35mm as normal lens?

[sissysphoto]

I decided to post this because I'm curious as to the frequency or wisdom of twisting my old 35mm 2.0 Nikkor OC onto the Nikkormat ELW that I just finished restoring, and calling it my "normal" lens. I like the correct perspective of the 50mm, but it sure seems restrictive so many times when I have a group of 3 or 4 people in an average living room. And so often if I want to shoot an old church or barn, I can't get back far enough with a 50. Although a 50 gives correct perspective, it is very much like looking at the world through a keyhole. And it's easier to get closer to something than to back away when your back is already against the wall. So how about it? I wonder how many others call a 35 mm lens their normal lens. Thank you.

 

[MattKing]

I do (for 135 film of course).
My favorite kit is a trio of lenses - 24mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2, 85mm f/2.
Being all Zuiko lenses, and as they are paired with an OM body, the whole group fit nicely in a very small bag. There is even room for a T-20 flash, should the need arise.
Roughly speaking, the same applies in other formats. For 6x4.5, my 55mm lens serves as a "normal" lens. For 6x6 and 6x7, 65mm lenses each serve the same purpose.
To my mind, 50mm doesn't provide the best field of view for 135 film, and it forces you to work at subject distances that tend to flatten perspective (slightly).
All that being said, I still like using my Retina IIIC with its 50mm f/2 Xenon lens.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Whatever focal length you feel most comfortable with - that is the normal lens for you.

 

[jimjm]

I'm like Matt - 35mm is usually my "normal" lens as it allows me to play around with the relationships between near and far objects. 21-25mm is a comfortable "wide" range wiithout being too crazy, although the 28/2.8 AIS Nikkor is one of my favorite lenses of all time.
85-105mm is my choice for portraits or to isolate the subject. The 50mm lenses just don't get used as much, unless I want to bring along a fast lens like a 1.4 or 1.2 for low-light situations.
This is an entirely personal decision, however. Depends on how your brain likes to compose images and what satisfies you. Going back thru my archives, I find a large percentage of my favorites were taken with 21-35mm lenses, and then the 105mm shots after that.

 

[shutterfinger]

Given: 135mm format image size is 24mm x 36mm
24² +36² = 576 + 1296 = 1872
√1872 = 43.27mm
The diagonal of a format is considered the Normal for that format.
43 - 35 = 8; 50 - 43 = 7
matter of taste. I like 60mm as I do close work. I use a 35-135 zoom when shooting the film camera (F4s).

 

[BMbikerider]

If I were to look closely at what lens I like to use the most I have a feeling that my 35mm end of my F2.8 constant aperture 35/70 AFD Nikkor has to be at the top of the list. Likewise my Minolta Manual bodies the prime 35/F2.8 MC is rarely off the body.

 

[ced]

Other than taking portraits the 35mm S.Cron suits me just fine and the quirky 50mm Zeiss Sonnar is almost not called for when I leave home to take some pics around town.
I have never found a "standard" lens too interesting in 35 or 6x6.
Each though to their preference, some of the finest photographs ever were taken with standard lenses.

 

[RattyMouse]

Lots of people use a 35mm lens as their standard normal lens. This has been true for decades.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Actually, 35mm is as close to 'normal' as 50mm is on 135 format and much closer if you crop to 8x10 ratio which only uses 24x30mm of the film. The diagonal of 24x30mm is 38mm and allowing for a tiny bit of edge loss, 35mm is quite normal.

 

[BrianShaw]

Nope, I don’t... Too wide for me as an everyday “normal “.

... and besides... a 35mm viewpoint doesn't always resonate as "normal" with the viewers of my images.

 

[guangong]

For most of my ( unfortunately, late) friends who worked for the press a 35mm lens was usually mounted on their Leica. Probably because easier to crop and maybe made camera slightly more compact. As noted by rattymouse, this has been going on for a long, long time.

 

[removed account4]

Whatever focal length you feel most comfortable with - that is the normal lens for you.

+1

 

[jim10219]

What makes a lens a "normal" lens isn't what most people think. It's not directly related to the film or sensor size, like most people are told. What actuall makes a lens "normal", is that it's designed so at infinity focus, it's focal length and the distance between the optical center of the lens and the focal point (the film or sensor) are roughly equal. In other words, it's not a telefocal or retrofocal design. Compromises in image quality must be made in order to make a lens retrofocal or telefocal, due to the extra elements involved. Hence why "normal" lenses tend to be faster and sharper on average. Most (but not all) lenses for bellows camera (like large format) are "normal" regardless of focal length. Most SLRs have their flange mounted around 40mm from the film plane (or sensor) so that's why most "normal" lenses for 35mm cameras are around 50mm in focal length. In a rangefinder, a true "normal" lens could be wider. It's also possible to have longer focal length lenses still be true "normal" lenses, provided that the barrels be longer and there are no telephoto elements involved.

Some people talk about "normal" lenses as lenses that best mimic the human viewing angle. There's a huge flaw in that logic, however, as the human eyes can perceive around 160 degrees in their periphery, yet only around 1 degree of that is in sharp focus. So basically we can pick up a super wide angle's worth of image, but only really maintain a sharp focus on a super telephoto's worth of image. So a 50mm lens will pick up a lot less information than our eyes would, yet can bring into sharp focus a lot more information than our eyes can. So basically, there is no way to mimic the way our eyes see with any lens, due to the dramatically different ways in which they render images.

Now, the perspective distortion people talk about has nothing to do with lens focal length. Perspective distortion is a product of subject distance. Since a wider angle lens has a wider viewing angle, the photographer is forced to get closer to the subject to get a similar composition to what might be achieved with a longer lens. In the context of a head shot, that might mean getting uncomfortably close to the model and creating unflattering distortion, making their head look more bloated than it should. With a very long focal length lens, the photographer would have to move uncomfortably far from the model to achieve a similar composition, and make their head look flatter than it should. Hence why 85mm is such a popular portrait lens length. It puts the model at about 12 feet away (which is a good distance to eliminate perspective distortion) while maintaining a tight crop on the model's head and shoulders. But perspective distortion can be eliminated with most lenses (except for things like fisheye lenses), provided the photographer prioritizes subject distance over composition. In other words, you can take a tight head shot with a super wide angle lens and be free of perspective distortion, if you are willing to crop a large portion of the image afterwards.

With all of that in mind, if you prefer taking photos with a wider viewing angle, like if you prefer incorporating more of the model's body into the frame, then it makes a lot of sense to use a wider lens. So there's nothing wrong with using a 35mm lens as your main lens (even if it's not technically a true "normal" lens), if that's what best suits your compositions. The biggest advantages true "normal" lenses provide are they are cheaper to make and typically smaller in size when made with wider apertures due to the lack of telephoto or retrofocal elements. They are also easier to make so that they avoid inducing pincushion and barrel distortions on the final image without these additional elements. So choose your lens because it provides the images you want, and not because it's supposed to be "normal".

 

[Bill Burk]

It's the lens I had on the camera when I was caught between a mother bear and her cubs... no nothing happened, I backed up and we went our separate ways.

Later that trip, mother bear taught her cubs how to climb trees to try to get our food.

The moral of the story, when out backpacking it makes more sense to have a telephoto on the camera in case you encounter wildlife.

Then when you are looking at a scene, switch to the "normal" 35mm which always takes great scenic shots... (because you have more time to compose scenics).

 

[narsuitus]

I wonder how any others call a 35 mm lens their normal lens..

My first lens for my first 35mm SLR was a 50mm. I did not like the 50mm focal length because it was too "telephoto" for my shooting style.

When I replaced my first SLR with a Nikon SLR, I also replaced the 50mm lens with a slightly wider 35mm lens. Ever since, 35mm has been my favorite focal length for shooting general subjects. With it, I can capture about 50% of the images that I need to capture.

Here are the 35mm focal length lenses I use:

Vivitar 35mm f/2.8 M42 mount (use on 35mm Pentax SLR)

Nikon 35mm f/2 converted AI (my first 35mm f/2 lens)

Nikon 35mm f/1.4 AIS (my second 35mm lens for my Nikon SLR)

Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 ZM (use on my 35mm Leica rangefinder)



35mm Wide-Angles by Narsuitus, on Flickr

 

[jspillane]

If you want a 'true' normal lens on 35mm, get a Pentax 43mm Limited which is designed to be exactly that (also a available and overpriced in Leica LTM). It's only real failing in my view is that it can't do especially close focus, but I use either it or the 40mm in the Canonet QL17 when I want a 'normal' 35mm perspective.

But really, the way most people use the term, anything from 35-58 is normal-ish. It's really a matter of taste. Most major manufacturers have a 40mm, which is close to a technically true normal. I would consider 40mm & 50mm lenses to be approximately normal, while 35 is slightly wide angle and 55-58mm lenses are slightly telephoto.

My understanding is that 50mm became generally considered 'normal' in interchangeable lens systems because it was easy to design a fast, high resolving lens at that focal length and was thus selected as the standard lens for the first Leica... and the rest is history.

 

[wahiba]

At one time I too would have considered 50mm as normal. Last yeat I acquired a Lomo Sardina which has a 22mm lens, ok one aperture and one shutter speed. As it did not cost me anything, I won it on a Lomo competition I was not going to be disappointed.

It turns out that 22mm is a very useful size, especially when you cannot stand back. An example is a recent classic car show where it was easy with the 22mm lens to get the whole vehicle in without standing back.

Also it is great for arms lengths self portraits as it gets two you in with ease.

Consequently I have really started thinking that maybe wide angle lenses are really more useful. I have Fuji 35mm with 28mm/40mm non zoom lens, one or the other and I realise I tend to use the 28mm setting most.

So maybe a 28mm is a better 'standard' lens. I suppose it is urban living that gives the wider angle lenses the edge over the rural 50mm standard. More likely in the early days of 35mm film a 50mm was cheaper and easier to make.

Sardina, good for front end snaps as well.

 

[Eric Rose]

What Theo and John said. Whatever "feels" normal. For 35mm film I have always gravitated to the 50mm but if doing run and gun street stuff then the 35mm was used. I quite often just put a different lens on my camera each time I go out. One day it will be a 16mm, another an 85mm, you get the idea. It forces you to learn to "see" what works for each focal length. It also makes life just a little more interesting and you don't get into a visual rut.

 

[slackercrurster]

I decided to post this because I'm curious as to the frequency or wisdom of twisting my old 35mm 2.0 Nikkor OC onto the Nikkormat ELW that I just finished restoring, and calling it my "normal" lens. I like the correct perspective of the 50mm, but it sure seems restrictive so many times when I have a group of 3 or 4 people in an average living room. And so often if I want to shoot an old church or barn, I can't get back far enough with a 50. Although a 50 gives correct perspective, it is very much like looking at the world through a keyhole. And it's easier to get closer to something than to back away when your back is already against the wall. So how about it? I wonder how many others call a 35 mm lens their normal lens. Thank you.

Why ask us? A 21 is normal for me. There are no photo police, do as you like.

 

[dynachrome]

I started using a 35 as a standard lens when I got a Vivitar 35/1.9 [Konica mount] in High School. I recent years I have come to appreciate the 50mm focal length again. My original standard lens was a 57/1/4 Hexanon. Some other longer-than-50mm f/1.4 standard lenses are the 58/1.4 Minolta MC Rokkor, 5.8CM/1.4 Topcor, 55/1.4 Mamiya Sekor M42, 52/1.4 Konica F mount, 55/1.4 Mamiya ES, 55/1.4 Rikenon M42. Going from 57 or 58 down to 35 is more of a jump that going to 35 from 50. At an event like a car show where the cars are close to each other, a 28 is sometimes better. Some of the 35s I like to use as a standard lens: 35/2 Canon FD SSC (concave and convex front element versions), 35/2.8 Minolta MD (last version), 35/2.8 'K' or 1st AI Nikkor (6 element version), 35/2 Konica Hexanon, 35/2.8 Zeiss Distagon (YC). The 35 gives me a little more breathing room when I need to get more into a scene without the obvious wide angle look.

 

[AgX]

What makes a lens a "normal" lens isn't what most people think. It's not directly related to the film or sensor size, like most people are told. What actuall makes a lens "normal", is that it's designed so at infinity focus, it's focal length and the distance between the optical center of the lens and the focal point (the film or sensor) are roughly equal. In other words, it's not a telefocal or retrofocal design. Compromises in image quality must be made in order to make a lens retrofocal or telefocal, due to the extra elements involved. Hence why "normal" lenses tend to be faster and sharper on average. Most (but not all) lenses for bellows camera (like large format) are "normal" regardless of focal length. Most SLRs have their flange mounted around 40mm from the film plane (or sensor) so that's why most "normal" lenses for 35mm cameras are around 50mm in focal length. In a rangefinder, a true "normal" lens could be wider. It's also possible to have longer focal length lenses still be true "normal" lenses, provided that the barrels be longer and there are no telephoto elements involved.

Some people talk about "normal" lenses as lenses that best mimic the human viewing angle. There's a huge flaw in that logic, however, as the human eyes can perceive around 160 degrees in their periphery, yet only around 1 degree of that is in sharp focus. So basically we can pick up a super wide angle's worth of image, but only really maintain a sharp focus on a super telephoto's worth of image. So a 50mm lens will pick up a lot less information than our eyes would, yet can bring into sharp focus a lot more information than our eyes can. So basically, there is no way to mimic the way our eyes see with any lens, due to the dramatically different ways in which they render images.

Now, the perspective distortion people talk about has nothing to do with lens focal length. Perspective distortion is a product of subject distance. Since a wider angle lens has a wider viewing angle, the photographer is forced to get closer to the subject to get a similar composition to what might be achieved with a longer lens. In the context of a head shot, that might mean getting uncomfortably close to the model and creating unflattering distortion, making their head look more bloated than it should. With a very long focal length lens, the photographer would have to move uncomfortably far from the model to achieve a similar composition, and make their head look flatter than it should. Hence why 85mm is such a popular portrait lens length. It puts the model at about 12 feet away (which is a good distance to eliminate perspective distortion) while maintaining a tight crop on the model's head and shoulders. But perspective distortion can be eliminated with most lenses (except for things like fisheye lenses), provided the photographer prioritizes subject distance over composition. In other words, you can take a tight head shot with a super wide angle lens and be free of perspective distortion, if you are willing to crop a large portion of the image afterwards.

With all of that in mind, if you prefer taking photos with a wider viewing angle, like if you prefer incorporating more of the model's body into the frame, then it makes a lot of sense to use a wider lens. So there's nothing wrong with using a 35mm lens as your main lens (even if it's not technically a true "normal" lens), if that's what best suits your compositions. The biggest advantages true "normal" lenses provide are they are cheaper to make and typically smaller in size when made with wider apertures due to the lack of telephoto or retrofocal elements. They are also easier to make so that they avoid inducing pincushion and barrel distortions on the final image without these additional elements. So choose your lens because it provides the images you want, and not because it's supposed to be "normal".

You give a new definition I never ever read of before.

(But I admit I know of no defined term for a plain lens as you describe. Likely I myself would speak of a "normal design". Out of the context it would be clear that I do not refer to a "normal lens" as such.)

 

[johnha]

I've always found 50mm to be too long, preferring instead a 40mm pancake for the focal length and compact size (there must be a reason why many 40mm are pancakes?). I don't understand where the 55's & 58's came from as these are way too long for me. I started with the Pentax M40/2.8 but now have the Pentax 43 f/1.9 and prefer it for speed and quality, however if space is a premium I'd just be using a 20-35 zoom and 135 (or longer) lenses - I don't really use anything in between.

 

[Arklatexian]

I decided to post this because I'm curious as to the frequency or wisdom of twisting my old 35mm 2.0 Nikkor OC onto the Nikkormat ELW that I just finished restoring, and calling it my "normal" lens. I like the correct perspective of the 50mm, but it sure seems restrictive so many times when I have a group of 3 or 4 people in an average living room. And so often if I want to shoot an old church or barn, I can't get back far enough with a 50. Although a 50 gives correct perspective, it is very much like looking at the world through a keyhole. And it's easier to get closer to something than to back away when your back is already against the wall. So how about it? I wonder how many others call a 35 mm lens their normal lens. Thank you.

That may be why the manufacturers made 35mm and wider lenses. Because, from time to time a wider angle lens is needed. If you shoot subjects most of the time that require such a lens then leave a WA lens on YOUR camera. The same can be said about using a short telephoto. But a "normal" lens, it is my understanding, covers what most human eyes see. You can call a WA anything you want except perhaps a "normal" lens. Why not call it: "MY" normal lens or something like that........Regards!

 

[Arklatexian]

Why ask us? A 21 is normal for me. There are no photo police, do as you like.

There may be photo police when YOU start talking about what is "correct": for MY camera.......Regards!

 

[tomkatf]

This old Nikkormat FTn and a first series Nikkor 28/2,Tri-X and Edwal FG-7 were my standard set-up through 6 yrs of art school... other lenses when necessary but this was my go-to rig. Nikkormat bought c. 1971 at Adolph Gasser's in San Francisco...Carried in the bottom half of a Nikon Neverready case...