formats with the same aspect ratio, though. It even states so in the article you linked. APS-C and 35mm (Both 2:3) are pretty comparable that way. Only real difference would be DOF.

 

[Larry H-L]

Curious Joe, if the 27mm feels too wide or too long on APS-c to you?

I've never noticed the field of view change from FF to APS-c to m4/3.

40mm splits 35/50 nicely as Helen notes; I also enjoy a 30-32mm FOV as it splits 28/35 really well, such as Pan-Leica's 15mm f1.7 on m4/3.

 

[Trius]

I've been using a Zuiko 28/2.8 on my X-Pro, and like the way it translates/draws. It may need some TLC from John - I notice some focus quirkiness, but that has nothing to do with the focal length. Or maybe it's just me not handling X-Pro manual focus skillfully.

I've considered the Fuji 27 for the X-Pro, but just spent some cash for a CL/Cron 40 kit, so I'm not buying anything more for awhile. Those who know me know that I love the Oly 35SP which has a 42/1.7. So yeah, I really like 40 - it's a sweet spot and 42 actually more accurately approximates human field of view without peripheral.

 

[CMur12]

My situation isn't exactly the same as yours, but maybe close enough.

For travel, I have always used compact, fixed-lens RF film cameras, with a 40 - 42mm lens. For this purpose, I always found this ideal.

Back home, shooting 35mm SLRs, my main focal lengths are 85mm and 28mm.

- Murray

 

[Canyongazer]

I like very much the 20mm on my m4/3 (40mm equivalent) which makes me keep thinking I should get the 27 for the Fuji.
I keep thinking but not doing, mostly because I like the 35 1.4 so much...if the 27 is on the camera, the 35 is off. :-(

By the way, why do we say we "got rid of" lenses as though they were spoiled fish?

 

[daveleo]

The 40-ish EFOV is very nice for me.
I have a Minolta 24-35 zoom (36-52 EFOV on my APS Fuji) and that small zoom range is very very convenient (though the lens plus adapter is kind of big).
Would LOVE fuji to make a *small* FX zoom like that (f2.8 if it must be).

 

[BillBingham2]

For me each camera has a sweat-spot lens. On the Nikon S2 it was the 50, shooting with the CV25 never felt as great as it did on the Bessa L, nor did the Nikkor 85 on my Leicas or Bessas compared to my Nikkormat.

Some people can shoot their favorite focal length / FOV all day long going from camera to camera, format to format, not me.

B2(;->

 

[back alley]

Curious Joe, if the 27mm feels too wide or too long on APS-c to you?

I've never noticed the field of view change from FF to APS-c to m4/3.

40mm splits 35/50 nicely as Helen notes; I also enjoy a 30-32mm FOV as it splits 28/35 really well, such as Pan-Leica's 15mm f1.7 on m4/3.

it feels boring, stale now...where before it felt near perfect.

 

[back alley]

I like very much the 20mm on my m4/3 (40mm equivalent) which makes me keep thinking I should get the 27 for the Fuji.
I keep thinking but not doing, mostly because I like the 35 1.4 so much...if the 27 is on the camera, the 35 is off. :-(

By the way, why do we say we "got rid of" lenses as though they were spoiled fish?

i said 'got rid of' because i originally wrote sold but i sold one and traded one but was too lazy to go into that detail...

 

[Doug]

I too came to love the 40 with the Minolta CLE. In various formats, I keep in mind a conversion factor for each to help remind what the "equivalent" focal lengths are. The M8 for instance is 1.33, so add one third for the similar full-frame focal length. You need a 21 to simulate 28mm (21+7), and so forth. With the 6x7, 0.5 is the number to use, so its 105mm is like a 52mm (105/2). Keeping 4 or 5 of these factors in mind is reasonably do-able IMO, and one should be easy!

My APS-C camera is a Pentax whose factor is 1.52, call it 1.5 ... so add a half, then a 28mm is like a 42 (28+14), and 24 is like 36 (24+12).

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I have 24mm lens on my cropped sensor DSLR. It doesn't feel as 40mm lens I've had on film Rollei 35 which I used to have (two). 24mm lens on cropped sensor DSLR feels like 24mm on FF with less FOV and more DOF. But distortion is same... I mean, if I'll take 24mm lens picture on FF and crop, this is what kind of visible distortion I'm getting on crop.
With 35mm lens on crop it never looked the same as 50mm on FF to me as well.
It isn't very critical on long distances, but if object is close it is more obvious.

 

[narsuitus]

For a long time, I could not understand why I liked the normal lens on my 6x6cm camera but detested it on my 35mm camera. I have since learned that the difference in aspect ratio probably had a lot to do with it.

Also, I learned that a normal lens is defined by the diagonal of its format size. The diagonal of a 6x6cm medium format camera is 79.2mm. The diagonal of a 35mm small format camera is 43.3mm. I concluded that the 80mm normal lens was very close to its true 79.2mm diagonal. The 50mm normal lens, on the other hand, was more telephoto than its true 43.3mm diagonal.

 

[Contarama]

Short answer...yes...crop factors drive me nuts. I feel your pain sir.

 

[gavinlg]

I feel the same - the smaller the format the more the equivalent focal length irritates me compared to a 35mm format. APS-C can get me by but I do still feel occasionally irritated by it. Same FOV yes, but different resulting look. The 27mm fuji lens, for me, needed to have an aperture ring and needed to be f2. f2.8 is just too slow for a crop sensor camera. Conversely the 40mm f2.8 STM pancake lens on a canon full frame body is heavenly. Superb lens.

 

[jsrockit]

When using anything between 35-50mm, you can get bored. It's no big deal. Use something else. If you don't like 40mm right now, then you might later. Differences between APSC / FF doesn't bother me unless I just don;t have the right lens for what I want to do.

 

[Roger Hicks]

You can compare them on formats with the same aspect ratio, though. It even states so in the article you linked. APS-C and 35mm (Both 2:3) are pretty comparable that way. Only real difference would be DOF.

True. I should have made it clear that this was a separate point.

Cheers,

R.