Reading mode: Light Dark

GR III x lens combines two different focal lengths??

Go to last post
A

AMSOS

Leading Member
Messages
678
Reaction score
60
The GR III x website product description says something interesting about the lens:

https://us.ricoh-imaging.com/product/griiix/

"users can capture an image similar to those taken at a 30mm semi-wide angle or create a completely different visual expression as if taken at a 50mm standard angle."

What exactly does this mean? How can a 40 mm eq. lens capture a scene similar to a 30 mm lens? That suggests the GR III x lens is actually quite close to the GR III lens.

Even if this is true, how can the same 40 mm lens capture a scene similar to what you can take with a standard 50 mm?

That's like two lenses in one! And if this is true, then why isn't it true for a stadard wide like the common 35 mm eq. FL?

Also, how is 30 mm semi-wide angle? I thought wide angle starts from 35 mm and goes to 24 mm. Wider than that and you get ultra wide-angle.

Quite curious! Thanks for you thoughts.
 
That was a bit of a communication (or translation) issue Ricoh made in describing the character of a 40mm lens to the uninitiated: what they mean is that you can take a step back, or a step forwards, and find that the lens behaves very close to those other focal lengths. What they are trying to say is that the focal length is very versatile.
 
sprocket-docket said:
That was a bit of a communication (or translation) issue Ricoh made in describing the character of a 40mm lens to the uninitiated: what they mean is that you can take a step back, or a step forwards, and find that the lens behaves very close to those other focal lengths. What they are trying to say is that the focal length is very versatile.
Click to expand...
I see, and that definitely sounds quite flexible and something I would want to work with.

But why isn't the same true for the much-loved 35 mm eq. FL? It seems this is all about how much you step back or forward. So, why can't the 35 mm behave like the 50 mm if you step forward?
 
I mean, it sort of can. 40mm is just a more in-between focal length than 35mm (obviously, literally). I find 35mm a touch wide... it was called wide-angle early on in the history of 35mm-format cameras, and I still think it is a wide angle, just not as wide as some of the more commonly-referred-to-as-wide lenses like 24, 28. 40mm just never "feels" wide. Sometimes it feels even more 35mm than 35mm does somehow, other times it serves quite well in place of a fifty.
 
sprocket-docket said:
That was a bit of a communication (or translation) issue Ricoh made in describing the character of a 40mm lens to the uninitiated: what they mean is that you can take a step back, or a step forwards, and find that the lens behaves very close to those other focal lengths. What they are trying to say is that the focal length is very versatile.
Click to expand...
Agree. I think it's something "lost in translation" somewhere.

Originally I thought they were talking about the crop mode but you certainly can't go from 40mm back to 30mm.

Also, I see that the IIIx also has a GR Engine 6 processor. Does the regular III (mine) have the same processor?
 
Yes it does. They're the same cameras in every way sans the lens.
 
sprocket-docket said:
I mean, it sort of can. 40mm is just a more in-between focal length than 35mm (obviously, literally). I find 35mm a touch wide... it was called wide-angle early on in the history of 35mm-format cameras, and I still think it is a wide angle, just not as wide as some of the more commonly-referred-to-as-wide lenses like 24, 28. 40mm just never "feels" wide. Sometimes it feels even more 35mm than 35mm does somehow, other times it serves quite well in place of a fifty.
Click to expand...
I am intrigued. I've never heard such descriptions for other lenses, so 40 mm must be special in a way :)

How does it deal with perspective distortion? One reason I quite like the standard 50 mm eq. FL is that I already know the relative size of a person or object that will be recorded by just looking at them.

With the eq. 35 mm FL you see that people at some distance already start to appear shorter/smaller, though not by too disproportionately. How does the eq. 40 mm fare on this parameter?

I also find that zooming with the feet while using the 50 mm eq. lets me take reasonable good portraits with decent bokeh. Any chance that the 40 mm can be made to do something like that?
 
Les Lammers said:
sprocket-docket said:
That was a bit of a communication (or translation) issue Ricoh made in describing the character of a 40mm lens to the uninitiated: what they mean is that you can take a step back, or a step forwards, and find that the lens behaves very close to those other focal lengths. What they are trying to say is that the focal length is very versatile.
Click to expand...
40mm is quite versatile.

https://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/why-40mm.html
Click to expand...
Thanks. This certainly makes a good case for this FL. The 40 mm FL certainly appealing.

Btw, what's the big deal about the diagonal angle of view? Apparently, the true normal is around 42 mm. How does this diagonal length relate to "normal?"

I actually thought that the eq. 50 mm FL has a normal perspective and hence it is seen as a normal lens. It seems the issue of this diagonal is also important.
 
Starny said:
sprocket-docket said:
Yes it does. They're the same cameras in every way sans the lens.
Click to expand...
That's what I thought but thank you for the clarification.

I think the IIIx body is 2mm wider too but not enough to matter I suppose.
Click to expand...
The extra 2mm width is just in the lens assembly area, you can see it if you look at the difference between the removable lens rings of the III and IIIx. Having closely compared them in the flesh I am quite sure of this.
 
AMSOS said:
Les Lammers said:
sprocket-docket said:
That was a bit of a communication (or translation) issue Ricoh made in describing the character of a 40mm lens to the uninitiated: what they mean is that you can take a step back, or a step forwards, and find that the lens behaves very close to those other focal lengths. What they are trying to say is that the focal length is very versatile.
Click to expand...
40mm is quite versatile.

https://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/why-40mm.html
Click to expand...
Thanks. This certainly makes a good case for this FL. The 40 mm FL certainly appealing.

Btw, what's the big deal about the diagonal angle of view? Apparently, the true normal is around 42 mm. How does this diagonal length relate to "normal?"

I actually thought that the eq. 50 mm FL has a normal perspective and hence it is seen as a normal lens. It seems the issue of this diagonal is also important.
Click to expand...
The diagonal does relate to a true "normal" and 50mm is actually a slightly long normal. It was typically called normal because the optical formulas for 50mm lenses were cheap/easier to make and provided good results early on, so 50mm was actually a compromise.
 
AMSOS said:
How does the eq. 40 mm fare on this parameter?

I also find that zooming with the feet while using the 50 mm eq. lets me take reasonable good portraits with decent bokeh. Any chance that the 40 mm can be made to do something like that?
Click to expand...
40mm I would say doesn't have that wide feeling that a 35mm does, where distant subjects become smaller, as you say. But it feels wider than a fifty, i.e. you can fit more into the frame, not by much.

A large-aperture 40 has decent subject separation, look at examples of the Voigtlander 40mm f1.4 for example, but the GR's lens is a 26mm f2.8, so it'll be pretty limited in that regard. You can get a little out of focus and some decent bokeh, but you have to have the subject fairly close to the lens.
 
sprocket-docket said:
Starny said:
sprocket-docket said:
Yes it does. They're the same cameras in every way sans the lens.
Click to expand...
That's what I thought but thank you for the clarification.

I think the IIIx body is 2mm wider too but not enough to matter I suppose.
Click to expand...
The extra 2mm width is just in the lens assembly area, you can see it if you look at the difference between the removable lens rings of the III and IIIx. Having closely compared them in the flesh I am quite sure of this.
Click to expand...
Oh, interesting, that makes sense.

Some were saying that it was a tight fit for the old III leather case and I've read reviews where they make it seem like the actual camera body is thicker. But the fit must be just for the lens.
 
Starny said:
sprocket-docket said:
Starny said:
sprocket-docket said:
Yes it does. They're the same cameras in every way sans the lens.
Click to expand...
That's what I thought but thank you for the clarification.

I think the IIIx body is 2mm wider too but not enough to matter I suppose.
Click to expand...
The extra 2mm width is just in the lens assembly area, you can see it if you look at the difference between the removable lens rings of the III and IIIx. Having closely compared them in the flesh I am quite sure of this.
Click to expand...
Oh, interesting, that makes sense.

Some were saying that it was a tight fit for the old III leather case and I've read reviews where they make it seem like the actual camera body is thicker. But the fit must be just for the lens.
Click to expand...
The iiix easily fits in the Ricoh black leather case for the GR iii.
 
AMSOS said:
Les Lammers said:
sprocket-docket said:
That was a bit of a communication (or translation) issue Ricoh made in describing the character of a 40mm lens to the uninitiated: what they mean is that you can take a step back, or a step forwards, and find that the lens behaves very close to those other focal lengths. What they are trying to say is that the focal length is very versatile.
Click to expand...
40mm is quite versatile.

https://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/why-40mm.html
Click to expand...
Thanks. This certainly makes a good case for this FL. The 40 mm FL certainly appealing.

Btw, what's the big deal about the diagonal angle of view?

I actually thought that the eq. 50 mm FL has a normal perspective and hence it is seen as a normal lens. It seems the issue of this diagonal is also important.
Click to expand...
Regardless of the format, it is what your eyes see looking straight ahead.

www.theatlantic.com

How the 50-mm Lens Became ‘Normal’

It’s often called the optic that best approximates human vision, but approximation is relative.
www.theatlantic.com www.theatlantic.com
 
AMSOS said:
sprocket-docket said:
I mean, it sort of can. 40mm is just a more in-between focal length than 35mm (obviously, literally). I find 35mm a touch wide... it was called wide-angle early on in the history of 35mm-format cameras, and I still think it is a wide angle, just not as wide as some of the more commonly-referred-to-as-wide lenses like 24, 28. 40mm just never "feels" wide. Sometimes it feels even more 35mm than 35mm does somehow, other times it serves quite well in place of a fifty.
Click to expand...
I am intrigued. I've never heard such descriptions for other lenses, so 40 mm must be special in a way :)

How does it deal with perspective distortion? One reason I quite like the standard 50 mm eq. FL is that I already know the relative size of a person or object that will be recorded by just looking at them.

With the eq. 35 mm FL you see that people at some distance already start to appear shorter/smaller, though not by too disproportionately. How does the eq. 40 mm fare on this parameter?

I also find that zooming with the feet while using the 50 mm eq. lets me take reasonable good portraits with decent bokeh. Any chance that the 40 mm can be made to do something like that?
Click to expand...
My old Contax T2 had a 38mm lens. I loved it. Now I'm more used to wide angle so I don't know if the 40mm is not too limiting for me and I might still go for the GR with the 28mm lens.

But if you like 50mm and like to take portraits the 40mm is perfect. I shot with the 27mm on my Fuji a lot which is around 40mm on full frame so yes that is a very nice and more versatile focal length than 50mm in my opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Ricoh GR vs Fuji with Cookie lens?
Replies
2
Views
5K
BG_DPREVIEW
B
S
Mimicing a wide angle with a standard zoom pano vs. wide angle lens?
Replies
11
Views
5K
Hilifer
Hilifer
J
Travelling light with the GR III and IIIx
Replies
6
Views
9K
BG_DPREVIEW
B
C
"Perfect normal lens" - one myth and two definitions.
2 3 4
Replies
60
Views
8K
constantxarax
C
M
From X-T20 to X-T5: why I didn't switch to FF
2
Replies
36
Views
19K
Clive99
C

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top