50mm lens

[cuthbert]

OK, I'll shut up about this eventually, I promise, but...

OK, so we know that Oskar Barnack decided that the 35mm cine frame was too small. So he doubled it, to 24x36mm. So, what "normal" lens to use? He just doubled that too, obviously, from 25mm to 50mm. Here's where it gets weird: the expected "normal" lens (the diagonal of the frame) for the 35mm cine frame is an exact 30mm. 25mm is a bit wide. With the doubled width of the 35mm still frame, the doubling of the "normal" cine lens comes out a little too long, 50mm vs ~43mm.

So, it would seem Barnack either a) made an arithmetic mistake when he established the new frame size and just doubled the "normal" lens size; b) knew and didn't care ("everybody is using the wrong normal already, what's the difference?"), or c) the idea that "the normal lens is the diagonal of the frame size" was thought up AFTER Barnack. Anybody have any idea which might be the case? I must be shouting into the void at this point, but I think it's an interesting historical question.

Re-read my post, he didn't make any mistake...he wanted to have a "real life" image magnification.

Cinematographic lenses don't have that requirement because the camera man is not supposed to shoot with both eyes open.

 

[Alan Johnson]

OK, I'll shut up about this eventually, I promise, but...

OK, so we know that Oskar Barnack decided that the 35mm cine frame was too small. So he doubled it, to 24x36mm. So, what "normal" lens to use? He just doubled that too, obviously, from 25mm to 50mm. Here's where it gets weird: the expected "normal" lens (the diagonal of the frame) for the 35mm cine frame is an exact 30mm. 25mm is a bit wide. With the doubled width of the 35mm still frame, the doubling of the "normal" cine lens comes out a little too long, 50mm vs ~43mm.

So, it would seem Barnack either a) made an arithmetic mistake when he established the new frame size and just doubled the "normal" lens size; b) knew and didn't care ("everybody is using the wrong normal already, what's the difference?"), or c) the idea that "the normal lens is the diagonal of the frame size" was thought up AFTER Barnack. Anybody have any idea which might be the case? I must be shouting into the void at this point, but I think it's an interesting historical question.

As far as I can trace it, it seems to have been a collaborative effort between Barnack and Max Berek that resulted in 50mm as the chosen focal length.There may be specialist books.:
http://gmpphoto.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/oskar-barnack-and-early-history-of-leica.html

 

[LeeYangzao]

Both 28mm and 50mm lens are my standard lens.

 

[Dali]

Both 28mm and 50mm lens are my standard lens.

Yes and?

 

[baachitraka]

...they are good.

 

[Dali]

28mm and 50mm is my standard choice too but I doubt it might interest anyone... and yes, they are good (or to be exact, good enough for what I shoot)!

 

[CMoore]

Maybe it is just because I am:
1. New
2. Blind
3. A lousy photographer...
or all the above.....but I like using the 35 AND the 50...which seem to be two of the most lamented lens in the 35mm camera game.
I seem to see enough difference between the two, that I carry both when on "The Street". I usually have the 35 around my neck, and the 50 on another body in my bag, with an 85 available for either camera... just in case a gorgeous celebrity
begs me for a portrait, while her jealous boyfriend waits impatiently.

 

[baachitraka]

It depends on streetscape. Narrower they are, I find 28mm more useful than 35mm.

 

[baachitraka]

28mm and 50mm is my standard choice too but I doubt it might interest anyone... and yes, they are good (or to be exact, good enough for what I shoot)!

It will interest the younger generation.

 

[blockend]

Maybe it is just because I am:
1. New
2. Blind
3. A lousy photographer...
or all the above.....but I like using the 35 AND the 50...which seem to be two of the most lamented lens in the 35mm camera game.
I seem to see enough difference between the two, that I carry both when on "The Street". I usually have the 35 around my neck, and the 50 on another body in my bag, with an 85 available for either camera... just in case a gorgeous celebrity
begs me for a portrait, while her jealous boyfriend waits impatiently.

On a d*g*t*l camera I sometimes use a 24mm and 40mm (38mm and 62mm in 35mm terms). Seemingly weird focal lengths, but one is wide-normal and the other long-normal. A surprisingly flexible combination and being pancakes, they fit in a pocket. The 40 also works on a film body as a universal lens.

 

[LeeYangzao]

Yes and?

I could shoot whatever I want to shoot with these two lens. And they are so light that I could take them to anywhere!

 

[Alan Gales]

Maybe it is just because I am:
1. New
2. Blind
3. A lousy photographer...
or all the above.....but I like using the 35 AND the 50...which seem to be two of the most lamented lens in the 35mm camera game.
I seem to see enough difference between the two, that I carry both when on "The Street". I usually have the 35 around my neck, and the 50 on another body in my bag, with an 85 available for either camera... just in case a gorgeous celebrity
begs me for a portrait, while her jealous boyfriend waits impatiently.

I had the 25mm, 50mm, 100mm and 180mm Zeiss lenses for my Contax. I was running into problems shooting groups of people inside homes. I couldn't back up enough sometimes with my 50 and my 25 was just too wide so I bought a 35mm lens and it worked great.

There is nothing wrong with owning both a 35mm and a 50mm lens. For my 8x10 I own both a 14" and a 250mm. A 12" to 14" is considered a normal lens and a 250mm is a slightly wide lens on an 8x10 camera just like 50mm and 35mm on your 35mm camera. I also own a 19" Artar which is close to your 85mm for 8x10. I haven't taken any celebrity portraits yet though.

I learned a long time ago that everyone is different. Use the focal lengths that work best for you.

 

[Dali]

I could shoot whatever I want to shoot with these two lens. And they are so light that I could take them to anywhere!

Good for you but I am not sure it answers the OP question.

 

[benjiboy]

A photographer is not expected to move [and change perspective] if he or she changes focal length. Commonly one may change focal length so as to not have to move.

In my opinion a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera is certainly NOT a comfortable angle of view. It sucks.

50mm is less expensive to manufacture than 40mm?[/QUOTE
The 50mm lens is not less expensive to manufacture it's less expensive because of economy of scale, they manufacture and sell far more 50mm lenses than 40 mm ones which makes the unit cost cheaper.

 

[ransel]

.....but I like using the 35 AND the 50...which seem to be two of the most lamented lens in the 35mm camera game.

35mm f/2 is probably my favorite lens (of the 35mm format lenses I have). If I had to pick only one lens to keep, that would probably be it. 50mm f/1.4 would be next.

 

[CMoore]

Wow.....there are two of us...!!

 

[benjiboy]

I would like to see one of these.
One, even a single one, please.

You couldn't avoid seeing one.

 

[cb1]

In 1980 when I got my first SLR all we could afford was the 50mm 1.8. (AE1P). I made due from 1980 through 1986 when I bought my first telephoto. I made the 50mm work for me and I'm very happy with using the 50mm.
Now, my AE1P has the 35-105mm attached the majority of the time, but the other SLRs in the collection all have 50s and I don't have an issue with that.

I moved in to the subject or I moved out, I knew he limitations and worked within them. I didn't and still do not get paid for taking pictures so this is what I still do. (when the 35-105mm is not used)

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I did a search for 50mm, but i mostly find discussions about the different Brand of lens.
My question is Why/How did the 50mm become the "standard" lens that came with a new camera body.?
Thank You

a 'normal' focal length is typically defined as equal in length to the negative format diagonal;For a 35mm negative ,that's close to 50mm

 

[AgX]

Problem starts with oblong formats.
With horizontal ones that rule likely still applies.

 

[darinwc]

I'm sure the lens choice at the time had much to do with the film format selected and the lenses available at the time.

First, think about the normal 35mm frame format. 24x36mm is actually pretty 'wide'. A square 24x24 frame has a diagonal of only 34mm. Widening the frame to 1:1.5 format really increases the coverage needed to fill the frame with a well-defined image.

Next, think about the lenses available at the time. No coating, no computer design, limited choice of glass. Tessars were available at the time, but probably had a more limited angle of coverage at wider apertures. So a longer lens would be a natural choice. The wide frame would not exceed the center of the lenses best definition.

Per a reference in wikkipedia, it appears Barnack tried a tessar first, but found it lacked the coverage. A 5 element lens was designed for the first Leica, until the tessar could be recomputed as the elmar.

-Also, where on earth did the idea of the diagonal of the frame being "normal" with how we see become standard vernacdular? My vision covers a much wider perspective.. more like a 21mm lens. While my 'focal point' is much narrower, like a 135mm lens.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

-Also, where on earth did the idea of the diagonal of the frame being "normal" with how we see become standard vernacdular? My vision covers a much wider perspective.. more like a 21mm lens. While my 'focal point' is much narrower, like a 135mm lens.

You just described how the human eye sees. We are only able to focus on a small portion of what's in front of us at any given time. Our field of vision is much wider than it is tall, which makes sense if you consider how our eyes are oriented (assuming a person has two functional eyes). As you scan the environment your brain remembers what you have seen, and when it's out of focus it puts together a mental image for you.

But, if you put one of your eyes to a 35mm SLR camera viewfinder, with a 50mm lens on it, and look through it, and then open your other eye to look directly at reality, you will find that you have roughly the same distance to things in both your eyes. (If I remember correctly, about 43mm is actually closer to reality). If you put a 21mm lens on the camera, that is no longer true.

Anyway, optics are fascinating. Fortunately the lens does not a photographer make.