35 or 45mm for wide angle

[djonesii]

Dear all;

I was at a shoot recently, and the 55mm was not wide enough.

I have a bit of experience with 20mm on micro 4/3rd, and 12-24 on aps C, the filed of view will be different, but the way a lens distorts will still be the same ( I think ). So, with my 20mm in u4/3rds, its really easy to get fun house type images, too big noses, too small foreheads, ultra long, or ultra stubby limbs. This is much harder with the long end of the 12-24 on APS C.

So my question becomes, is the 35mm on MF prone to distorting people images like the 20mm, or does it behave more like the 24mm on APS -C. My guess is with respect to image distortion, it behaves like the 35mm on full frame. That is, not too much distortion.

Practically, is the 35 or 45 "better" for full length body shots when there just is not enough room for the 55 to get every thing framed?

Any practical rather than theoretical advice would help.

Dave

 

[Jack]

Which sensor Dave? Size will make a difference. Also, I assume you are asking about Mamiya glass since you mentioned 35, 45 and 55?

Generally speaking the newer 45D is a better lens than the 35 or 45 non-D lenses which are older designs. Being longer, it is also going to exhibit less perspective distortion than the 35 when used any sensor, period. Personally 45 is as short as I'd want to use for a full body shot on a person. On the 1.3 crop sensors a 35 might be okay, but I don't have experience with that combo. Finally there is a lot of variability in both the 35 and 45 older designs -- some are terrible while others are quite good, so you want to make sure you can return if it doesn't suit.

Hope that helps.

 

[Godfrey]

Dear all;

I was at a shoot recently, and the 55mm was not wide enough.

I have a bit of experience with 20mm on micro 4/3rd, and 12-24 on aps C, the filed of view will be different, but the way a lens distorts will still be the same ( I think ). So, with my 20mm in u4/3rds, its really easy to get fun house type images, too big noses, too small foreheads, ultra long, or ultra stubby limbs. This is much harder with the long end of the 12-24 on APS C.

So my question becomes, is the 35mm on MF prone to distorting people images like the 20mm, or does it behave more like the 24mm on APS -C. My guess is with respect to image distortion, it behaves like the 35mm on full frame. That is, not too much distortion.

Practically, is the 35 or 45 "better" for full length body shots when there just is not enough room for the 55 to get every thing framed?

Any practical rather than theoretical advice would help.

Dave

I don't know what camera you're using or what the dimensions of the format are.

I shot medium format film (645, 6x6 and 6x9) for many years. A 35mm lens on 645*film (Pentax 645) nets approximately a 90 degree angle of view across the 645 format diagonal, which is an ultrawide FoV. On FourThirds, the same field of view would be provided by an 11mm lens.

Perspective is a function of distance. The wide angle distortion that makes round things look ovoid or smear towards the edges of the frame is a geometric effect due to close-up perspective coupled with the wide field of view, rendered to a flat projection.

Here's an example of a 35mm lens' FoV on 645 film taken at a fairly close up distance:

I'm presuming that whatever 645 digital you're using has a smaller than 645 film format, perhaps a crop factor of 1.3 to 1.4. That will narrow the field of view of a 35mm lens to be closer to 46-49mm on 645 film, which in turn makes it closer to a 13-15mm lens on FourThirds. Because you'd have to back up a bit to bring the subject within the tighter field of view, the results would show less wide-angle distortion.

 

[djonesii]

Thanks to all who have replied so far ......

I'm using the Mamiya AFDII with an antique (by digital standards) ZD back. If my factoids are right, my crop factor is 1.1, so for all practical purposes, not an issue.

So, accepting lens variability, 45 is probably the way to go

Dave