Has your "normal" vision lens changed over time?

B

Benjamin Marks

Veteran
Local time
7:02 AM
Joined
Mar 27, 2005
Messages
3,340
The lens that most closely matched my vision of the world used to a 50mm lens on 35mm film. Lately though, I find that my sense of things is "going wider" and I am increasingly reaching for a 35mm lens.

Has anyone else's "normal" lens changed over time? Any sense of why or how?

With curiosity,

Ben Marks
 
When I started I was using a 50mm because that's what I had available to me. I found I was always wanting to take a step back. 35mm as my main lens has been great so far, though 40mm would have worked too, probably.
 
I started with 50, then to 35. When I first got a 19 Canon forty years ago I liked it because of the strange things it did with perspective, but I wasn't using it as my every day carry around. Gradually I got more and more into "seeing 19mm", and when I first got a 15mm Heliar about four years back it was like I'd found home for the first time in my life! I hardly shoot with anything else these days, although I also have about everything else from 21mm to 400mm.
 
Last edited:
For many years a 35mm lens on a 35mm camera was my "standard" lens. It gave the subject more breathing space than the 50mm I had before (came with camera and was a lot cheaper than the 35mm).

Recently I got a Rolleicord with a 75mm lens. Depends how you do the conversion (diagonal angle, horizontal angle, printing on a fixed paper) this typically relates to a 40~50mm lens, definitely longer. I presently experience having a camera with a fixed and slightly longer lens as mixture out of challenge, handicap and encouragement.

Compared to my Contax the images are definitely different, they have something nostalgic, even when using modern emulsions (Provia, Astia, Velvia). There could be a number of reasons to this. The old Xenar (Tessar clone) lens with its strong centre performance and weaker corners. The lens is coated instead of multi-coated. The lower view point due to the waistlevel finder or the classical angle of view could be an important ingredience as well.

So back to the orig question, I am presently on a trip of using a longer lens.
 
Started with a 50mm f/1.8, yearned for a tele, then played with wide-angle for awhile (not much more than 28mm), and now I'm back to 50mm, which is really pretty ideal for me.
 
I started with a 50mm lens on my Barnacks years ago, but as soon as I got my first M I switched to 35mm and that's what I use most these days.
 
Yep, I have moved from 35mm to 28mm as my normal lens. And I find I am going wider a lot of the time.

I attribute that FOV change to be a desire to be closer to my subjects while photographing them. I just feel uncomfortable when that personal relationship with the subject gets diminished from having to stand too far away for quiet conversation.
 
It seems to be common that people start off with what they think is right then go wider. Since my One Camera One Lens Challenge I've become a serious fan of the 35mm focal length and have rediscovered two very fine 35mm lenses ... my Nokton and my Hexanon.

That said ... yesterday I spent a fair bit of time shooting with my OM-1 with my 85mm Zuiko on it and can't believe what a great combination that is. Maybe it's an SLR thing! :p
 
Last edited:
Ummm...I don't really know how to answer this one. It really depends on what you are shooting doesn't it? HCB never used anything BUT a 50mm. However, for different subjects, locations, etc. you may need a 15mm for indoor shots and a 90mm for portraits.

Again, I use 50mm to 200mm quite routinely. My walk-around is now my Summarit 50mm 1.5 and I am considering the 90mm 2.8. But a 35? I am not at all sure about a wider lens at this point but again, it all depends. Street photography? Close-up portraits? Landscapes?

Perhaps I will figure this out by the end of the year with the M3.
 
I've actually gone the other way. In the old fixed focal length days, I tended to have a Nikkor 35 on the camera most of the time. I had other lenses, but it seemed perfect. Over the years though I find myself wanting to isolate subjects from the environment more and more, and have gone to longer lenses. With the 24-70 or 70-200, I mostly find myself instinctively using the long focal length of the lens. The narrower perspective and ability to blur out the background is what I'm looking for. It's not trying to avoid close encounters with people, I'm often very close. I just like the look of photos taken with a longer lens better these days.
 
When using a wide angle lens for a while, I see the 50mm lens as too long, but when I use the 85mm lens for a while, the 50mm lens looks just perfect.


I have been using mostly a 50mm lens for the past few years, even though I use other focal length lenses here and there. I somehow find the 50mm "thinks" like I do.
 
started at 35mm P&S and then a DP&S with a widest of 38mm. i liked the 38mm better than the 35mm. sometimes it's hard for me to fill up a wide frame. now i use the Pentax 43mm, the "perfect" normal and it works great and only grab the wide (31mm) when i need it
 
I have used three basic focals

I have used three basic focals

The short answer is.... sort of.
Like most I started with the most common 50mm, I was fortunate enough to have some other choices for my Canon RF I also had a 35mm and a 135 my dad and uncle made. Later when I got my first SLR an Exacta VX500, paid with my own money, the kit lens was a 50mm. I had a little extra money so I also bought a 200mm Tele Quintar. This kit and a VX1000 got me through the 60's and in 72 I got a Pentax Spotmatic. The Pentax came with a great 50mm, cut the Exacta mount and converted the 200 to an M42 Screw mount. But for those years I had the two lenses I really missed the 35mm from the RF. I bought a 28 mm M42. I still use all the lenses today with my Canon EOS cameras, Primary lens is the 28mm.
 
I'd say that my definition of the "normal" or "go-to" focal length has expanded over time, which consitutes a change, definitely. I began, as so many have, using a 50-ish mm lens (the Nikkor 55 Micro), and had a difficult time coming to terms with the 35mm FOV - I tended to favor the 28 for a wide view. 35 seemed neither here nor there compared to the 50. A shift came when I stopped thinking of the 35 as a wide-angle lens and more a wider variation of "normal".

I now use both 35mm and 50mm lenses quite regularly, determined largely by my intended subjects. If I know I'll be shooting largely indoors, I tend to favor the 35; when outdoors, the 50 comes along. For each purpose, the accompanying lens really does feel "normal".

Also, were it not for the lack of readily available framelines, I'd probably just use a 40!


-J.
 
Like most I started with a normal 50mm and in the beginning wasn't a fan of the "Wide" lenses but gravitated toward the "Teles"...
Lately, I've come to truly love the 35mm as a normal shooting lens...
The Rangefinder that I have and use has a 4.2cm lens and I guess that has gotten me to go a bit wider than the 50mm on my SLR's and 35mm being the next normal lens in the Nikon Line-up I finally got one last year...I also have a 24mm that I sometimes forget is there and just last week picked up a 28mm...I'm going to give the 28mm a good run and see how I like it...
 
Here in the wide spaces of largely rural Canada, 50mm is my natural view. Last summer while on vacation in Europe, 35mm was more normal.
 
FrankS said:
Here in the wide spaces of largely rural Canada, 50mm is my natural view. Last summer while on vacation in Europe, 35mm was more normal.
Click to expand...


To some degree, this is what I meant in my comment above.

Europe is a 35mm place whereas the American West can be caught with a 50mm lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom