Are you a 50mm lover?

[chuckroast]

You're a riot! Next you're going to tell us that the earth revolves around the sun!

The earth revolves around whatever it is told to by SWMBO.

But seriously, "normal" is also about what we're accustomed to, and for a very long time that has overwhelmingly been the look of a 50mm. When I was coming of age in photography, in the sixties, it was very rare to see anything shot with a lens shorter than 35mm, and one had to be wealthy indeed to afford the 21mm that is now your "natural" choice. As extreme lenses have become more widely used and available, their look has also come to seem more normal. But whatever works best for you, is best!

First, I would note that would you say is true about 35mm photography and we recognize this because the majority of photography taken from the 1950s through the age of digital was on that format. But shorter- and longer lenses were established in larger formats well before this, and in fairly common use. For example, notwithstanding the nominal diagonal rule - 4x5 shooters regularly shot with 90mm, 127mm, and 210mm lenses in the face of a "normal" diagonal of 156mm. (To this day, the 127mm and 207mm Ektars found so commonly on 4x5 Graphics are among the finest lenses ever made.)

I shoot some stuff where I want to show size, splendor, or large context - the 21mm does that nicely.

I shoot other things where I want to just what I see in the moment, with just enough context to declare why I think its interesting - the 35mm does that consistently.

I tend to shoot some things like abstracts where I want isolation of the subject from its context - a 90ish mm (or longer, depending on camera system) does this well.

IOW, how I want the subject to be seen - not just how I see in the moment - determines my focal length of choice. And, yes, there are times when a 50mm is "just right" for that.

There is no normal, there is only how you interact with the environment you want to photography and what you want to say.

N.B. In our sister arts there is little or no discussion of "normal paint brush size", or "normal time signature", or "normal sculpture size".

 

[Coldkennels]

N.B. In our sister arts there is little or no discussion of [...] "normal time signature"

...4/4 would like a word.

I'm being flippant, but 4/4 is arguably to pop, punk, and rock what 50mm is to "full frame" or 35mm-film-based photography. I'm not sure what that makes 3/4 time in this analogy, though.

 

[chuckroast]

...4/4 would like a word.

I'm being flippant, but 4/4 is arguably to pop, punk, and rock what 50mm is to "full frame" or 35mm-film-based photography. I'm not sure what that makes 3/4 time in this analogy, though.

what about 6/8, hmmmmmm


4/4 is the simplest time signature and thus attractive to these rather simple musical genres. the 50mm isnt particularly simpler to use than other focal lengths

 

[jaredangle]

I am definitely a huge fan of normal lenses, including but not limited to 50mm. If I can only take one body and one lens, it’s usually one of those.

My current lineup:

Voigtlander 40mm f/1.4 MC
Zeiss 45mm f/2 (Contax G)
Nikon 50mm f/1.2 AIS
Voigtlander 50mm f/1.1
Mamiya 110mm f/2.8

The only thing I feel like I’m missing at this point is something in the 55-58mm range. Nikon and Voigtlander each make a 55mm f/1.2 and 58mm f/1.4 for Nikon F (albeit with different characteristics), and there are also the Helios lenses which would look interesting adapted to mirrorless.