lol ... the comment *was* tongue in cheek.
I sold off all my 24x36mm film SLRs and interchangeable lens RFs several years ago, so I think in focal lengths for the 16x24mm format when I'm working with the DS or 10D. 16mm or less is an ultrawide, 24 is a wide, 35mm is a normal, 50mm is a portrait tele, 135 is a telephoto, etc.
As Paul suggests, you're going to have to think in a different format focal length::FOV terms now for your 6x7, or are you going to wish that the Pentax 67 had the same format as your 35mm cameras too? ]'-)
Godfrey
Well, now you have a 6x7, so you're going to learn to think FOV instead of focal lengths. From this day forward, a 55mm lens is wide, and that 165 you bought is a short portrait lens.
What Rob said. :)
I used sloppy terminology. I just find it easier to think in terms of focal
length vs. AOV. It's easier, for me at least, to think of a 50mm lens as a
75mm lens when used on the *ist D. Multiplying by 1.5 is not over my head.
By "rated" I meant that the image presented to the capture medium at the
focal plane has the same angle of view one would expect when that focal
length lens was used on a 35mm body as originally intended.
I assume that Tom's comment meant to something like "the lenses design coverage
and suggested AOV on a 35mm frame", that sounds reasonable, not too perplexing.
What is a "rated focal length"?
How do you use a lens at anything other than its actual focal length?
Whether projecting onto a 16x24mm format or a 24x36mm format, a lens'
focal length does not change.
