Considering the 50mm...

[blockend]

I agree with everything you said there and probably the best 50 mm in terms of corner to corner sharpness including DOF was Tessar, no?

Another reason for 28 mm to be adopted for streetjob is that it captures much wider image than 50 mm.

The 28 does give a wider angle, but you have to get much closer than a 50 or everything appears distant. It offers a greater sense of intimacy for those prepared to get among the action, but perspective can be distorted if you veer too far from the horizontal.

 

[MattKing]

FWIW...
A 50mm lens gives you exactly the same depth of field as a 28mm lens, for the same image size.
The 28mm lens permits you to be closer to the subject, which in turn tends to exaggerate the prominence of your main subject in respect to the other elements in the scene. As those other elements are smaller in the scene, any relative reduction in sharpness for them is less obvious.

 

[blockend]

FWIW...
A 50mm lens gives you exactly the same depth of field as a 28mm lens, for the same image size.
The 28mm lens permits you to be closer to the subject, which in turn tends to exaggerate the prominence of your main subject in respect to the other elements in the scene. As those other elements are smaller in the scene, any relative reduction in sharpness for them is less obvious.

I never understand this argument. People frame a subject with what they have, or they choose a lens for their needs, or they move position if that's an option. If you want sharpness throughout the image an 80mm lens is less useful than a 28mm one, all other things (like print size) being equal.

 

[MattKing]

I never understand this argument. People frame a subject with what they have, or they choose a lens for their needs, or they move position if that's an option. If you want sharpness throughout the image an 80mm lens is less useful than a 28mm one, all other things (like print size) being equal.

If you do the experiment, you will see that both lens will give you the same "sharpness throughout the image" if you adjust your position to get the same image size.
I agree that a wider lens is often more useful for "street". But the usefulness doesn't result from a different amount of depth of field. It results from different working distances, and the resulting difference in perspective.

 

[blockend]

If you do the experiment, you will see that both lens will give you the same "sharpness throughout the image" if you adjust your position to get the same image size.
I agree that a wider lens is often more useful for "street". But the usefulness doesn't result from a different amount of depth of field. It results from different working distances, and the resulting difference in perspective.

I'm aware of the optical physics, but I don't think that's the way people use a camera. If you think of an iconic shot like Koudelka's photograph of the Russian invasion of Prague, he has his wrist watch showing the time, and the main street stretching into the distance, all of which is relatively sharp. He was positioned on a clock tower, so little room for change of position. Given the other limitations of a 35mm negative, the wide angle lens on his Exakta was the one that allowed him to combine the elements in the shot.

 

[MattKing]

I'm aware of the optical physics, but I don't think that's the way people use a camera. If you think of an iconic shot like Koudelka's photograph of the Russian invasion of Prague, he has his wrist watch showing the time, and the main street stretching into the distance, all of which is relatively sharp. He was positioned on a clock tower, so little room for change of position. Given the other limitations of a 35mm negative, the wide angle lens on his Exakta was the one that allowed him to combine the elements in the shot.

I'll agree about how people tend to approach the issue.
My concern though is that people - particularly those with less experience - think that changing to a wider lens increases the depth of field, and then don't understand that once they get closer to their subject, that increase in depth of field is gone.
If their photographic decisions are motivated by questions of field of view, perspective and the closely related relative image size of various components in the scene, the choice of a wide angle vs. a longer lens works.
If the Koudelka photo is the one I think you are referring to, it isn't the wide angle lens that results in all the important things being relatively sharp. The same relative sharpness could have been obtained with a longer lens being positioned in a way that the foreground wrist watch filled the same percentage of space on the negative. The contribution of the wide angle lens comes from the effect that the closer working distance it afforded on the relative roles of the different parts of the scene - one of the consequences of the different perspective.

 

[blockend]

The contribution of the wide angle lens comes from the effect that the closer working distance it afforded on the relative roles of the different parts of the scene - one of the consequences of the different perspective

Yes, that's generally how wide angle lenses are used, especially on 35mm cameras where a small negative imposes restrictions on image quality that can be mitigated by a particular focal length. When film ruled there was considerable resistance against using miniature cameras for professional purposes. Picture editors expected to be able to choose the shot from a large negative, the photographers job being correct exposure and focus. It wasn't unknown for a newspaper reproduction to source their headline shot from an area of negative no larger than 36 x 24mm on sheet film. Without that luxury we have to combine elements with the angle of view available.

 

[McFortner]

Interesting article on PetaPixel about the human eye and it's focal length gives some insight on why a 40 to 50 mm lens gives the closest "natural" look to a photograph for portrait photography. Our brains expect certain parameters to what we see when looking at faces and anything that is outside of those are considered "unnatural" and "wrong". If our eyes had a shorter or longer focal length then the choice would be something else. The big thing in other types of photography is the trade offs of f.o.v., distance to subject, and "distortion" that the photographer is comfortable with.

https://petapixel.com/2012/11/17/the-camera-versus-the-human-eye/

 

[faberryman]

Many times I've read that our beloved 50mm lenses are closer to 52mm in focal length.

Not sure why optical engineers wouldn't be able to design a 50mm lens and label it as such.

 

[blockend]

Interesting article on PetaPixel about the human eye and it's focal length gives some insight on why a 40 to 50 mm lens gives the closest "natural"

That makes sense. Putting a 28mm lens on an APS-C sensor camera gave 42mm, which seemed very naturalistic to me. Subsequently a bought a Canon 40mm pancake lens for use on a film SLR, which gives a similar appearance. The 24mm pancake on a crop sensor canon gives 38.4mm, which is equally useful as an all-rounder.

35mm isn't too far away from those focal lengths, and can appear even closer if the viewfinder isn't 100%. 50mm appears to be tunnel vision in comparison. However for some years I only used a 50mm lens and familiarity is the biggest factor.

 

[Sirius Glass]

If the 35mm frame were a square; 36x36mm, then the diagonal is 50mm.
That is a true statement.

No, 36mm is the length. 24mm x 24mm would have a diagonal of 33.94mm.

Your point is?

The diagonal that you calculated in the first post is for a square that is larger than the 24mm x 36mm frame and therefore diagonal does not apply to 35mm cameras. This is so even though that calculations of square root 9362+362) = 50 is correct.

 

[Sirius Glass]

FWIW...
A 50mm lens gives you exactly the same depth of field as a 28mm lens, for the same image size.
The 28mm lens permits you to be closer to the subject, which in turn tends to exaggerate the prominence of your main subject in respect to the other elements in the scene. As those other elements are smaller in the scene, any relative reduction in sharpness for them is less obvious.

I never understand this argument. People frame a subject with what they have, or they choose a lens for their needs, or they move position if that's an option. If you want sharpness throughout the image an 80mm lens is less useful than a 28mm one, all other things (like print size) being equal.

What Matt stated is correct.

If you do the experiment, you will see that both lens will give you the same "sharpness throughout the image" if you adjust your position to get the same image size.
I agree that a wider lens is often more useful for "street". But the usefulness doesn't result from a different amount of depth of field. It results from different working distances, and the resulting difference in perspective.

I'm aware of the optical physics, but I don't think that's the way people use a camera. If you think of an iconic shot like Koudelka's photograph of the Russian invasion of Prague, he has his wrist watch showing the time, and the main street stretching into the distance, all of which is relatively sharp. He was positioned on a clock tower, so little room for change of position. Given the other limitations of a 35mm negative, the wide angle lens on his Exakta was the one that allowed him to combine the elements in the shot.

I photographed that way. I did not like the DoF with a normal lens and tried a 28mm lens for a wider DoF and moved up to have the same framing, and I was disappointed. I had the same thing happen with the 21mm lens. I experience it several times and did not understand it until someone took me through the mathematics.

 

[blockend]

What Matt stated is correct.

I wasn't disagreeing with his conclusions. My point was about the way people use lenses, it's the same discussion with sensor sizes and relative focal lengths.

Working with human subjects 3ft to 8ft away, 50mm is confining. A 28mm lens offers them a separation in the frame that isn't available with a 50.

 

[albada]

That is a function of the prism's optics rather than the lens field of view or perspective. A prism can be designed to allow any chosen focal length to appear to be "normal".

The prism and its associated optics only affect the apparent size of a scene, but not the *content* of the scene (except for the usual 5% crop). I was referring to left and right points in the content of a scene.

Mark Overton

 

[Sirius Glass]

The prism and its associated optics only affect the apparent size of a scene, but not the *content* of the scene (except for the usual 5% crop). I was referring to left and right points in the content of a scene.

Mark Overton

OK we are in violent agreement.

 

[flavio81]

Zoom lenses became standard for SLR cameras in the 1960s and 1970s, but popular consumer cameras like the Pentax K1000 and the Canon AE-1 continued to be advertised and bundled together with a 50-mm.

Zoom lenses didn't become the "bundled" or "kit-lens" until the 80s.

Today, the lens represents a struggle between objectivity and relativism. (...) Perhaps the 50-mm communicates an anxiety about whether an individual can understand someone else’s vision.

Reeks of pretentiousness.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

The problem with 50mm lenses on 35mm film is it's difficult to get everything sharp if there are different planes of focus. A half length figure and a distant building (for example) are difficult to render sharply in the same image, without risking some combination of shake and softness through diffraction. Setting a hyperfocal distance helps, but can't cure the problem completely.

There is no rule that says every element must be sharply in focus, but it's easier to attain with wide angle lenses. That's one of the reasons 28mm was adopted as a "street" standard on 35mm film. Another possibility is a small negative/sensor.

50 is tele for some of us
I have no idea where you get this 28 as standard for street photography on 35 film. The number of 35mm photogs is as big as 28mm and 50mm.

 

[blockend]

I have no idea where you get this 28 as standard for street photography on 35 film. The number of 35mm photogs is as big as 28mm and 50mm.

The 28mm "standard" was influenced by the American street photographers of the 1960s and 70s, men like Garry Winogrand whose photography represented a particular aesthetic that has come to be thought of as the street "look". I'm not claiming it's the only one, but if you look at contemporary street photography sites, 28mm and wider dominate. It's partly to do with the fact SP's get in closer, and the 28mm focal length works well in those situations.

I've spent extended periods (like years) using 50mm, 35mm and 28mm lenses almost exclusively, and have recently spent a lot of time with a 28-80 zoom. It's clear I spend most of it at around 30-40mm. Anywhere in that zone works for me. I like the look of 40mm shots, very neutral and "objective", but it can be too narrow in confined spaces. Having shot a 50mm the last two summers I found myself having to step back all the time to get the shot, so my eyes must have got used to seeing around 35mm or so.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

The 28mm "standard" was influenced by the American street photographers of the 1960s and 70s, men like Garry Winogrand whose photography represented a particular aesthetic that has come to be thought of as the street "look". I'm not claiming it's the only one, but if you look at contemporary street photography sites, 28mm and wider dominate. It's partly to do with the fact SP's get in closer, and the 28mm focal length works well in those situations.

I've spent extended periods (like years) using 50mm, 35mm and 28mm lenses almost exclusively, and have recently spent a lot of time with a 28-80 zoom. It's clear I spend most of it at around 30-40mm. Anywhere in that zone works for me. I like the look of 40mm shots, very neutral and "objective", but it can be too narrow in confined spaces. Having shot a 50mm the last two summers I found myself having to step back all the time to get the shot, so my eyes must have got used to seeing around 35mm or so.

I know street photography by names, exhibitions, books and some rare online archives, like Arizona archive holding thousands of GW photos (I studied all of them).
Followed this route I asked and find by myself what 28mm is nowhere dominant in classic street photogaphy.
HCB used 50 and 35, with 90mm in the pocket as well.
Walker Evans - Americans - 50.
Elliot Erwitt - personal photos, often on the street - 50.
Joel Meyerowitz, Richard Kelvar, Emanuel Smague, Constantine Manos, Stella Johnson, Alex Webb, Lee Friedlander, David Allan Harvey, Robert Frank, Garcia Rodero, W. Eugene Smith, William Klein ( his NY shots), Koudelka used 35mm often.

Winogrand started with 50. Moved to 28 Canon LTM, then 21 became affordable to him, he admitted what it was matching his angle of view, but at 21 it was too difficult to control distortions and 21mm optics were applying too much of the visual effects.
Fred Herzog's band-aid man was taken with Nikkor 20, which he borrowed for one day.

28mm dominance started recently by digicams manufacturers. iPhone, CoolPixA, Fuji X80 and Ricoh GR II are 28mm FoV cameras.

I had 40mm lens, it was better than 50, but I returned to 35. I have 28mm and every time I'm using it, I want 21

 

[Nodda Duma]

Most modern 50’s are Double Gauss .. NOT Tessar

 

[blockend]

I

Followed this route I asked and find by myself what 28mm is nowhere dominant in classic street photogaphy.

It depends what you mean by "classic". Walker Evans was a great photographer but I wouldn't define him primarily as a street photographer, even his subway photographs are basically portraits. In my opinion SP has exhibited a widening of perspective over the years, which is partly technological and partly aesthetic. There are of course exceptions.

Technology continues to play a role. Look how many street photographs feature deep shadows since the advent of digital photography.

 

[Neil Grant]

In cinematography the standard focal length is calculated differently anyway.
Reason is the different angle under which the image is considered typically to be viewed.

...also the cine camera is by it's very nature '3d' - width, height and time. The camera can, and does, move. IIRC 25mm is regarded as being 'standard' focal length for 16mm 'movie'. Though this is about 2x the frame diagonal dimension. Wide-angle lenses (as we know them in still photography) are uncommon in movie-making partly because of 'disturbing' changes of perspective that occur when the camera is moved. Full-frame 35mm (24x36mm) is pretty close to 'Vista-Vision' dimensions.

 

[Neil Grant]

Now that you mentioned it, Zeiss Biotar was also a 58 mm lens and its crude copy, Soviet Helios-44 plagued 1/6th of the world with "normal" 58 mm. And we shouldn't forget M42 Takumar lenses with 55 mm focal length which are top notch. I'm talking about 55/1.8

...not sure about 'plagued' - my Helios 44-3 MC (58mm f/2) - does pretty well, and to use movie making terminology is standard fit on my 'crash-cam' - a Chinon Memotron CE.

 

[M-88]

...not sure about 'plagued' - my Helios 44-3 MC (58mm f/2) - does pretty well, and to use movie making terminology is standard fit on my 'crash-cam' - a Chinon Memotron CE.

When it's about soviet lenses, a lot depends on specific sample of lens. More so with Helios-44 than any other. I have three (44-2, 44M and 44M-4), of which only one delivers adequate results. So you never know.

 

[cliveh]

A 50mm lens on a 35mm camera is more aligned to Zen photography.