Hi Peter,
The angle of view of the human eye is very wide indeed if one includes peripheral vision. To confirm this, just focus on any point in a wide scene with your naked eyes (both eyes), then raise your camera's viewfinder to one eye, with your widest lens attached to the camera.
My widest lens is 14mm on full-frame. It's not as wide as my peripheral vision. I would estimate I would need a 12mm lens, or perhaps even wider, to equal my peripheral vision.
The angle of view of a 12mm lens, I believe, is 121 degrees. Can we therefore claim that the angle of view of the human eye is around 120 degrees, or wider? Should we not distinguish between a blurry impression that something is there, (which is all one gets with peripheral vision), and a reasonably in-focus impression that allows us to actually identify what's there?
Where do we draw the line between these two extremes? What criteria do we use in order to determine what amount of clarity is required for objects to fit into our definition of 'the angle of view of the human eye'?
As I mentioned earlier in the thread, for a camera lens to reproduce what the naked eye sees, it would need the FoV of a 1200mm super telephoto lens to match its angle of focus, the FoV of a standard 50mm lens to match its magnification, and the Field of View of an unltra-wide 12mm lens to match the extent of its peripheral vision.
Of course, we're referring here to a fixed gaze, without any voluntary movement of the eyes or the head. I guess if one were to include maximum movement of the eye balls, but no movement of the head, we could reasonably claim that the angle of view of human vision is around 121 degrees, equivalent to a rectilinear 12mm lens on FF 35mm format.