FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Reputable and arguable 50mm as normal

Page  <123>
Author
pegelli View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Dyxum Administrator

Joined: 02 June 2007
Country: Belgium
Location: Schilde
Status: Offline
Posts: 26765
Post Options Post Options   Quote pegelli Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 January 2019 at 15:25
Originally posted by Snegren Snegren wrote:

Pieter, I just stumbled across a quote from the honorable mr. Ken Rockwell stating the same.
Ouch, that hurts
Originally posted by Snegren Snegren wrote:

It all feels a bit arbitrary to me.
you're right, I think there's a lot similar between "beauty" and "normal", both seem to be judged by the eye of the beholder
Originally posted by Snegren Snegren wrote:

Perhaps it is a personal thing, one person being wider than the other if that makes sense.
     The wider the person, the wider view
Mind the bandwidth of others, don't link pictures larger then 1024 wide or 960 pix high, see here
 



Back to Top
amrep View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 02 February 2015
Country: Norway
Status: Offline
Posts: 233
Post Options Post Options   Quote amrep Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 January 2019 at 16:04
Matching the sight (magnification) of the naked eye:

58mm x 0,75 = 43,5mm
or
Lens FL x mag VF = diagonal film

Refer to SLRs from the 1960s, Minolta SR and others.
(Minolta MC 58mm is still quite popular.)
Back to Top
pegelli View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Dyxum Administrator

Joined: 02 June 2007
Country: Belgium
Location: Schilde
Status: Offline
Posts: 26765
Post Options Post Options   Quote pegelli Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 January 2019 at 16:50
Here's a Wikipedia article that touches several aspects of a "normal" (or may be better called "standard") lens
Mind the bandwidth of others, don't link pictures larger then 1024 wide or 960 pix high, see here
Back to Top
owenn01 View Drop Down
Alpha Eyes group
Alpha Eyes group

Joined: 20 May 2008
Country: United Kingdom
Location: Kent
Status: Offline
Posts: 10223
Post Options Post Options   Quote owenn01 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 January 2019 at 17:01
Originally posted by pegelli pegelli wrote:

The wider the person, the wider view


You need to meet some of our Politicians, Pieter....
My Mantra: "Comment on other's work as you would wish to have yours commented upon". Go on - it's fun!
Back to Top
addy landzaat View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 22 April 2006
Country: Netherlands
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Posts: 9656
Post Options Post Options   Quote addy landzaat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 January 2019 at 18:16
Originally posted by QuietOC QuietOC wrote:

My eyes can see over 180 degrees, so maybe my 190 degree fisheye is a normal lens. The center sharp area of attention of my eyes is pretty narrow. A 200mm might be close. Relating anything else to eyesight seems arbitrary.
this. Eyes are quite flexible, if you concentrate you're close to a tele lens, at other times you see things in the corners of your eyes.

Of course, the normal focal length is 90mm, like on my Fuji GW690
Why not follow me on Instagram? @Addy_101
Back to Top
sybersitizen View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 04 August 2006
Country: United States
Location: California
Status: Offline
Posts: 14192
Post Options Post Options   Quote sybersitizen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 January 2019 at 18:24
Originally posted by Aavo Aavo wrote:

Actually, I never understand, why 50mm FF lens is named normal.
I think it is too narrow for having so reputable position. 40...45mm is much more normal!?

Ignoring the eternally inconclusive ideas about what focal length 'corresponds to the human eye', another explanation is that lensmakers in the mid-20th century found it easier to economically design and manufacture wide aperture 50mm lenses than lenses of other focal lengths ... so it became 'normal' to include them with a camera.

The interesting thing is that compact cameras with fixed focal length lenses don't often adhere to the 50mm rule. They're more likely to be provided with a 35mm equivalent or wider lens.
 



Back to Top
Phil Wood View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 24 March 2013
Country: United Kingdom
Location: England
Status: Offline
Posts: 617
Post Options Post Options   Quote Phil Wood Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 January 2019 at 18:28
I've always thought that 'normal' lenses have 'normal perpsective' in that they match normal eyesight in that respect.
Back to Top
Aavo View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 03 April 2013
Country: Estonia
Location: Tallinn
Status: Offline
Posts: 5256
Post Options Post Options   Quote Aavo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 January 2019 at 18:56
About 35mm primes are really great, allowing to have greatly framed about 40-45mm equivalent hand-held pics.
a6500 & some nice e-mount lenses. Be fond of photography - this is the way to alleviate stress
Back to Top
sybersitizen View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 04 August 2006
Country: United States
Location: California
Status: Offline
Posts: 14192
Post Options Post Options   Quote sybersitizen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 January 2019 at 19:19
Originally posted by Aavo Aavo wrote:

About 35mm primes are really great ...

They are, but economics dictated something else.

Because SLR mirrors force a long registration distance, a fast 35mm SLR lens had to be bigger and heavier and more expensive than a fast 50mm lens. SLR kits with 50mm lenses could be much more attractively priced, so they became the 'normal' or 'standard' lenses. It was a self-perpetuating cycle due to the vastly greater number of 50mm lenses being produced, bringing the cost per unit down even more.

On the other hand, compact cameras never had those registration distance limitations, so a fast fixed 35mm lens for one of those wouldn't incur a penalty compared to 50mm.

Edited by sybersitizen - 18 January 2019 at 20:27
Back to Top
QuietOC View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 28 February 2015
Country: United States
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Posts: 2534
Post Options Post Options   Quote QuietOC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 January 2019 at 20:29
Compact film cameras didn't have very bright lenses either. f/1.7 seems to be as bright as they got and those were 40+ mm lenses. Fuji made a 24mm F1.9 film compact in 2001.

Edited by QuietOC - 18 January 2019 at 20:39
Sony A68 A77II A6000 A7II LA-EA3 LA-EA4 MC-11
Minolta Maxxum 600si
Pentax Q7 5-15 15-45/2.8
Back to Top
Jozioau View Drop Down
Alpha Eyes group
Alpha Eyes group

Joined: 13 May 2007
Country: Australia
Location: Melbourne
Status: Offline
Posts: 4767
Post Options Post Options   Quote Jozioau Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 January 2019 at 20:56
OK, I’ve dug out my glossy “Minolta Lenses” booklet by Minolta from when I bought my Minolta X-700 in 1982, which states:
“Because the diagonal dimension of a 35mm film frame measures approximately 43mm, lenses from 40mm to 50mm in focal length are considered “normal” or “standard” lenses; they approximate what the human eye can see, collecting light rays from an angle of 40 degrees to 50 degrees diagonally.”
That’s been my understanding from when I first bought my Minolta SRT101 almost exactly 50 years back.
"Your first 10,000 photographs are your worst" - Henri Cartier-Bresson
My FlickrPro site
Back to Top
sybersitizen View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 04 August 2006
Country: United States
Location: California
Status: Offline
Posts: 14192
Post Options Post Options   Quote sybersitizen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 January 2019 at 21:12
Originally posted by Jozioau Jozioau wrote:

OK, I’ve dug out my glossy “Minolta Lenses” booklet by Minolta from when I bought my Minolta X-700 in 1982, which states:
“Because the diagonal dimension of a 35mm film frame measures approximately 43mm, lenses from 40mm to 50mm in focal length are considered “normal” or “standard” lenses; they approximate what the human eye can see, collecting light rays from an angle of 40 degrees to 50 degrees diagonally.”

I've seen that stated as often as anybody (still have a ton of Minolta promotional material here), but it's really an unsupportable and mostly meaningless claim. We were all more accepting and unquestioning about such things then.
Back to Top
sybersitizen View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 04 August 2006
Country: United States
Location: California
Status: Offline
Posts: 14192
Post Options Post Options   Quote sybersitizen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 January 2019 at 21:39
Here is a scholarly article suggesting 'a focal length of about 22 to 24mm being closest to how we see.' I'm not endorsing that, just pointing it out. It's as meaningless as the 50mm, 40mm, 45mm, 35mm or ultrawide suggestions. There is no lens of any kind that corresponds to how we see. Furthermore, how we see any photographic image on a flat plane depends a great deal on the size of the image, the viewing distance, and the point of view. Move those parameters around and sensible comparisons are impossible.
Back to Top
sybersitizen View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 04 August 2006
Country: United States
Location: California
Status: Offline
Posts: 14192
Post Options Post Options   Quote sybersitizen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 January 2019 at 21:40
Oops - double post.
Back to Top
Dyxum main page >  Forum Home > Equipment forums > Lens Talk Page  <123>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.

Monitor calibration strip

Dyxum.com - Home of the alpha system photographer

In memory of Cameron Hill - brettania

Feel free to contact us if needed.