Shooting with a 35mm lens vs 50mm

[ferider]

Some lens trivia

Some lens trivia

The following helps me in picking the lens I want to use. Maybe it will help others too ?

Cheers,

Roland.

 

[Scrambler]

The following helps me in picking the lens I want to use. Maybe it will help others too?

Cheers,

Roland.

Neat.

A 21mm has a 90 degree angle of view - also fairly easy to pre-vis.

 

[tunalegs]

It does happen that if you sit/stand/view at the same relative position as the lens node you will have the same perspective that the camera did. But this is true of all focal lengths.

Here's the interesting thing: people in general, when viewing an image tend to view it from a distance roughly equal to the diagonal of that image. That's just what they do. Why? Because for the human eye's angle of view, that distance allows one to comfortably take in the whole image without having to move their head or eyes around.

Watch people looking at paintings in an art museum for instance. They get closer to the smaller ones. Hand them a post card and they hold it up to their face (assuming they don't have eye problems).

And that being the case, in order to present an image with a "natural" perspective for the viewer, the lens also needs to give a similar angle of view to the human eye. That's where normal comes from.

 

[Scrambler]

Here's the interesting thing: people in general, when viewing an image tend to view it from a distance roughly equal to the diagonal of that image. That's just what they do.

Please give a reference.

Googling turned up this: http://www.m-media.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Image-Size-VS-Viewing-Distance.pdf which has some interesting math that is used here http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/17835/how-to-calculate-viewing-distance-for-a-print-size to work out the pixel density required for a print.

The only useful advice on viewing distance was 4 x height for critical/ analytical viewing and 8x height for passive. For passive viewing, then, that is about 4x the diagonal and for critical/ analytical viewing about 2x the diagonal.

 

[jubbaa]

35mm for me . I find 50mm too tight for my work - streets and environmental portraits.

 

[daveleo]

 

[Ranchu]

I'm still trying to understand why you think people have to look at an image diagonally for it to be normal.

Here's that post again, tunalegs.

Here is a thing, people say 43mm is the real 'normal' focal length because that's the distance of the diagonal of the 24x36mm frame. By that logic, 36mm is the real normal focal length because nobody looks at pictures diagonally. Almost nobody.

 

[Ansel]

The following helps me in picking the lens I want to use. Maybe it will help others too ?

Cheers,

Roland.

This is very interesting. Particularly the first image. I recently cropped a 35mm image exactly like that, wishing it was taken with a 50mm lens!

 

[raid]

You cannot crop a 50mm image into a 35mm image, though.

 

[Roger Hicks]

For a rational look at how focal length, print size and viewing distance are related, and what looks "natural", see http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps perspective 1.html

'Magic distance' can be explained, we are convinced, with a (relatively) simple mathematical argument. It happens when the angle subtended at the eye by every single element in the picture is similar to the angle that was subtended at the camera by the object itself.

If 'angle subtended' has escaped your memory since your schooldays, do not worry. It is a simple concept. Imagine a person standing six or seven feet/two metres away. Draw an imaginary line from the top of their head to your eye. Now draw another imaginary line from the soles of their feet to your eye. This is the angle subtended. In this example, it will be about 50 degrees. For a person standing twice as far away, it will be about 25 degrees. (These are very rough figures).

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

And for between format comparisons, the final cropped image size is useful. E.g. if you know you are going to print 8x10m "landscape", it's the comparative size of the cropped portion of the image that is important, not the bits hanging out the side (for 35mm) or top and bottom (square format). This gives slightly different comparison focal lengths between formats to the ones commonly used (as described in Wikipedia).

Whatever the best definition is, camera manufacturers from the early 20th century (at least) used FL=image diagonal for the lenses used on fixed-lens still cameras. The Leica is possibly the first significant exception, and that was almost certainly due to the availability of a nearly suitable cinema lens already in inventory.

Still cameras, maybe. But "standard" cine lenses were almost invariably "long" (as compared with the image diagonal), because of viewing distances.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

The whole thing about the "natural viewing distance" being the same as the image diagonal applies only to the finished print. We don't look at a print from a 35mm negative at a distance of two inches/50 mm.But if it's enlarged (say) 6x, we might well look at it from 12 inches/30 cm. Ignoring enlargement ratios and viewing distances suggests a complete lack of thought about the whole subject.

Cheers,

R.

 

[presspass]

50 or 35 seems to depend on which camera. I enjoy the 50 on a Leica M and have done well with it. On the Nikon F2, the choice seems to be 35. It shouldn't make a difference which camera is being used, but it does for me. Having said that, I do shoot a 35 on the M, as well as a 21, a 90, and that most-hated of all focal lengths, the 135. But if it's one camera, one lens, the Leica goes out with a 50 and the Nikon with a 35. It's not rational, but it works for me. Choose which one works for you. Pick the prints you like best and correlate them with the lens.

 

[dee]

For me,it's habitual from decades of SLRs with so called, 'standard' 50/55mm.
ASD tends to perceive anything deviating from what my eye can perceive as distortion but I was delighted with my superb Kiev adapted Helios 53mm which crops to 70mm on the M8.

The Sony A35 permanently sports a 35mm prime which is around 52.5 equivalent.

However I find myself captivated by sky scapes/cloud with the freebie 24mm which came with the embarrassingly Dulux white , Ex-dem £150 cheap as APS chips , Samsung NX1000.

dee

 

[Scrambler]

Still cameras, maybe. But "standard" cine lenses were almost invariably "long" (as compared with the image diagonal), because of viewing distances. Cheers, R.

I was deliberately specific, and this fits the context of the discussion.

A lot of this discussion might have been avoided if we had used "standard" instead of the alternate term "normal." Or it may not have.

There must be research on what distance still images are viewed at. I have quoted what was quickly available on the internet. What do image professionals use as viewing distances?

For example I would expect any handheld image to be viewed at 40cm regardless of printed size. I would expect any image on a website to be viewed at 60 / 2 feet, with variable size. What distance do people choose to stand away from images in galleries?

My guess is that the size of the most visually interesting content rather than the print size would drive viewing distance. But that is purely a guess.

 

[DougFord]

The following helps me in picking the lens I want to use. Maybe it will help others too ?

Cheers,

Roland.

Excellent graphic. thanks for posting.
I use the 35mm FOV predominately and the distance to subject/image width relationship has become second nature to me. This understanding can also assist in framing a shot sans viewfinder.

 

[Bille]

I find 50mm very frustrating to work with - it's either not wide enough or not telephoto enough. Mostly 35mm is fine but then I'll see things that need 85mm.
I can be happy all day with fixed lens 40mm camera but since I gave up on film have yet to find the ideal single lens outfit for APSC digital.

Not exactly APS-C but Panasonics 20/1.7 may be the exact lens you are looking for. 😉

 

[Ranchu]

Since the viewing distance of a print varies randomly, and the magical viewing distance can be recreated for various focal lengths, I think these effects should be ignored when determining what focal length lens is 'normal'. It makes sense to me that the 43mm is 'normal' for a 24x36 frame, since that's the diagonal and as we've seen the usual way to look at photos is tilted diagonally.

 

[tunalegs]

Since the viewing distance of a print varies randomly, and the magical viewing distance can be recreated for various focal lengths, I think these effects should be ignored when determining what focal length lens is 'normal'. It makes sense to me that the 43mm is 'normal' for a 24x36 frame, since that's the diagonal and as we've seen the usual way to look at photos is tilted diagonally.

Well if you look at images tilted diagonally, you may as well ignore the whole discussion since it's not going to help your particular situation much.

 

[thirtyfivefifty]

I think it can be difficult because of the perspective. I never liked 24mm because everything was so separated, and the distortion. 28mm was okay for capturing a lot of area but these days 35mm is the widest I'll go. I use a 35/50/85 combo, and I find all of them vastly different from each other. It all depends on subject, situation, artistic forms, etc. Just got to learn and play their strengths.