[BrianR]

Respectfully, Pentax currently lists both the FA 35/2 and HD FA 35/2 as wide angles for 35mm FF format and all catalogs going back pretty much forever list 35mm as such across all brands.

Could we compromise by borrowing from compass points and call them "wide-normalwide" lenses (WNW)? Or maybe it's "normalwide by wide" (NWbW)?

[mikesbike]

Respectfully, Pentax currently lists both the FA 35/2 and HD FA 35/2 as wide angles for 35mm FF format and all catalogs going back pretty much forever list 35mm as such across all brands. I shoot a fair amount with true vintage gear and for a long time, the 35mm focal length was the only wide angle available due to design constraints, retrofocus lenses not having been developed for common use until well into the late 1950s. (Note the absence of 28mm and shorter in the Asahi line prior to the Super Takumars.)

FWIW, the convention of using the length of the frame diagonal is fairly recent, is arbitrary, and was not commonly used before the Internet and the proliferation of formats that accompanied digital capture. It works OK except that the concept does not travel well when applied to various aspect ratios (e.g. 6x6 vs. 6x7) When I was learning photography in the late 1960s, 50mm or thereabouts was justified by a FOV similar to that of average eyesight.


Steve

Right. I still have my "M" series lens catalogue from the days of my ME super, which lists the 35mm lens on the wide-angle page.

As far as what is "normal" the FA 43mm was offered by Pentax as true normal, but since 50mm on a 35mm body has been long established as the "normal" lens, this would logically make the FA 43mm the one to consider as "wide normal". "Normal" is really a matter of perspective, that is- an accurate front-to-back relationship as the eye perceives this relationship to be. A 50mm lens on a FF body apparently comes pretty close, hence its long-time "normal" designation, but the FA 43mm might be even more accurate- so its being "wide normal" seems appropriate. After I got mine, before the Pentax DSLRs came, I hardly ever went back to my 50mm lenses of so many years. I liked the 43mm "wide normal" so much better. It was preceded by the "M" 40mm f/2.8 which I also liked very much, but the FA 43mm with its brighter viewing and excellent rendering plus having AF has been a real winner.

The FA 35mm, however, I found to be even more versatile, because its wide angle is not too wide, so its wide angle perspective distortion is minimal, yet you get more into the frame.

These two lenses became my favorite primes for use on my 35mm bodies.

[clackers]

Yep, the 'normal' refers to perspective relationships.

43mm doesn't have the Field of View of our eyes, which is something like 115 degrees!

[mikesbike]

Yep, the 'normal' refers to perspective relationships.

43mm doesn't have the Field of View of our eyes, which is something like 115 degrees!

Indeed, ya still can't have it all yet with a camera and lens!!

[Mountain Vision]

It seems like it depends when you learned photography has a little to do with your thoughts on where 35mm is (or any of the focal lengths are) on the wide normal scale.

When I learned 24 was pretty wide. Today 24 is what 28 used to be. Your sort of standard starting point for wide angle photography. Now 15-20mm seems almost commonly used. Perhaps not well used, but common place nonetheless.

[stevebrot]

"Normal" is really a matter of perspective, that is- an accurate front-to-back relationship as the eye perceives this relationship to be.

Yep, the 'normal' refers to perspective relationships.

Thanks for the clarification on this.


Steve

[stevebrot]

It seems like it depends when you learned photography has a little to do with your thoughts on where 35mm is (or any of the focal lengths are) on the wide normal scale.

Perhaps, or maybe how long one has been shooting the 24x36mm format and the type of work being done. I shoot primarily landscape (urban and natural), architectural, abstract, street, and close-up subjects and seldom use the 24mm Tamron in my bag, preferring one of my 28s or 35s instead when shooting wide. At times I have been tempted to get a 20mm, but on consideration of the, price, challenge to focus, and how much I would actually use such, I decide not to. The one exception might be my Zenitar 16mm fisheye. It gets a lot of use. Go figure.


Steve

[tungal]

Have anybody compared image quality of 35/2 and 20-35/4? Modern 15-30/2,8 seems too big, so I’m looking for alternatives among old and light wide angles.

[Tan68]

Could we compromise by borrowing from compass points and call them "wide-normalwide" lenses (WNW)? Or maybe it's "normalwide by wide" (NWbW)?

Fine, you'd rather sue James Stewart than Sigma

Calling points is fine until you navigate with someone who is convinced "north lefterly" is a way to find Cody

---------- Post added 02-02-19 at 11:03 AM ----------

Perhaps, or maybe how long one has been shooting the 24x36mm format and the type of work being done. I shoot primarily landscape (urban and natural), architectural, abstract, street, and close-up subjects and seldom use the 24mm Tamron in my bag, preferring one of my 28s or 35s instead when shooting wide. At times I have been tempted to get a 20mm, but on consideration of the, price, challenge to focus, and how much I would actually use such, I decide not to. The one exception might be my Zenitar 16mm fisheye. It gets a lot of use. Go figure.


Steve

My understanding is that 35mm is the long end of the wide angle range.
Just is... because

If 35 is wide normal for a normal at 42mm, where does that leave 55 and 58mm lenses. They can't be short tele normal lenses :^)
Normal is low 40 to upper 50

35mm was the classic landscape wide. I don't know why; this is also just what it was. I have read more recently that 28mm was historically more popular in Japan than the 35mm in America. I had a 28/2.8 because it was a little cheaper than 35mm lenses and I thought wider than wide was cool. Now, I have decided I like the 28mm because it is so easy to crop with digital.

[clackers]

When I learned 24 was pretty wide. Today 24 is what 28 used to be. Your sort of standard starting point for wide angle photography. Now 15-20mm seems almost commonly used. Perhaps not well used, but common place nonetheless.

No, 15-20mm is referred to as 'Ultra Wide'.

35mm is not 'Normal' unless it's on a crop camera.

[Mountain Vision]

No, 15-20mm is referred to as 'Ultra Wide'.

35mm is not 'Normal' unless it's on a crop camera.

Right, I wasn't saying that 15-20 was not ultra wide. Just that ultra wide is the new wide. Everyone seemingly has an ultrawide and uses it. Whereas in the film era those sorts of lenses were a lot more expensive and less used.

Anyway, I've been schooled. Maybe it was too many years of using that FA 35mm f/2 on a APS-C sensor convinced me it was a normal lens but I'll never look at my trusty 35mm as a wide normal again. It's a wide angle. You guys have made me a more learned Pentaxian.

[clackers]

Maybe it was too many years of using that FA 35mm f/2 on a APS-C sensor convinced me it was a normal lens

I think so, MV.

A film shooter would never have thought that.

[gm4life]

Have anybody compared image quality of 35/2 and 20-35/4? Modern 15-30/2,8 seems too big, so I’m looking for alternatives among old and light wide angles.

I wish I could say... I don’t own any of those pieces of glass yet... My FA 35 HD F2 is on preorder for my K1-II.

On the slightly wide side of the DFA 15-30, I have a 12mm Rokinon fisheye which is an awesome UWA/fisheye for the price... Yes it is manual focus but for what I invested in it along with focus confirmation/it’s intended usage for me it is good. I too do not want monster glass if it isn’t F1.4 or F2.8 telephoto stuff or like F4/F5.6 for super telephoto. This is the reason even with big sales I have avoided the tempting DFA 15-30 or even the more lust worthy DFA 150-450. I would prefer a slightly faster prime like my DA 300 * which is nice even on FF but if a DFA 400 F5.6 * ever appeared it would have my attention/ be bought. Ricoh also has one more FF super telephoto on the road map I am waiting for. In the meantime I am capped at 300mm on FF with my DA 300 * shooting JPEG’s as Pentax/Ricoh reccommends... Or I whip out one of my extremely capable crop bodies the K3-II or KP and say 450mm equivalence is just fine.

[Mountain Vision]

This is my wide angle setup for the K-1

Irix 15MM f/2.4
Pentax FA* 24 f/2
DFA 28-105

-------
FA 35
FA 43

Obviously the 15mm end is pretty specialized so I probably wouldn't carry it around all the time but I'll probably have the 24mm in the bag all the time. Then either the 35 or 43 for the for a fast (wide/normal) prime in the bag.

[TwoUptons]

I think so, MV.

A film shooter would never have thought that.

Because according to my auto110, it’s a short portrait telephoto

-Eric