the true equivalent of the 50mm on mamiya 6

[meandihagee]

hello mamiya 6 users,

i want to get into this system though I'm not sure that the 50mm is wide enough. I've been reading here and there about the equivalent on 35mm of this lens.

some say it's a 24, others that it's actually a 32 if you don't measure the diagonal...

I feel a little puzzled and I'm not sure i understand how to obtain a true equivalent. can you please share your experience with this? what I ideally want is a lens in the 21-24 range.

thanks everybody

 

[FrankS]

Because of the different aspect ratios (rectangle vs square) there are different ways of calculating the equivalent focal length, each resulting in a "true", but different, result. To me, it "felt" like a 28.

 

[meandihagee]

i have an old kiev 6C and I can borrow a 50mm for it to get an idea. will the results still be relevant?

 

[FrankS]

i have an old kiev 6C and I can borrow a 50mm for it to get an idea. will the results still be relevant?

Yes. What you see in the MF SLR, is what you'll get with the Mamiya 6, in terms of focal length.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Because of the different aspect ratios (rectangle vs square) there are different ways of calculating the equivalent focal length, each resulting in a "true", but different, result. To me, it "felt" like a 28.

Dear Frank,

Exactly. What it 'feels' like is probably the most convincing way of judging a equivalent.

Cheers,

R.

 

[JamesFromSydney]

Yep, 50mm on 6x6 feels like a 28 to me, too.

 

[ka7197]

If you cut out a 24 × 24 mm square from the 35-mm-format frame and compare it to the 6×6 full frame—i. e. the largest 1:1 aspect ratio from each format—then a 50 mm lens on the 6×6 camera is equivalent to a 21 mm lens on the 35-mm camera.

If you cut out a 24 × 32 mm rectangle from the 35-mm-format frame and a 42 × 56 mm rectangle from the 6×6 frame—i. e. the largest 4:3 aspect ratio rectangle from each format—then a 50 mm lens on the 6×6 camera is equivalent to a 28.5 mm lens on the 35-mm camera.

If you take the full 35-mm-format frame and cut out a 37.33 × 56 mm rectangle from the 6×6 frame—i. e. the largest 3:2 aspect ratio from each format—then a 50 mm lens on the 6×6 camera is equivalent to a 32 mm lens on the 35-mm camera.

If you compare the angles of view across the diagonals of the 35-mm full frame and the 6×6 full frame (ignoring the different aspect ratios) then a 50 mm lens on the 6×6 camera is equivalent to a 27 mm lens on the 35-mm camera.

So unless you're printing squares, an equivalence of 28 mm-e basically is about right.

 

[rlouzan]

A 28mm on 6x6 cm.

 

[Matus]

As the 35mm film is rather rectangular, I tend to compare the other formats (with exception of panoramic) to it such that I first make an imaginary crop and then consider whatever is to be cropped out as "free lunch" so to say. So if you do that with 6x6 - you end up with something very close to 645 what gives you conversion factor of about 1,55 (essentially defined by the ratio of 36 and 56). So a 50mm lens would than translate to 32mm. This may work in particular if you are interesting in capturing some angle of view in one direction (say horizontal) but are not so much constrained by the other one.

On the practical side - I do own Mamiya 6 with all 3 lenses and indeed for a classical city or landscape shots where you do not really make use of the square format, the 50mm lens does not feel that wide. However if you manage to compose for square that it feels differently.

My personal feeling is that it must be quite hard to use effectively a very wide lens (say 40mm or wider) on 6x6 as you need to take care of both directions - horizontal and vertical, while with 35mm (3:2) your angle of view is dominated by one direction.

 

[Calzone]

Seems to be like a 28 equiv to me.

Cal

 

[Ernst Dinkla]

Set against the diagonal of both frames 50x43/79 = 27mm.

BTW, that Mamiya 6 can not fold, there is a Mamiya Six that can fold.


Ernst Dinkla

 

[kuzano]

Simple test methinks...

Simple test methinks...

If it were me, and I was trying to determine the width of the image you would see with a preferred 35mm lens (either 24, 28 or 35 focal length), I would park a tripod some distance around 30 feet from a wall or a house.

I would put my 35mm camera with the 35mm lens on the tripod and focus on the wall of the house. I would then visually mark the spots on the house representing the end points of the width of the lens.

I might do this for all three lenses, or if I most hoping for a match on the 35mm focal length lens, I would then mount the 6X6 w/50mm on the tripod, focus the wall and see how close the width matches the 35mm lens.

As I mentioned, you could try all three fl 35mm, properly annotating on a pad what the width points are on the wall.

If it's your house, you could paint black strips for the width of each 35mm lens directly on the wall of the house. You could then put a number for each stripe at the bottom. Then test the 6X6 to see which marks come closest.

If this is not your house or property, I would probably stick with descriptions of the various locations (two point for each lens), rather than paint marks. However, if you are an established graffiti artist in your community, the people will just think you are "tagging" a house or other building.

In any event, I think this will work quite well and give you a more clear equivalent of a lens conversion from 35mm to MF.

 

[meandihagee]

i posted in the folders rf. i'm really stupid :bang:

could a moderator move it to the right category?

thanks and sorries

 

[FrankS]

folding ... collapsing ... close enough