35mm as normal lens?

[TheRook]

I don't really have a normal lens. Although I often have only one lens with me, it's not always the same one... whichever I feel like using that day. Sometimes a 35mm, sometimes a 50mm, and sometimes a 24mm. Occasionally one of my zoom lenses. I like to change things up.

 

[sissysphoto]

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!

4 of the 357's and a little wad of aluminum foil. A bit tedious install, but works fine. The only 544 size 6v silver battery I know of is branded Exell . Looks very generic and Chinese. The 357 silvers are name brand and about 5 dollars for a 3 pack at the Dollar General store. I'm not about to order some generic looking and probably Chinese battery off the internet. And then wait for it to be shipped. Probably doesn't last 5 minutes, like their light bulbs.

 

[albada]

Yeah a selenium cell would be great. And in 2018 about as good as the Rochelle Salt cartridge in an old phonograph.

I collect and repair Trip 35's, and I have found that most of them have good Selenium cells. I think Olympus used good quality cells, unlike many others.
Mark Overton

 

[wiltw]

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

• (definion A)
• a focal length such that the view of objects through the viewfinder matches in size what the (other) open eye sees

This second 'definition' is a totally undefinable angle! The eye has a very narrow zone of 'acute' vision, The area of highest acuity covers a region of about two degrees around line of sight. . Our brain 'records' what the eye sees as it moves mostly horizontally to scan the scene, and 'splices' the many views into a composite image. Our peripheral vision is quite wide, but very poor for details...it mostly permits is to sense MOTION so that we are not suprised by animals of prey which might otherwise sneak up to make us their meal!

Paraphrasing what Wikipedia says (as a quick but sometimes quesionable source of accurate information) "Humans have about 180-degree forward-facing horizontal arc of their visual field, ...the vertical range of the visual field in humans is around 150 degrees." On the 135 frame it would take a 3mm FL to achieve the vertical angle! And a 1mm FL lens can only see an angle of 173 degrees horiontal, almost what human vision can see in its angle of view.

The central field of vision for most people covers an angle of between 50° and 60°. Within this angle, both eyes observe an object simultaneously. a 35mm FL provides a 55 degree horizontal AOV. Yet 35mm FL is certainly NOT ever stated as the 'normal' for 135 format!

From
https://www.researchgate.net/figure...rtical-b-horizontal-from-Heil92_fig10_2617390

"Monocular field of view (measured from central fixation) is 160 deg (width w) x 175 deg (height h). The total binocular field of view is 200 deg (w) x 135 deg (h)
​

One can see there is not much common agreement about the angles seen in monocular FOV or binocular FOV, as quoted from various sources! Equating a vague definition of angle of view into a FL equivalence is therefore folly.

 

[jimjm]

4 of the 357's and a little wad of aluminum foil. A bit tedious install, but works fine. The only 544 size 6v silver battery I know of is branded Exell . Looks very generic and Chinese. The 357 silvers are name brand and about 5 dollars for a 3 pack at the Dollar General store. I'm not about to order some generic looking and probably Chinese battery off the internet. And then wait for it to be shipped. Probably doesn't last 5 minutes, like their light bulbs.

I just took a look at the battery installed in my ELW - it's a Duracell 6v lithium 28L. Comparing the metering accuracy to my other Nikon bodies with silver-oxides installed, I don't see any difference. I haven't bought one in a long time, but I see them on Amazon for around $10 each. Might be worth a try...

 

[NB23]

28mm and be there.

For portraits dont go below 85mm. Except if you like big noses.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

I made a reference to a "normal lens" being:

"a focal length such that the view of objects through the viewfinder matches in size what the (other) open eye sees"

This second 'definition' is a totally undefinable angle!
...
<calculations omitted>

Well, in the reference I gave, viewfinder magnification isn't taken into account either.

However, this "definition", when I've encountered it, isn't meant to be over-thought and subjected to optical calculations. Rather, it's a very simple and practical observation: put a lens on your SLR (preferably a zoom) change the focal length so the object you're looking at in the viewfinder, such as a tree, is the same size as you see with your other open eye. That focal length is your "normal" focal length in that situation - but only in the sense that it allows you to keep both eyes open while composing scenes.

...
The central field of vision for most people covers an angle of between 50° and 60°. Within this angle, both eyes observe an object simultaneously. a 35mm FL provides a 55 degree horizontal AOV. Yet 35mm FL is certainly NOT ever stated as the 'normal' for 135 format!
...

Yet that is the very question asked as the topic of this thread. So perhaps 35mm is perfectly reasonable for someone to consider "normal".

For whatever it's worth, I have simply taken a zoom lens, put it on my camera, and looked around the room with the lens set at various focal lengths (I keep my other eye closed so as not to be influenced) - I then choose the view which I like the best. In my case, it's about 48mm for 135 format.

 

[Pioneer]

I don't have normal lenses.

I didn't know that photography had anything to do with "normal" or with specific focal lengths.

I have favorite lenses that consistently give me the results I like.

Some of them, like my 50/1.4 Super Tak, happen to be 50mm, but not all of them by a long shot.

Rain drops on roses
and whiskers on kittens
bright brass petzvals and warm pentax limiteds
black beautiful tessars at just the right openings
these are a few of my favorite things.

 

[wiltw]

Yet that is the very question asked as the topic of this thread. So perhaps 35mm is perfectly reasonable for someone to consider "normal"..

...which is why I stated the eye's AOV... to show that the 'normal' lens AOV is NOT 'like the human eye...it is too narrow! Even measured on the diagonal the 50mm is not 50 degrees wide like the eye sees.

Trying to make the viewfinder apparent size of an object (like a tree) at a certain FL setting might indeed match size and even 'perspective' as seen by the eye, but then it fails to match the breadth of the scene seen by the eye.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

...which is why I stated the eye's AOV... to show that the 'normal' lens AOV is NOT 'like the human eye...it is too narrow! Even measured on the diagonal the 50mm is not 50 degrees wide like the eye sees.

Right - we are in agreement on this. The customary terminology I find confusing: 50-58mm focal lengths have been called "normal", whose angle of view is too narrow compared the eye's angle of view, as you stated.

Trying to make the viewfinder apparent size of an object (like a tree) at a certain FL setting might indeed match size and even 'perspective' as seen by the eye, but then it fails to match the breadth of the scene seen by the eye.

Agreement again. But because the sizes match when both eyes are open, perhaps that's why the terminology "normal" was chosen for something like a 55mm lens.

I have no idea when the terminology "normal" was applied to various lens' focal lengths - it may well have started in the late1800's.

For the sake of the OP, I go back to my first post and say that whatever lens feels the most natural in typical situations is the one that should be used. If it happens to be 35mm - so be it.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Normal has to do with the perspective that the eye sees. Based on that the diagonal was chosen as a basis.

Frankly I use 50mm as normal for 35mm, 80mm for 6x5 and 135mm for 4"x5" [although that is wide and it should be 150mm], then I scale from one focal length to another for an approximation.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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.

thanks for the clarification. I think, you got something there.

 

[albada]

For whatever it's worth, I have simply taken a zoom lens, put it on my camera, and looked around the room with the lens set at various focal lengths (I keep my other eye closed so as not to be influenced) - I then choose the view which I like the best. In my case, it's about 48mm for 135 format.

I've done something similar: I look at the scene and select two spots which I think cover a normal width. Then I look through an SLR and zoom to cover that width, putting those two spots on the edges of the frame. I usually end up around 40mm.

Mark Overton

 

[sissysphoto]

OK, so now I've overhauled the first ELW with winder that I ever had in my hands. Did a good job. But after finding it was indeed a battery eater, I see no advantage in moving it to top spot and dethroning my trusty FT2. The FT2 doesn't need a battery to function, so if it goes dead at an inopportune time I can still get by, without being defaulted to one speed. As for my 35mm OC 2.0 I've had for 30-some years, I've rediscovered it all over again. It doesn't distort like the wider angles in ordinary use. And my family group photos don't have to always be chopped off at the chest in a small living room.And I don't have to back off out into the street to shoot a structure. I like getting new cameras to play with. "Play" as defined by doing a good job of restoring them. Work that I do very well. But it always seems when I actually go take B & W pictures, the Nikkormat FT2 is unbeaten. And on family visits, it's the F2 with MD-3 + MB-1 and my big Sunpak Thyristor, so I can pop off a few quick frames of a family group. Out of 3 or 4, certainly there's one where everybody in the picture had their eyes open.

 

[Black Dog]

Trip 35 lens was very normal for me. So is normal zoom on SLR, 50 on FSU RF and 35 on Leica M .

Another happy Trip user-I find it very handy for both street and landscape work, plus the odd environmental portrait (along with my XA2). 35mm IMO gives you a useful slightly wider view without distorting things too much. I used to have a 40 mm 'pancake' for my Pentax LX, which was tiny ...an SLR which was the size of a compact with it fitted!

 

[David T T]

35-40mm feels "normal" for me. As for what's "appropriate" its whatever works. I've done entire portrait sessions with a 24mm equivalent, but it was me paying a model or going for creepy vibes with a friend.

 

[wiltw]

Right - we are in agreement on this. The customary terminology I find confusing: 50-58mm focal lengths have been called "normal", whose angle of view is too narrow compared the eye's angle of view, as you stated.



Agreement again. But because the sizes match when both eyes are open, perhaps that's why the terminology "normal" was chosen for something like a 55mm lens.

I have no idea when the terminology "normal" was applied to various lens' focal lengths - it may well have started in the late1800's.

For the sake of the OP, I go back to my first post and say that whatever lens feels the most natural in typical situations is the one that should be used. If it happens to be 35mm - so be it.

Then one needs to also consider the fact that the subject's apparent size is also affected by the viewfinder MAGNIFICATION, 50mm on two different camera models (even of the same brand) can be different simply because one is 0.71x and the other is 0.92x.
And then the 'nominal' 50mm lens might in reality be 49mm in one variant, and a few years later it is in reality 51mm. (We have known this to be true of the various versions of 50mm lens from Olympus made for different models of OM cameras.)

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Another happy Trip user-I find it very handy for both street and landscape work, plus the odd environmental portrait (along with my XA2). 35mm IMO gives you a useful slightly wider view without distorting things too much. I used to have a 40 mm 'pancake' for my Pentax LX, which was tiny ...an SLR which was the size of a compact with it fitted!

I had XA, it quit on me. Sold da Trip and 40/2 Rokkor in M.
But Canon EF 40 2.8 pancake is tempting. Lately I been having ball with EOS 300 again. It is camera which just keeps on working since purchased new. Almost, if not twenty years now.

 

[Helge]

You forget to mention that retrofocus has the big added benefit of not needing correction for vignetting, making the wide lens at least a stop or two faster with retrofocus. Unless you are willing to accept heavy vignetting of course.
With lenses pressed close to the film plane you have trouble projecting your image with equal brightness and sharpness to the edges. Just like at projector or a CRT gun needs a certain distance to project a good picture of a certain size.
This is partly for reasons of increased anisotropy and partly because the film/sensor becomes more and more reflective as the angle of insidence decreases from the ideal of ninety degrees.
Even rangefinders, which usually has wide lenses as their specialty, needs retrofocus or correcting filters to deal with the falloff making the lens slower.
A curved film plane would help there, by the way.
Nikon had some very wide lenses out in the fifties and sixties, that worked with the mirror up and a special auxiliary finder. They didn't become popular for the reasons I just mentioned.

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".

 

[removed account4]

Paraphrasing what Wikipedia says (as a quick but sometimes quesionable source of accurate information) "Humans have about 180-degree forward-facing horizontal arc of their visual field, ...the vertical range of the visual field in humans is around 150 degrees."

this might be true, but i know sometimes parents and teachers have eyes on the back of their head. unfortunately the wiki article doesn' t take that into consideration !

all joking aside thanks for the 1.6x info that was pretty interesting !

 

[benveniste]

I really liked the 40mm focal length of a Canon GIII 1.7. So perhaps it's a bit odd that the only 35mm prime I've ever owned is an ancient 35mm f/2.8 PC-Nikkor.

On the other hand, over the 30 years or so, I've owned either a 24-40mm, 20-35mm, or 17-35mm f/2.8 zoom. When any of them came out to play, chances are the 50mm f/1.8 stayed at home.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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.

the perfect normal lens for 35mm is 43mm focal length or other wise the lens you normally use, which for me is either the 35 or 50mm. I can never decide which to take with me but, I usually end up with the 50.

 

[Svenedin]

I would just use whatever focal lens suits you. That may well be different depending on what you are photographing. I can be all day with a 28mm on the camera and other days it will be a 50mm. Personally I don’t much care for 35mm (I do have one but it is little used) as it seems nether one nor t’other. My usual trio to carry around is 24 or 28, 50 and 100. For my OM cameras these are small lenses and they don’t weigh much either.

 

[Sirius Glass]

In the days of the press cameras, most press photographers used wide angle lenses to move in on the subject and crop out the extraneous.

 

[faberryman]

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.

Perspective is not correct or incorrect. It is a choice. Select whatever perspective you deem appropriate for the image.