The more I shoot with my 35 mm Cron or my V/C 25 mm the more I feel the 50 mm is actually a short tele, and not at all a so-called «normal» lens. But why didn't I notice it before, when I shot almost exclusively with 50 mm's? Is it just before I didn't question it? Or is it because I never shot with wider angles? Anybody feels the same?

-- Olivier Reichenbach (olreiche@videotron.ca), May 30, 2002

Answers

Try shooting with a 12 for awhile and then a 21 will feel like a lens for a tight crop.

-- John Collier (jbcollier@shaw.ca), May 30, 2002.

Don't forget that the 35mm is a wide angle lens, complete with every characteristic of a wide lens for the 24x36 format negative, including unnatural size proportions between objects in the frame. It is NOT a normal lens, although it seems to work for most people as a normal lens, i.e. cropping, etc. in a pinch. The 50mm is the closest length considered normal, which makes it the most difficult lens to use in my opinion because it is the most transparent in the result, i.e. the viewer doesn't see those stretchy (wide) or compressed (tele) artifacts.

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@mail.com), May 30, 2002.

From my limited knowledge of optics, anything much shorter than 50mm on the 35mm format has to be a retrofocus lens design in order to fill the frame, which makes things appear farther away than they normally appear to the eye. Even though the 35mm lens may give a more useful angle of view, this pushed-away spatial perspective makes it seem un-normal. That's the main reason I love the 50mm so much - there's no "lens-look" to it. Now maybe if the film plane were curved, like the back of your eyeball...

-- Tod Hart (g_t_hart@lycos.com), May 30, 2002.

Olivier: All the scientific analysis aside, I agree wholeheartedly with your assesment: With the Leica M, 35 is normal, 28 is a wide, and 50 is a short tele... In actual use it just works out that way.

Cheers,

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), May 30, 2002.

It's not the lens, it's the !@#$%$#@ Frame lines. They're so grossly undersized that the 35mm lines seem more like normal FOV than the 50. If one prints his own negatives, he'll soon realize how much extraneous material should have been cropped in the camera.

-- Bill (bmitch@comcast.net), May 30, 2002.

I think Tod used the best word when he mentioned "perspective". Both the 40mm and 90mm, the two closest focal lengths I have that bracket my 50s, show some departure in the images from that which my eye considers "normal".

However, I suppose if one rarely used a 50 over a WA lens, a 35mm would gradually become "normal" to them. Probably the reverse might be true for Tele users also.

Kind of reinforces that six decades of being around have taught me that "normal" is a subjective word.

Best,

Jerry

-- Jerry Pfile (Jerry Pfile@MSN.com), May 30, 2002.

I'll go along with Bill. Shoot with an SLR or even a Contax G2 and there's no way you'll ever mistake a 35 for a "normal" lens or a 50 for a short tele.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), May 30, 2002.

Okay, let's analyze. Anormal lens is one whose focal length matches the diagonal measurement of the film format. For the 135 format, this is 43mm. So, a 43mm lens would be 'normal' making a 50 long- focus lens, albeit only slightly.

But wait, there's more. Do you use the full Leica frame, or crop to an 8x10 proportion? If the latter, then you are using a 24x30mm segment of the negative. The diagonal would then be 38mm. That would make the normal lens 38mm, too. The 35mm lens would then be the closest available match. Comparatively, the 50mm is almost a tele!

I think this helps explain why a 35mm can be the best "normal" lens for some photographers.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), May 30, 2002.

Olivier, I've experienced the same sort of impression after using the 35mm lens exclusively for a period of time. It seems also likely to me, that the rangefinder adjusts the "psychology of seeing" differently than the "optical conduit" of the SLR - I've never felt the 50 to be a short tele when using reflexes. I think that certain individuals may be particularly aware of the character of different perspectives, or perhaps different individuals have a different sense of what "normal" perspective means to them. I certainly don't believe in the rules - I've seen too many wonderful examples of really fine work that didn't follow the recommended path.

-- Art Waldschmidt (afwaldschmidt@yahoo.com), May 30, 2002.

The best lens combo to use: 35mm Summicron and a 50mm Summicron.

-- chris a williams (LeicaChris@worldnet.att.net), May 30, 2002.

I find the same thing most of the time but for a specific reason. When I shoot people on the street (full body), I find that if I use a 50mm, the facial features of a person on an 8x10 blow up are just barely recognizable and distiguishable. Not that they aren't sharp, but they don't seem to have the defining detail that shows character.

But using a 35mm lens, I can capture them much closer, still get a full body shot plus a little and get good detail in the face to capture expression, heavy wrinkles, direction of the eyes, etc. For me, that's "normal". Until I recognize that amount of detail in a person's face, I don't really "process" them or notice them.

For shots other than people, all bets are off, but I shoot mostly people, so I guess that's why I consider a 35mm more "normal".

-- Bob (bobflores@attbi.com), May 31, 2002.

Todd: some corrections:

"anything much shorter than 50mm on the 35mm format has to be a retrofocus lens design in order to fill the frame"

Only true of SLR lenses, NOT most rangefinder lenses. SLR wideangles need to be 'retro' to clear the 45mm of mirror behind them - RF wides do not.

"which makes things appear farther away than they normally appear to the eye"

Actually, retrofocus lenses don't make things look any farther away than a 'non'-retrofocus lens of the same focal length - shoot a picture with a Leica 35mm summicron-R (retrofocus design) and a 35mm Summicron- M (non-retrofocus design) and they will look just the same in the final print - except the random variations that any two different designs might show. You certainly will not be able to say "Hah, this must have been shot with the R lens - everything looks farther away!" Ah garawntee.

Not to dump on Todd: most up what turns up in these "what's the 'normal' lens" threads is religious in nature - closely held personal beliefs with little factual or scientific support in reality.

And as the psalmodist sang - "it ain't necessarily so"

The overall human field of vision is closer to a fisheye than anything else. I can see my fingertip moving at about 80 degrees out to each side of my head (160 degrees total).

If you take the part where I can see things sharply, it's about like a 400mm (or longer). (Stare at the word 'can' in the line above without moving your eyes and you can not READ any words beyond 'where' and 'things' - you can SEE them, but not read them)

The notions that any arbitrarily chosen 'field' between those extremes (15mm-400mm) is THE NORMAL HUMAN FIELD OF VIEW as handed down by holy writ or anu other source is just plain silly.

The vast majority of fixed-focal-length P&Ss have 38mm lenses. Barnack chose the 50. The first SLRs often had 55s, and some people claim their 60mm macros are 'normals'. That's a 160% varation.

Any engineers out there? - Tell us, how reliable do YOU consider a process that allows a 160% variation in output to 'count' as 'normal' (i.e. 'within specs')?

Shoot what you want, believe what you want - just don't come on like Moses with the Tablets - 'cause NO focal length has ever been engraved in stone as 'normal'.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), May 31, 2002.

Olivier,
Could your experience relate to DOF rather than perspective?
Before I got my Leica w. a 50mm I almost never used a 50mm on my SLR.
A 35mm was my preferred lens, and while its perspective is wider than my perception of normal, the depth of field of the 35mm appeared closer to the way I see things normally.
If you, like many Leica users do, tend to shoot close to wide open, the 50mm will have a very selective focus, and the photographs will look 'tele-like'.
Necessity (the 50mm being my only Leica lens) has made me rediscover the unique qualities of this focal length. By careful aperture control I feel I get 2 lenses in one.

-- Niels H. S. Nielsen (nhsn@ruc.dk), May 31, 2002.

Bob - "A normal lens is one whose focal length matches the diagonal measurement of the film format."

I respect your opinions AND your pictures - but again this is 'conventional wisdom' that has no support. "Sez who?"

The only 'explanations' I've ever seen to justify the 'film diagonal' theory end up being circular.

Start

"What's the normal lens for a 4x5"

"A 150mm"

"Why"

"Because it equals the length of the format diagonal."

"And who decided that a lens the length of the film diagonal is the correct focal length for a 'normal' lens?"

"No one - it just IS!"

"How do you know?

"Because every one knows the normal focal-length lens folr 4x5 IS a 150, and it matches the film diagonal."

(Go back to 'Start' and repeat ad infinitum)

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), May 31, 2002.

Actually, though - just to contradict myself (I am allowed to contradict myself? No?)....

Anyone ever read THE PHANTOM TOLLBOOTH?

The child-hero, Milo, comes upon a little house in the woods and stops to ask for directions.

On the door is a sign - "THE GIANT". He knocks, and a very normal-sized young man opens the door. "Are you the giant?" asks Milo. "You don't LOOK like a giant!".

"I am the world's smallest giant." responds the young man.

"Oh" says Milo, and asks for directions.

"I don't know the answer," says the Giant. "You'd better go around back and ask the Midget."

So Milo goes around to the back of the house, where there is a door marked "THE MIDGET". And knocks. And (you guessed it) a very normal young man, who looks VERY MUCH like the GIANT, opens the door.

"Are you the midget?" asks Milo. "You don't look like a midget."

"I am the world's TALLEST midget." responds the young man. "Now what was your question?"

In this sense I can accept the 50 as the 'most normal' lens. Because, depending on the f/stop you choose, it can indeed be both "The world's longest wide-angle" and "the world's shortest telephoto" - i.e. normal.

In my 50 Elmar days my IIIC gave half frames at speeds above 1/250th - so I did a lot of shooting at 1/250 and f/22 (Tri-x). Those shots, with depth-of-field from 4 feet to quasi-infinity (actually about 25 feet) looked very much like they'd been shot with a 35.

Later on, in my Canon SLR days, I lacked a short tele, but shot many 'tele'-like portraits with a 50 f/1.4 wide open. Nice soft backgrounds just like a 75 or 85.

So what Olivier is seeing - just like Milo - is one side of the 50mm normal lens - the telephoto side. Go around to the back of the house (at f/22) and you'll find a wide-angle.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), May 31, 2002.

Getting back to yesterday's survey results, where I said that I often thought 35 and 50 are favoured equally my many of us, that proof there (cronwise 12 to 12) is of course a total of us participants taken together.

Now, to make a long story short -- maybe for a new survey? -- the real question would be "how many of you use a 35 just as often as a 50?".

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), May 31, 2002.

Yes, you guessed it, it's all personal taste how you see the world.

I like the 50. It is totally underrated. For years, other focal lengths were harder to make (even a 35 was a struggle), so when wide-angles did finally arrive en masse everyone dismissed the poor old 50 as boring, which isn't fair at all. I agree that many shots could be improved by cropping out extraneous detail. Hence I prefer a longer focal length lens. Sometimes a wider one will help.

So why not a zoom? Useful sometimes, as in my old Olympus, but concentrating on one at a time concentrates the mind. Hopefully, and on a good day.

-- David Killick (Dalex@inet.net.nz), May 31, 2002.

Ahhh...who cares, gimme the 35 any day cause it's more useful to me in more situations. I don't look at slides and say, "this looks funny!" Looks "normal" to me : )

-- James (snodoggydogg@hotmail.com), May 31, 2002.

From the archives... my 35mm and 50mm observations.

Click

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), May 31, 2002.

There is something about what Andy says, but I do think that 35-40-50 give a perspective that is near to what most people's brain would suggest is "normal". The point about vision is that it has both panoramic and telephoto aspects so is impossible to reproduce exactly with a single shot. I can say, however, that I certainly do not see like a 21mm lens - although I do take pictures with one.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), May 31, 2002.

I just spent a week in NYC with my 35 and 90 (left the 50 at home). I used the 35 for the most part while in NYC. I was frustrated though, the 35 took in too much "environment" and the 90 was too tight. Many times I wish I had just taken the 50 and left the 35 and 90 at home. I've been home for a week and the 50 is now living on my camera. Aaah...

-- Ken Geter (kgeter@yahoo.com), May 31, 2002.

Sorry about the length of the previous rants - too much "Code Red" Mountain Dew!

One additional talking point - take the proverbial 'film diagonal' definition - which equals 42mm.

35mm x 1.2 = 42mm 42mm x 1.2 = 50.4mm

So the 35 and 50 are equally distant - proportionally - from 'normal' - especially if you factor in the usual variations in true focal length (some 50s are 51.6mm, some 35s are 36mm)

No wonder the debate will never end...!

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), May 31, 2002.

I'm STILL trying to get used to the 40mm focal length on my Rollei 35.....not wide enough for general use, but not long enough for some shots! (Good posts, Andy!)

-- Todd Phillips (toddvphillips@webtv.net), May 31, 2002.

Anddy:

Perhaps "retrofocus" wasn't the correct term for what I was describing, so let me use your 4x5 example to elaborate. Instead of "normal", let's define a lens design which is neither "wide-angle" (retrofocus as I meant it) nor telephoto as a "conventional" design. Any lens will produce a circular image, the diameter of which will vary with the lens design and focal length. I believe (someone will correct me if I'm wrong) that a "conventional" lens will produce an image with a diameter equal to its focal length, when focused at infinity. So in theory, a 150mm lens will produce a 150mm diameter image. Since the 4x5 negative has a diagonal length of 150mm, this will fill the frame.

Now lets switch to a 90mm lens. A "conventional" design 90mm would produce an image 90mm in diameter. Since we're talking about a 4x5, there's no mirror, no concerns about a fixed flange to film distance - we just mount the lens and compress the bellows until the image is in focus. And we're left with a 90mm circular image in the middle of a 4x5 inch negative. So in order to fill the frame, the lens design has to be adjusted from a "conventional" one to one which I referred to as "retrofocus", but which I'll now refer to as "wide-angle" design. This allows the lens to retain its 90mm-ness and still produce an image large enough to fill the 4x5 frame.

As for the 35mm lens on a 35mm camera, this is the same, regardless of whether it's on an M rangefinder or an R SLR. A "conventional" design 35mm lens simply wouldn't fill the frame. To do that requires employing this "wide-angle" lens design. Such a design has an effect similar to looking through binoculars backwards. It makes things appear farther away. So I'm inclined to think of a "normal" lens as the "conventional" lens design which will fill just the frame.

As for why the 50 was Barnack's choice, I once read an article by Norman Goldberg in either Modern Photography or Popular Photography years ago. He interviewed a Leitz engineer on just this subject. I've long since lost track of that issue, but one quote I remember was the engineer's comment, "Every mm less than 50 represents a compromise the designer is forced to make." If true, since the Leica evolved long before computer design programs, lens coatings and lots of other tools modern lens makers have, it's not surprising the 50 became the "standard" since it required the fewest design compromises. Why this threshold is 50 and not 43, I don't know, but while the diagonal of a 24x36mm rectangle is 43mm, the diagonal of a 36x36mm **square** is 50mm. Maybe coincidence, maybe related.

None of this has anything to do with which focal length is most useful to any given photographer for any given purpose. If I were into photographing wild grizzly bears, I'd probably consider anything shorter than 600mm too short.

Kind regards

-- Tod Hart (g_t_hart@lycos.com), May 31, 2002.

Good question, Neils.But I'm not sure. Yesterday I was street shooting some teenagers having their caricature drawn by a street artist. They were having a ball, and I was standing right there, leaning on a wall, about 6 feet from them, just peering over the top on my camera from time to time (I can't focus with my right eye, unfortunately), and just quickly focusing and triggering (on AE with a M7) with my 35 Cron and some 400 ISO B&W. I had the feeling that I was absorbing the whole ever changing scene, the painter, the girl sitting on the stool, the friends behind, watching and laughing, just like my naked eyes did. Then I decided to put my 50 mm on. All of a sudden, everything went slower and quieter. I was looking for a detail, a hand, an eye, a bag, two close faces... Yes, I felt I was isolating things much more, but through tighter framing, not DOF. I kept the aperture as small as possible anyway (come to think of it now, I wonder why.) Strange as it may sound, the 35 was like a film with the music and dialogue and effects, but the 50 had muted the sound. That was a strange shooting experience. Now, let's see the resulting negs. Thanks.

-- Olivier (olreiche@videotron.ca), May 31, 2002.