normal lenses

[John Koehrer]

Emil, as has already been pointed out, Leica started it. Zeiss-Ikon and Nagel copied Leica. That historical accident is the reason 35 mm cameras with 24 x 36 gates have 50 mm (or so) lenses as standard, but no one's explained the historical accident.

The Leica was initially conceived as an exposure test device for 35 mm cinema. The 35 mm cine camera's gate is 24 x 18 mm. That's the so-called Edison format and yes, T. A. Edison invented it. By convention -- set to gain working distance -- the "normal" focal length for 35 mm movies is ~ 50 mm. That's what Oscar Barnack used on his exposure tester. When the exposure tester grew into a camera that should double frame 35 mm (24 x 36) the 50 mm lens was retained.

This sounds so logical to me. A test device that mimics the device it's testing for.

Then let those who care for trivia try to reason it out.

 

[pen s]

When 35mm SLR's first started to grow in popularity in the late 50's early 60's ther were quite a few 'normal' lenses going longer. The 58mm focal length was sometimes perfered because with a 35mm SLR it gave a lifesize view through the viewfinder. And weren't there even a few 57mm lenses? Seems like Konica had one of those if I'm remembering right. (Not sure of that, my wife says I'm starting to 'remember' things that never happened)

 

[fotch]

Better pictures of people, help sell more or newer SLR cameras?

 

[Dan Fromm]

When 35mm SLR's first started to grow in popularity in the late 50's early 60's ther were quite a few 'normal' lenses going longer. The 58mm focal length was sometimes perfered because with a 35mm SLR it gave a lifesize view through the viewfinder. And weren't there even a few 57mm lenses? Seems like Konica had one of those if I'm remembering right. (Not sure of that, my wife says I'm starting to 'remember' things that never happened)

Stuff and nonsense. In those days fast (f/1.4 - f/2.0) normal lenses for 35 mm cameras were mainly 6/4 double Gauss types, sometimes slightly more complex variants. At the time no one had worked out how to make lenses of this type that performed well and weren't a little telephoto, i.e., didn't have back focus that was shorter than usual for their focal lengths. Until that problem was solved 35 mm SLRs had 57 and 58 mm fast "normal" lenses. It was that or lock the mirror up and forgo the SLR's advantage over rangefinder cameras.

Re 6/4 double Gauss types being somewhat telephoto, one of my treasures is a 4"/2.0 Taylor Hobson Anastigmat that was removed from a Vinten F 95 aerial camera. I use it on a 2x3 Speed Graphic, minimum flange-to-film distance 61.9 mm. The lens has to be mounted entirely in front of the lens board because it is too fat to pass through the lens throat. It makes infinity with roughly 2 mm to spare. Designers of lenses for 35 mm SLRs started with very similar designs.

 

[pen s]

Not 'stuff and nonsense' Mr. Fromm. Nowhere in my post did I comment on the reason they were a longer focal length, just that quite a few people pefered that longer FL because of the lifesize image. I am well aware that optical design evloved over time and that progress was made in reducing the intrusion into the mirror box of shorter focal length lenses. Even into the 1970's Such companies as Pentax had 55mm for f1.8 while the faster f1.4 lenses were already 50mm. In fact, even today Nikon has a premium 58mm f1.4 'long normal' in their catalog. At $1700 a bit spendy perhaps and I would think at that price they would not sell many but someone must want it.

 

[pen s]

Unintended double post.

 

[blockend]

Apropos of nothing, I find the Canon 40mm pancake a very interesting focal length on an APS-C sensor. Most will reckon 64mm ( with multiplication factor) neither here nor there, but it's excellent for portraits in confined spaces. I don't recall any 35mm camera lenses in the 65mm region, but it makes an excellent tight-normal length. Try it on a kit zoom.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Not 'stuff and nonsense' Mr. Fromm. Nowhere in my post did I comment on the reason they were a longer focal length, just that quite a few people pefered that longer FL because of the lifesize image.

Lifesize image on a 35 mm SLR's ground glass? Are you nuts? Whose kool aid have you been drinking? Few subjects will fit on the GG at life size.

As for larger image on GG than with a shorter lens, well, yeah, sure, but the size of the image on the GG is affected by finder optics as well as by the lens' focal length. Except for waist-level finders where the GG is viewed directly.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Lifesize image on a 35 mm SLR's ground glass? Are you nuts? Whose kool aid have you been drinking? Few subjects will fit on the GG at life size.

As for larger image on GG than with a shorter lens, well, yeah, sure, but the size of the image on the GG is affected by finder optics as well as by the lens' focal length. Except for waist-level finders where the GG is viewed directly.

I think what Mr. S is referring to is the size of the image in the viewfinder matching the size of the scene as viewed with the naked eye.
And I always seem to be using that little flip up magnifier when using a WLF, be it on my Rollei or my now gone Exakta...

 

[Dan Fromm]

Emil, thanks for the clarification. Ignorant barbarian that I am, I'm not sensitive to that.

 

[baachitraka]

It may be discussed already here, may I know why manufacturers do not put 100% coverage and 1.0 magnification on the view finder. For example, OM-1n come close but not 100%. Do wide angles have any influence on their decision?

 

[E. von Hoegh]

It may be discussed already here, may I know why manufacturers do not put 100% coverage and 1.0 magnification on the view finder. For example, OM-1n come close but not 100%. Do wide angles have any influence on their decision?

Nikon F and F2 have 100% coverage, so do some others.

 

[Lamar]

Konica-Hexanon 40mm f/1.8 AR mount's are everywhere and their actual focal length is reportedly between 42 and 43mm.. I get really nice results on my AutoReflexes; I believe it was the kit lens for for several bodies. Here is a link the the lens page. http://www.buhla.de/Foto/Konica/Objektive/e40_18.html

And there are a couple of shots with it I posted on the Konica group here on apug, last two to be specific. (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[eggen]

I use OM-system cameras and one of my favourite lens is Zuiko 40/2. I "found" this lens about 10 years ago and it is all the time with me. I like the angle if view, 56 degrees.
At the time I bought it the price was 120 euros in Finland. Nowadays much more.

 

[AgX]

It may be discussed already here, may I know why manufacturers do not put 100% coverage and 1.0 magnification on the view finder. For example, OM-1n come close but not 100%. Do wide angles have any influence on their decision?

The commonly reported reason for less than 100% coverage is to compensate for cropping due to mounting a transparency in a slide-mount.
I do not find this very convincing. Tolerance in manufacture may be another reason.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

The commonly reported reason for less than 100% coverage is to compensate for cropping due to mounting a transparency in a slide-mount.
I do not find this very convincing. Tolerance in manufacture may be another reason.

Getting exactly 100% isn't as simple as it might sound.
Also, most commercial photofinishing - especially printing a 2x3 ratio to say 4x5 or 5x7 ratios - loses more or less of the edges.

 

[Xmas]

Konica-Hexanon 40mm f/1.8 AR mount's are everywhere and their actual focal length is reportedly between 42 and 43mm.. I get really nice results on my AutoReflexes; I believe it was the kit lens for for several bodies. Here is a link the the lens page. http://www.buhla.de/Foto/Konica/Objektive/e40_18.html

And there are a couple of shots with it I posted on the Konica group here on apug, last two to be specific. (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Yes I have one to, but it is not a normal double Gauss design and Konica got a patent for the variation. It is an optical pancake.

normal double Gauss 1(2/3)(45)6 of the period
Konica pancake 1(3/2)(45)6

they got a patent for swapping the positions of two elements! It was still easy to make for superb performance the air gaps were smaller.

If it is cheaper making a 55 mm /1.4 would you buy a dearer 45mm /1.4 lens - design was never about quality but about production engineering and marketing. Lenses have got cheaper cause the glass catalogue has improved as well as the production techniques.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Another 45mm which I don't think has been mentioned is the Canon 45/2.8 TS-E, and Nikon has a 45/2.8 PC lens as well. Having the Canon, I don't feel inclined to own a 50mm lens. My "normal" when shooting 35mm tends to be a Zeiss 35/2.0 ZS.

 

[q_x]

Smena 8M comes with something like 40mm triplet called T-43.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Smena 8M comes with something like 40mm triplet called T-43.

...and we know why
sqrt of 24|^2+36^2=43.3

 

[elekm]

I don't recall any 35mm camera lenses in the 65mm region, but it makes an excellent tight-normal length. Try it on a kit zoom.

Some of the macro/micro/makro lenses come close to that, often in the 55mm-60mm territory. And they can be used as so-called normal lenses, although they often are several stops slower than the 50mm lenses that most of us have.

I rather like the f/2.0 45mm lens for the Minolta system, but the one thing that I don't like is its close focusing distance, which is much larger than you would expect for an SLR.

 

[gone]

I'm pretty sure there is no normal. It's just a convenient term. People's eye sets differ in their skulls. Some have wide set eyes, some have eyes that are close together. This will affect what would be considered their "normal" view. Unless we're talking about what someone would see w/ one eye closed (like a camera lens), but it's not normal to look at things that way.

 

[AstroZon]

I agree with momus, standard will differ depending on the person - plus we filter out a lot of what we see peripherally anyway.

Early Japanese SLRs used 55mm as standard lenses. It was only in the late 70s that the 50mm came into common usage as the standard lens (likely cost related.) I like 55s in general and personally think of them as standard. Maybe that's how I see.

 

[thuggins]

42mm is the most common size on Olympus rangefinders and viewfinders. A few went a bit wider at 40mm, a handful wider still (Most notably the XA's), and a couple 45mm's. There is no Olympus RF/VF that I'm aware of with a 50mm lens. Perhaps the most famous lens of the OM series was the 40mm pancake - it was Y. Maitani's personal favorite.

 

[dynachrome]

My first slr standard lens was the 57/1.4 Konica Hexanon. Even though many years have passed since then and I have a number of systems, a 50 still seems a little wide to me. Canon's manual focus SLRs have a relatively short film to flange distance and Canon started with a 50mm standard lens from the beginning. If you include macro lenses in the normal range then the longest obvious ones were the 60mm Leica SLR and Zeiss (Yashica/Contax) models. I also had my father's Konica Auto S1.6 with the 45mm lens. I have a number of 40/1.8 Konica Hexanons and I like them. Why did Konica supply this a a kit lens? I don't think it was to show off their lens designing abilities. Camera companies were still in the mood to downsize cameras and lenses. Most people date this to the 1972 Olympus M-1 (later OM-1). I date it to the introduction of the Fujica ST-701.

Apart from my fixed lens rangefinder cameras with their shorter-than-50 lenses I have other short ones. These include two different 45/2.8 GN Nikkors, the already mentioned 40/1.8 Hexanons and a 45/2 Rokkor. These lenses might be a little more popular but there are many zoom lenses which cover these focal lengths. The zooms don't always render lines as straight as a prime lens so they aren't as suitable for architectural work. The change from 6 element f/1.4 standard lenses to 7 element models took a while and not all companies made the change at the same time. The Canon 50/1.4 FL II is from 1968. Konica did not go from the six element 57/1.4 to the seven element 50/1.4 until 1973. If my timeline is right Minolta went from the six element 58/1.4 to the seven element 501.4 in 1973. The older six element designs are usually technically not as good but sometimes have more pleasing out of focus rendition. This is also true of the comparison between the older 58/1.2 Rokkor and the newer 50/1.2. Illumination over the whole area of the format was usually also better with the newer design. When it comes to standard lenses slower than f/1.4 the older design could still be excellent, with improvements coming mostly in coatings.

For me, a lens in the 40-45 range is not quite as attractive as a 35 but if it's smaller and lighter than a lens in the 50-60 range it can be nice to use outside and in good light.