Has your "normal" vision lens changed over time?

50 -> 35 -> 20. My normal is easily 35, but at times the 20 plays normal. 50s rarely get used these days.
 
It hasn't really changed over time, but I've been experimenting a bit with other focal lenghts. As a kid, I learned photography with my mother's Olympus Trip 35. When I started college, I bought my first SLR with 50mm "standard lens". I then added a 24mm wide angle and 105mm telelens and have been photographing with this kit for over 20 years. 50mm seemed like the closest thing to a standard, or was it?

Just recently, I picked up the Olympus Trip 35 again and all of a sudden everything falls back into place. 40mm is the way I have been learning photography and it just is the way I see things. A little bit wider than 50mm but still very close to standard. I had always wondered why on occasions I needed to take a step back with the 50mm, now I know.

Right now my favourite lenses are the 45mm in Nikon F mount and 35mm in Nikon S mount. But the Olympus 40mm feels just right.
 
I would have to say yes, I started with 50's being my great love and then I started working a lot with 28's and then when I went back to my 50's I had a hard time getting my mind around how tele they seemed, and now I walked around with a 35 and found its pretty nice......I go through phases I guess.
 
Like just about everyone else, I started with a 50mm then for years moved down to 35mm and 28mm but lately have been using my Voigtlander Prominent for which I only have a 50mm lens. It's like rediscovering an old friend and is now once again my normal vision lens.
 
I started with 50 on an AE-1, had a long term realtionship with the 85 1.8 (which continues on a regular basis on the dslrs) and then went wider with the rf. Now I find 35 on the rf and 50 on the slr to be home, with occasional excursions.

Strangely, I shot a roll with the voigt 15 the other week when it came and sson that felt normal too!!

Mike
 
went from 50 to 28 in college, then on to 17
took some good images, however
for some time have used zooms.

now i'm back using a rangefinder
i'm using 28, or 35 mostly.
i think i feel most comfortable in general
somewhere between the 2.
 
Yeah starting with a Nikon FG 50 + 135mm (both lenses Nikon E), being very interested in teles ("great to drag things closer) I got a f4/70-210mm Zoom . Wideangles where no option for a long time as I di much available light an 28mm/3.5 was too dark for the focussing screen.......zoom forward 20 years and suddenly a 35mm/f 2 was available. Being lured into Bessas I quickly changed to 35mm there.
 
50mm isn't so much "normal" as versatile. It seems to have the weird property that it can work as a short telephoto and still be wide enough for most of the things I want to do.

However I have recently been using a 28 a bit and found myself thinking that I really need to get hold of a 35. I think I could probably live with a 35 or a 50.

I see a Biogon in my future.
 
Pretty much the same story here. I started with a 50 on my dad's IIIf. When I bought my first Leica, I wanted a 35 instead. The 35 became my normal lens for years, and in a way I guess it still is. But now I find it a bit restrictive, and tend to get more use out of a 28mm, or even 24/25mm. My widest lens is currently a 15mm. But that is too wide for most things. 24mm is as wide as I generally need.
 
peripatetic said:
50mm isn't so much "normal" as versatile. It seems to have the weird property that it can work as a short telephoto and still be wide enough for most of the things I want to do.

However I have recently been using a 28 a bit and found myself thinking that I really need to get hold of a 35. I think I could probably live with a 35 or a 50.

I see a Biogon in my future.
Click to expand...
----------
speaking of 28mm. i still find it problematic using w/the m6.
can't really get an idea of the image, because of the lines being so close to the end of frame.

does the external viewfinder, (voighlander 28) really help?
 
I had an interesting experience this morning. I got invited to a brunch at a fancy restaurant in an upscale mall ~ about 15 people ~ and the hostess asked me to shoot a few pix with her Nikon DSLR, zoom, auto exposure, autofocus, hardly what I'm used to. I chimped a couple of shots to see how wide the lens was, how the camera reacted when shooting in strong backlight (it did well, but used the built-in flash) , and how the LCD image correlated with the viewfinder coverage (the LCD was wider).

I guestimate the wide angle setting on the zoom was about equal to a 35mm lens on film, and just left it there. I never chimped. The shutter release button was way too far forward and the smoothly rounded contours of the poorly balanced plastic body didn't lend itself to one handed shooting. I made the rounds of the room four times during the two hour brunch. I never did see the pictures myself but the hostess said that they were "Just what I wanted!" when she reviewed them.

The 35mm viewpoint rocks! Perfect coverage for events of that sort. It was difficult explaining to people why I didn't check my pictures as I went along. I told them that I was used to not checking them until the next day...LOL I still haven't seen them.
 
"It takes some extra work, but eventually you will be at a point when you realize that it always had been the 50mm view that you were trying to attain."

by Confucius-Amino-Philosopherous


I dug up these words in some book of life.
 
I started with 38mm (Konica C35), then 50mm (F.Zuiko "silver nose" 1.8), then G.Zuiko 35/2.8, which became my standard for many years. Now I am comfortable with 35, 42 (Oly 35SP) and 50/1.4.

Having recently acquired the fabulous Zuiko 50/3.5 Macro, I will probably use it a lot, but I am also going to get to know the 35 again.
 
Last edited:
When I started back in the mid-fifties every one used a 50 and a 135 or a 90. Those were my lenses for a very long time. When I went Nikon SLR I got the 35 and liked it but it just wasn't "right". Upon going with OM-4 I got a 28 f2 and this was it! Just the way I see and perfect for 90% of all my shooting. I now select it as my "go to" lens.
 
I've also noticed that as the years went by I discovered that slightly overweight women with a touch of grey were starting to look a lot sexier!
 
I suspect my normal focal length is 40mm

25 years ago, when using a 28-85 on my OM-2n as my main lens, I did some statistics and found out that the majority of my pics where taken around 40mm.

Nowadays I feel very comfortable with my M-Rokkor 40 or the Olympus 35RC (42 mm)
 
I started out with a 35mm lens, my 'normal' lens, with 28mm and 40mm as alternative FOV's that I've learned to use over time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom