# 50mm equivalent

9 replies to this topic

### #1 Davon Slininger

Davon Slininger
• Basic Members
• 39 posts
• Camera Operator
• Los Angeles, CA

Posted 30 April 2007 - 07:34 PM

From a 35mm camera, what is the 50mm lens equivalent on a 16mm camera? Is there an equation for figuring this out?

thanks all.
• 0

### #2 Nick Mulder

Nick Mulder
• Basic Members
• 1023 posts
• Other
• Auckland, New Zealand

Posted 30 April 2007 - 07:53 PM

Dont know the equations but I'm sure a little trig and geometry will do you wonders...

You'll need to ask 50mm equivalent for what - a stills camera ? or what aspect 35mm cine camera ? - then super 16 or reg16/TV safe ?

then look up the measurements...

Then plug them into the 'other' section of this
• 0

### #3 ryan_bennett

ryan_bennett
• Basic Members
• 138 posts
• Student

Posted 30 April 2007 - 08:41 PM

If you searched the forum you're going to find a million topics just like this. To answer your question a "normal" lens for 16mm would be a 25mm lens, half of 35's 50mm. For 8mm this would be a 12.5mm if you're wondering.

There is no real normal lens it all goes for what you want.
• 0

### #4 Michael Collier

Michael Collier
• Basic Members
• 1262 posts
• Gaffer
• Los Angeles, CA

Posted 30 April 2007 - 08:45 PM

Panavisions site has an awsome calculator. enter your starting format, the converted format, then enter the incriments you want. Not only does it calculate any given focal length, it will spit out a table of every value you need. Very handy if you want to find the focal lenghts of all the lenses you typically carry. Not only does it have 35mm, 16 and 8mm, but it also has still35mm, video (2/3, 1/2, 1/3, etc) and just about every format arround. I don't have time to find if for you, but I first found it in a post on this site, and another time I couldn't find it so I typed 'panavision format lens calculator' or something like that and found it.

good luck
• 0

### #5 Patrick Cooper

Patrick Cooper
• Basic Members
• 908 posts
• Other

Posted 30 April 2007 - 08:59 PM

If you are referring to a 50mm lens on a 35mm still camera, then the lens that will give you roughly an equivalent field of view on a standard 16mm camera is 25mm. In most cases, to work out the focal length of a 'standard lens' of a film format is to measure the diagonal of the film frame. Though many lens manufacturers don't follow this rule exactly. I think you'll find that the diagonal measurement of a 35mm film frame is closer to 45 or 46mm but most lens manufacturers make a 50mm focal length as their 'standard lens' for 35mm because apparently, this is easier to manufacture with regards to quality.
• 0

### #6 Nick Mulder

Nick Mulder
• Basic Members
• 1023 posts
• Other
• Auckland, New Zealand

Posted 30 April 2007 - 09:17 PM

Attempts at answering this are redundant until we find out what aspects/formats for 35mm and 16mm film he is talking about...

...and if the aspects reasonably aren't close they are kinda redundant whatever the case ... useful in a sense only if you understand why they aren't true comparisions of 'wideness' or 'normal' focal length

The panavision calc is hosted by Panavision NZ - (I forgot!):

http://www.panavisio...calcFOVform.asp
• 0

### #7 Davon Slininger

Davon Slininger
• Basic Members
• 39 posts
• Camera Operator
• Los Angeles, CA

Posted 30 April 2007 - 10:34 PM

Thanks for the info guys. Maybe I should have posted in the newbie forum. I'm not too familiar with my formats/ratios. I think i'm going from 35mm/1.85 to super 16/1.78.

I plugged in some numbers to the Panavision conversion tool and it gives me anywhere from 25mm-28mm.

thanks for the feedback
• 0

• Sustaining Members
• 2026 posts
• Cinematographer
• Los Angeles, USA

Posted 01 May 2007 - 04:43 PM

The only way to correctly compare between the two is to compare field of view for a given lens. A 25mm lens that's made for covering 35mm will NOT have the same field of view as a 25mm lens made to cover 16mm. This is easily determined by sticking a 12mm Ultra Prime on a 16mm camera and then comparing it to a 12mm made-for-16mm Zeiss - the 35mm Ultra Prime lens will be considerably "longer".

That's why the whole notion of a "25mm lens is a 25mm lens no matter what" that people get hit on the head with (especially on cinematography boards) is technically correct (a 25mm lens is a 25mm lens no matter what format, yes), but it's field of view is radically different, making it rather confusing for most.

In practicality, a 25mm is NOT a 25mm no matter what format, since the focal lenght is normally what we DP's gage field of view with. This is doubly compounded with all the new camera gadgets we surround ourselves with. A brief look at my little snap-and-shoot Fuji says it's got a 6.1mm-18.3mm zoom lens on it. OK, thanks Fuji - that's really useful. Now, this is completely useless information for anyone without a reference point - and not knowing the size of the CCD, or how it compares to 35mm, there's no way of knowing if this is a wide, medium or long lens zoom. It feels to me like a 40mm-100mm lens in 35mm (which is mine - and most others - reference).

We should have never commited to focal lenghts as a gage for field of view - that was the mistake. Now were stuck with something that can't be compared to anything else without knowing at least one variable and having to whip out a calculator.
• 0

### #9 Nick Norton

Nick Norton
• Basic Members
• 248 posts
• Student
• Chicago

Posted 31 July 2007 - 09:32 AM

So the standard 50mm lens on a 35mm camera is equivalent to the standard 25mm lens on a 16mm... so that means the standard for a super 8 camera would be around 12mm?

When i say standard, i mean it is not telephoto or wide... so the image when looking through the camera is roughly the same as the image you see with your own two eyes. meaning there is no 'distortion'

Am i on the right track?
• 0

### #10 Tim O'Connor

Tim O'Connor
• Sustaining Members
• 860 posts
• Other
• Boston, Massachusetts

Posted 31 July 2007 - 11:52 AM

Attempts at answering this are redundant until we find out what aspects/formats for 35mm and 16mm film he is talking about...

...and if the aspects reasonably aren't close they are kinda redundant whatever the case ... useful in a sense only if you understand why they aren't true comparisions of 'wideness' or 'normal' focal length

The panavision calc is hosted by Panavision NZ - (I forgot!):

http://www.panavisio...calcFOVform.asp

Hi Nick,

In the place where people put their pictures (I think that it's called the avatar)
you have this image of continuosly running film mechanism. How do you do that
without it looking like a posted video that has a play button and doesn't cycle
continuously? Thanks.

(Attempted to e-mail you but was unsuccessful.)
• 0