35mm as normal lens?

$12.66

A
$12.66

  • 6
  • 3
  • 109
A street portrait

A
A street portrait

  • 1
  • 0
  • 140
A street portrait

A
A street portrait

  • 2
  • 2
  • 135
img746.jpg

img746.jpg

  • 6
  • 0
  • 107
No Hall

No Hall

  • 1
  • 8
  • 140

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
198,800
Messages
2,781,050
Members
99,708
Latest member
sdharris
Recent bookmarks
0

Theo Sulphate

Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2014
Messages
6,489
Location
Gig Harbor
Format
Multi Format
You give a new definition I never ever read of before.
...

I'd never read that definition either. I have read either:

  • a focal length equal to the diagonal of the image (e.g. 43mm for 24x36mm)
or
  • a focal length such that the view of objects through the viewfinder matches in size what the (other) open eye sees

... I don't understand where the 55's & 58's came from as these are way too long for me. ...

Pentax had 55mm (55/1.4) and Minolta had 58mm (58/1.2) in the 1960's. My understanding, though I could well be wrong, is that they needed these longer focal lengths (and consequently larger objective elements) in order to get lenses faster than f/2 with their mount. Nikon originally went to 55mm to get their first f/1.2 lens.

I know we have at least one lens designer in these forums. Perhaps we will get a definitive answer.
 

ic-racer

Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
16,544
Location
USA
Format
Multi Format
I have drawers of 50mm lenses because almost every camera I have came with one. Almost all my 35mm cameras now have 35mm or 28mm lenses on them.
 

flavio81

Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2014
Messages
5,069
Location
Lima, Peru
Format
Medium Format
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.

50mm already compresses perspective slightly. True "normal" perspective ought to be achieved at 43-45mm IMO.

btw... Your 35mm is one of a handful of outstanding Nikkors
 
OP
OP

sissysphoto

Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2018
Messages
191
Location
charlotte nc
Format
Traditional
I had even investigated the various japanese fixed lens rangefinders from the 60's just for convenient everyday carrying. I've looked over the yashicas, minoltas, petris, and canons. I've seen some I could like pretty well, but the killer was the always on CDs meters requiring a lens cap to save battery. I hate lens caps. To me they are for when you put the camera away. And I already know how often I would end up taking pictures forgetting to remove it.
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,364
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
35mm is not my choice because it is too close to 50mm. I use 28mm and 50mm for cities, but if you are happy using 35mm as your normal lens, that is all that counts.
 

RalphLambrecht

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 19, 2003
Messages
14,649
Location
K,Germany
Format
Medium Format
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.
35 and 50mm are the two lenses I carry with me for 35 because, I can never make up my mind which one I prefer but, if I had to pick just one, it would be the 50mm. I think it's more flexible than the 35,meaning it fits in more situations.
 

flavio81

Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2014
Messages
5,069
Location
Lima, Peru
Format
Medium Format
I had even investigated the various japanese fixed lens rangefinders from the 60's just for convenient everyday carrying. I've looked over the yashicas, minoltas, petris, and canons. I've seen some I could like pretty well, but the killer was the always on CDs meters requiring a lens cap to save battery. I hate lens caps. To me they are for when you put the camera away. And I already know how often I would end up taking pictures forgetting to remove it.

A lens cap protects as good as a filter, and doesn't rob image quality.

Yashicas, in general, are OFF until you push the trigger (Electro) or a button (Lynx).
 

flavio81

Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2014
Messages
5,069
Location
Lima, Peru
Format
Medium Format
35mm is not my choice because it is too close to 50mm.

I readily perceive 35mm as much, much wider than 50mm. Hell, even the difference between 45mm and 58mm (in 35mm format) is marked, as is, for example, the difference between 80 and 105mm on 6x6.
 

RalphLambrecht

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 19, 2003
Messages
14,649
Location
K,Germany
Format
Medium Format
50mm already compresses perspective slightly. True "normal" perspective ought to be achieved at 43-45mm IMO.

btw... Your 35mm is one of a handful of outstanding Nikkors
there you go;I'm with you.That's why the 43-86mm Nikon zoom had the ideal range but, unfortunately, a very poor optical performance; too bade
 

albada

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 10, 2008
Messages
2,172
Location
Escondido, C
Format
35mm RF
I had even investigated the various japanese fixed lens rangefinders from the 60's just for convenient everyday carrying. I've looked over the yashicas, minoltas, petris, and canons. I've seen some I could like pretty well, but the killer was the always on CDs meters requiring a lens cap to save battery. I hate lens caps. To me they are for when you put the camera away. And I already know how often I would end up taking pictures forgetting to remove it.

That's another advantage of the Olympus Trip 35. Not only does it have a useful 40mm lens, but that lens is sharp and the meter is powered by a selenium cell, so it needs no battery.
Mark Overton
 
OP
OP

sissysphoto

Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2018
Messages
191
Location
charlotte nc
Format
Traditional
Yeah a selenium cell would be great. And in 2018 about as good as the Rochelle Salt cartridge in an old phonograph.
 

wiltw

Subscriber
Joined
Oct 4, 2008
Messages
6,448
Location
SF Bay area
Format
Multi Format
Formats like 135 suffer in part from 'normal' ranging from about 45mm to 58mm at various points in time and/or even differing when the max aperture of the 'normal' was optionally different!

Our problem also is that using the frame diagonal has different results for different format aspect ratios. Instead, using the small dimension of the frame as a characteristic of commonality across different aspect ratio formats, and also using 8x10" photo as a common print size regardless of film frame size:
All of these would have the same vertical (small dimension of frame) Angle of View (42.5 degrees) when viewing an 8x10 printed from shots all taken the same camera position regarldess of format size!
  • 5x4: 93mm frame height (as measured on film magazine), normal = 150mm = 1.6x frame height
  • 6x7: 56mm frame height, normal = 90mm = 1.6x frame height
  • 6x6: 56mm frame height, normal = 90mm = 1.6x frame height
  • 645: 43mm frame height, normal = 70mm = 1.6x frame height
  • 135: 24mm frame height, normal = 38mm = 1.6x frame height
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
5,462
Location
.
Format
Digital
My "normal" go-to f/l when and where I use the 35mm format is 24mm. The other is 40mm, and vanishingly rare in finding use.
 

guangong

Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2009
Messages
3,589
Format
Medium Format
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".

Very well stated!
 

flavio81

Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2014
Messages
5,069
Location
Lima, Peru
Format
Medium Format
there you go;I'm with you.That's why the 43-86mm Nikon zoom had the ideal range but, unfortunately, a very poor optical performance; too bade

I bought the revised (different optical design) version, the 43-86 AI, just one month ago. I've yet to test it, but it appears promising, except for some distortion.
 

flavio81

Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2014
Messages
5,069
Location
Lima, Peru
Format
Medium Format
Yeah a selenium cell would be great. And in 2018 about as good as the Rochelle Salt cartridge in an old phonograph.

This is not true. Many old cameras with selenium cells still can be found working fine; this is down to if there was high humidity around, and/or if the cell was kept in the dark.
 

Peter Schrager

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
4,158
Location
fairfield co
Format
Large Format
how stupid of me...I thought 24mm was normal....love that focal length!!
 

jim10219

Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2017
Messages
1,632
Location
Oklahoma
Format
4x5 Format
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.)
Yeah, it's all semantics. These words mean one thing t lens designers and something else to photographers. The proper terminology is generally disconnected from the technical specifications in roll film cameras. For instance, the term telephoto generally means any lens with a focal length longer than around 85mm. And the term retrofocal is almost nonexistent. Yet with large format cameras, these terms take on more precise meanings.

In any case, my point was to simply say that just because a lens is called a "normal" lens doesn't mean that it's the preferred lens or that other focal lengths would be abnormal. Therefore, feel free to buck conventional wisdom and go with whatever suits you best.
 
OP
OP

sissysphoto

Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2018
Messages
191
Location
charlotte nc
Format
Traditional
Well I guess the whole thread is moot. I finished restoring the ELW and winder about a week ago. I did a very good job of f I do say so. But I've been too busy this week to get out and use it. So I've sat here in my armchair playing with it and tripping the shutter 4 or 5 times a night, then putting it down. I was going to go use it this weekend. But I've discovered the brand new 357 batteries I put in it now read 1.3 volts. So that means I've tripped it off maybe as much as a 36 exp. roll. And already my new batteries read 1.3V?. This thing is a battery eater. I ve got better things to fritter my money away on than buying 6V 544 batteries at 10 bucks a pop on the internet.
Edit: I'd been using 4 357's in the place of a 544.
 
Last edited:

Theo Sulphate

Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2014
Messages
6,489
Location
Gig Harbor
Format
Multi Format
Last edited:
OP
OP

sissysphoto

Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2018
Messages
191
Location
charlotte nc
Format
Traditional
They are 357 silvers. I know better than to fool with alkalines. Besides I don't think there's any such thing as a 357 alkaline. No, there's no parasitic voltage drain or any other such problem. The EL models are known battery eaters and I ha heard that before I bought it. I bought it and the winder because they were cheap and needed service. And because I admired them in in 1975 0r 76 when the ELW came out. I had never touched one.I got my fun out of it now. The camera and winder are now in top form, due to my talented hands.:sick:. So now I've worked on it, gotten it extra nice again, and played with it a while. But I'm not going to feed it 6 volt batteries. So far I have yet to find a 35mm SLR one bit better than a Nikkormat FTN or FT2, which I already have. But it would be nice to have something like an old Yashica rangefinder as a beater and knock around in the truck.
 
Last edited:

jimjm

Subscriber
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
1,226
Location
San Diego CA
Format
Multi Format
I've had the same 6v battery in my ELW for several years now, probably only the 2nd one in over 10 years, so it doesn't seem to be any more battery-dependent than other AE Nikon bodies. And I'm probably putting about 10 rolls/year thru it (too many other Nikon bodies to use). I didn't know it was possible to use four 1.5v batteries instead.

In any case, it's a great camera. The weight, fit and smooth finish just scream "quality". Hope you get the battery issue resolved and have fun shooting it.

Cheers!
 

RalphLambrecht

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 19, 2003
Messages
14,649
Location
K,Germany
Format
Medium Format
Formats like 135 suffer in part from 'normal' ranging from about 45mm to 58mm at various points in time and/or even differing when the max aperture of the 'normal' was optionally different!

Our problem also is that using the frame diagonal has different results for different format aspect ratios. Instead, using the small dimension of the frame as a characteristic of commonality across different aspect ratio formats, and also using 8x10" photo as a common print size regardless of film frame size:
All of these would have the same vertical (small dimension of frame) Angle of View (42.5 degrees) when viewing an 8x10 printed from shots all taken the same camera position regarldess of format size!
  • 5x4: 93mm frame height (as measured on film magazine), normal = 150mm = 1.6x frame height
  • 6x7: 56mm frame height, normal = 90mm = 1.6x frame height
  • 6x6: 56mm frame height, normal = 90mm = 1.6x frame height
  • 645: 43mm frame height, normal = 70mm = 1.6x frame height
  • 135: 24mm frame height, normal = 38mm = 1.6x frame height
interesting approach;where did you get this?
 

wiltw

Subscriber
Joined
Oct 4, 2008
Messages
6,448
Location
SF Bay area
Format
Multi Format
interesting approach;where did you get this?

Ralph,
When I got interested in large format photography 25 years ago, I got a book by Sinar. They first presented the approach of using the short dimension of the frame height as 'wide angle' FL. That FLdetermination gives all formats the same Angle of View in the short dimension, when all cameras are at the same camera position.

I adapted their use of the frame small dimension to make other FL to be multiples of the frame height (rather than using frame length or frame diagonal) Using that approach brings all FL choices to be multiples of the frame height regardless of aspect ratio of the format! That FL determination also gives all formats the same Angle of View in the short dimension for all the same multiplier, when all cameras are at the same camera position.

So with 135 having 24mm frame, using a classic 100mm portrait lens is a multiple of 4.167x frame height. So I can get the same portraiture Angle of View (in the short dimension) if I use 180mm on 645, or 233mm on 6x7 or 387mm on 4x5 sheetfilm, and make an 8x10" print size from all four formats.
 
Last edited:
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom