40mm lens is it the perfect inbetweeny

[Lee Rust]

Most of my fixed-lens cameras are fitted with 40-45mm. With these I rarely feel the need for shorter or longer lenses, so I guess that proves the point of that Goldilocks design choice. I know I'm old-fashioned though, because the smartphone has made 26mm equivalent the new normal.

 

[albada]

40 is fine for everything except portraits, which need around 100 to avoid big noses.

Mark

 

[Timo Schön]

I usually use 50mm exclusively but started liking the 40mm after I bought a Rollei 35. Maybe its because the camera is so small and unintrusive that I dont mind getting a little bit closer but the focal length really works for me and the camera is a joy to use.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Ive used maily Minox, half frame and 16mm for the last few years. Those small cameras made me not want to pick up even a Leica. Started looking at pancakes for their light weight and size and those are perfect. I have a Canon 40mm on a Rebel 2000 and a Zeiss Tessar 45mm on a Contax 139. Both are nice and small. For whatever reason the Zeiss 45mm is more perfecter. This is just for a hand camera. I like to simply carry the camera in my hand or on a wrist strap these days when I go for walks. I've almost completely stopped using regular straps. Very liberating. Now when I pick up my Canon 1n with a big zoom on it I can't believe I used to carry that around. I think that is a trend in general though. Smaller/lighter is just better these days. In fact I just picked up a Canon Rebel T2 which was the last of the Canon Rebel line. I'm looking forward to that. I love my 1n but man that thing feels like cement slippers these days.

 

[miha]

I quite like the lens on my Yashica MG-1 camera, however, I think it's 45, not 40.

 

[redbandit]

I dont know... if your using a light wieght plastic 35mm camera,,, nothing really could or would be one of those plastic body tokina lenses..

 

[waynecrider]

Is it true that a 50 mm lens is really a 40 mm lens just two steps back?

 

[r_a_feldman]

Is it true that a 50 mm lens is really a 40 mm lens just two steps back?

No. If you move to have your subject the same size with both lenses, they will have different perspectives (e.g., the “big nose effect” with wide angle lenses used close to the subject).

 

[GregY]

There's IMO no perfect lens. I've used the voigtlander 1.4, the tiny 2.8, several summicron Cs and the Rollei 40mms on the Rollei 35. If i had to choose one lens its the 35mm on a Leica and the normal 80mm on a Rolleiflex. I still have a CL w a summicron C.... but would carry a 21 or 28 alongside.

 

[250swb]

No. If you move to have your subject the same size with both lenses, they will have different perspectives (e.g., the “big nose effect” with wide angle lenses used close to the subject).

Perspective does not change with focal length, what does change is the angle of view. And big noses can be just as much to do with lens distortion as genes.

 

[KerrKid]

The Nikon N75 kit lens is a 28-80mm zoom for a good reason and it works well for my needs.

I don’t have a favorite focal length, but probably use 35mm-45mm lenses the most.

 

[snusmumriken]

It's close. The 35mm film diagonal is 43 mm but that should make little difference.

Isn’t the reasoning of the ‘diagonal’ argument to produce correct perspective, given the viewpoint? And isn’t that different from the ‘natural field of view’ argument?

I think a problem with the latter argument is that the eye and brain are capable of either taking in a wide scene or focussing on part of it. For me, those two modes are approximated by 35mm and 50mm focal lengths respectively. But for landscape neither really satisfies me. With the 35 I get far more foreground than I bargained for, and with the 50 I can’t fit in enough of the horizon. What I probably need is an Xpan, but I can’t afford one. 40mm is a compromise I can live with, but it is a compromise. In practice I vacillate between 35 and 50 and take very few landscapes. With human subjects, I find field of view is dictated by circumstances, and perspective distortions bother me much less.

 

[faberryman]

You don't need to calculate film format diagonals to figure out which lens to use. You can just look through the viewfinder.

 

[snusmumriken]

You don't need to calculate film format diagonals to figure out which lens to use. You can just look through the viewfinder.

Of course, but some folk (e.g. the OP) like to wonder why a preference exists.

 

[r_a_feldman]

Perspective does not change with focal length, what does change is the angle of view. And big noses can be just as much to do with lens distortion as genes.

While perspective does not change with focal length as you write, you missed the key point of what I wrote: “If you move to have your subject the same size with both lenses, they [the images] will have different perspectives…”

I was responding to waynecrider’s comment that a 40mm and a 50mm lens were the same, “just two steps back”. While I see some tongue-in-cheek in that statement, I was pointing out that it is not correct in terms of the resulting images.

 

[Huss]

There's IMO no perfect lens. I've used the voigtlander 1.4, the tiny 2.8, several summicron Cs and the Rollei 40mms on the Rollei 35. If i had to choose one lens its the 35mm on a Leica and the normal 80mm on a Rolleiflex. I still have a CL w a summicron C.... but would carry a 21 or 28 alongside.

The perfect lens is whatever lens I happen to be selling at the time.

 

[George Mann]

It's interesting to note that my 28mm lens achieves a 42mm width of perspective on my APS-C Nikon D300s, but also yields a depth of field of 38mm, making it the equivalent of a 40mm.

 

[MattKing]

The rule that a "standard" lens is one whose focal length is approximately equal to the diagonal of the frame probably also has roots in lens designing as well, as the diagonal has a direct relationship with the amount of necessary lens coverage.
I expect that that is how it started, and the observation that the "naturalness" of the field of view followed after that.

 

[grat]

And some of my UV filters say digital on them, so they only work with digital cameras:

No, that means they're supposed to be applied with your fingers, which are digits.

Yeah, I've never understood the need to label something inanimate with no electronics "digital" either.

 

[polka]

The rule that a "standard" lens is one whose focal length is approximately equal to the diagonal of the frame probably also has roots in lens designing as well, as the diagonal has a direct relationship with the amount of necessary lens coverage.
I expect that that is how it started, and the observation that the "naturalness" of the field of view followed after that.

Actually, this myth of the "normal lens of 50mm" started with the first leicas, because their 50mm/3.5 anastigmat lens could not support a wider field angle (given the quality expected in the angles of the 24x36 frames - and that quality was not so much, given the granularity of the films of that time).
I have three Yashica E35, one with a 45mm lens one with a 40mm and one with a 35mm ; and finally, my prefered everyday camera is my Minox35 with its 35mm/2.8 Minotar lens.
POLKa

 

[Helge]

43mm or approximately a 55° angle of view, is a pretty ideal compromise.

It’s also the easiest to design a lens for that field of view (apart from a naive tele) because you don’t have to jump through hoops to make the light do what you want.

That said, you can get used to any lens from 20mm to 135mm as an everyday shooter.

 

[Tom Conway]

I shoot with a Sigma 40/1.4 ART lens on a Nikon D800. It seems to fit my vision for landscape and some nature images, such as "in the woods" or "at the beach." This lens doesn't get the press of others in the ART lineup, however it is sharp from foreground to background and in the corners. It is heavy and uses 82mm filters. It stretches my creative capabilities each time I'm out!

 

[film_man]

I had a Tamron 45/1.8 on my Canon. First tim I put it on I thought...."ahh...finally this is it. Not too long like a 50, not too short like a 40. Just right. Practically normal."

 

[Huss]

I had a Tamron 45/1.8 on my Canon. First tim I put it on I thought...."ahh...finally this is it. Not too long like a 50, not too short like a 40. Just right. Practically normal."

I find the 45mm far too long. I prefer the Pentax 43mm 1.9. Just right.

 

[film_man]

I find the 45mm far too long. I prefer the Pentax 43mm 1.9. Just right.

F/1.9. Not too fast, not too slow. Just right.