Another look at 50mm

[RalphLambrecht]

the 50mm is also growing on me lately.It is just a very versatile focal length for 35mm photography and often the fastest and most affordable.

 

[Chan Tran]

the 50mm is also growing on me lately.It is just a very versatile focal length for 35mm photography and often the fastest and most affordable.

Also the sharpest.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Also the sharpest.

The 105 Nikkor P is sharp, too. Mine cost $80.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Also the sharpest.

we may not agree what sharpness actually is.

 

[Saganich]

I for one would love to see side by side examples of how 35, 50, 85 changes facial features, oh wait I'll google it...Well in a comparison it is quite striking the differences.
http://www.danvojtech.cz/blog/2016/07/amazing-how-focal-length-affect-shape-of-the-face/

 

[voceumana]

As it is now, always has been, and ever will be--focal length does not change perspective nor facial features. It is the distance from camera to subject that causes these changes. The exact same thing happens if you move your own eyes to the same place the camera lens would be.

Why is this so hard for people to understand?

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I for one would love to see side by side examples of how 35, 50, 85 changes facial features, oh wait I'll google it...Well in a comparison it is quite striking the differences.
http://www.danvojtech.cz/blog/2016/07/amazing-how-focal-length-affect-shape-of-the-face/

As it is now, always has been, and ever will be--focal length does not change perspective nor facial features. It is the distance from camera to subject that causes these changes. The exact same thing happens if you move your own eyes to the same place the camera lens would be.

Why is this so hard for people to understand?

I think most here with experience understand this perfectly well, they are the ones advocating for longer lenses, increased working distance, and natural proportions.
You're missing the point here. If you want full frame head and shoulders with a 35mm lens, you must stand closer: result, giant schnozz. With a 105mm or 135mm lens, you stand back and get far more natural proportions, Q.E.D.
It's as simple as dirt. Look at the examples in the link above - see?

 

[voceumana]

I'm not missing the point--if that's the point, it is very sloppy in how it is phrased. Those without experience are being misdirected into thinking it is the lens that provides perspective. It's helpful to be precise in such discussions as precision leads to a better understanding.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I'm not missing the point--if that's the point, it is very sloppy in how it is phrased. Those without experience are being misdirected into thinking it is the lens that provides perspective. It's helpful to be precise in such discussions as precision leads to a better understanding.

I agree 1,000 percent.
This entire thread is a mess.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Hey, I did not make a mess here!

 

[jim10219]

Perhaps much of this discussion is based on the reality that no two people see exactly the same way. Much of what we see is because of processing in the brain and not based solely on what is presented to the retina by the lens.

My mother once commented about a professionally produced portrait of my sister something to the effect that the professional photographer tried to make the person--subject of the photo--something like she wasn't. It was an astute observation that a flattering portrayal is not always accurate to the subject. I understood her thoughts. In that sense, the professional portrait, though very nicely executed, was not a good portrait of my sister--it didn't look very much like her.

This is the most intelligent post of this thread thus far.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I like 50mm lenses for portraits. A lot. These are terrible neg scans, forgive the quality at this stage.