What lens length is considered 'normal' with a RF camera?

[SuitePhoto]

Another noob question - I am about to jump into the world of rangefinder cameras with a Bessa R (coming from a stricty digital background), and now my last decision to make is lens length. I plan on using the camera to shoot 'normal' street photography and close-up portraits.

In the digital world, lens lenght and conversion factors is a hot topic because most digital sensors are smaller than 35mm film. I shoot a Canon 1D mkII that has a crop factor of 1.3 - which means that when I look through my beloved 50mm f/1.4, I'm actually viewing the world with the equivilent of a 65mm lens on a 35mm SLR.

Now here's the question: does a 35mm SLR and a 35mm RF have the same field of view at a given lens length? I have read that the film plane on a RF camera is generally closer to the lens than a 35mm SLR - does this have any noticeable effect? The Bessa R / 35mm 2.5 package at CameraQuest is a great deal, but for my purposes I think that the 35mm lens will 'warp' my subjects a bit too much when, say, I'm sitting just a few feet from my subject at a dinner table...

Keep in mind that all of these observations are the result of looking through my 1D with a 17-40mm lens. Viewing the world at 28mm - my camera's equivilent of a 35mm SLR's 35mm lens - just seems to warp people too much for my taste.

 

[back alley]

i believe anything from about 43 to 55 mm lenses are considered normal.

for many, 35mm lenses are the norm on a rangefinder as many prefer to move in and get close or leave more information about the scene in the photo (even for portraits).
i like a 35 but have been using 25/28 more and more as my normal lens.
the 50 seems more like a short tele now and the 90 seems like i'm just too far away from the subject.

 

[dcsang]

50mm.. (or perhaps 40mm.. )

Like Joe said.. some consider 35mm "normal" but it's really considered "wide" by most people.

To me, the 35mm length is not even CLOSE to being "wide".

You don't start getting into "wide" until you hit 21mm 🙂 and only then is that just "wide".. super wide would be the Voigtlander 12mm..

But then again.. this thread is about "normal".. and not my version of normal (i.e. 21mm) 😀

Cheers,
Dave

 

[sf]

I would define "normal" as 50mm. That is the standard focal length on 35mm cameras.

I would define the average "normal" range as being from 35mm to 55mm.

below 35mm is wide. Below 28mm is superwide. Below 21mm is ultrawide. Below 12mm is just insane.

 

[Andrew Touchon]

Another noob question - I am about to jump into the world of rangefinder cameras with a Bessa R (coming from a stricty digital background), and now my last decision to make is lens length. I plan on using the camera to shoot 'normal' street photography and close-up portraits.

In the digital world, lens lenght and conversion factors is a hot topic because most digital sensors are smaller than 35mm film. I shoot a Canon 1D mkII that has a crop factor of 1.3 - which means that when I look through my beloved 50mm f/1.4, I'm actually viewing the world with the equivilent of a 65mm lens on a 35mm SLR.

Now here's the question: does a 35mm SLR and a 35mm RF have the same field of view at a given lens length? I have read that the film plane on a RF camera is generally closer to the lens than a 35mm SLR - does this have any noticeable effect? The Bessa R / 35mm 2.5 package at CameraQuest is a great deal, but for my purposes I think that the 35mm lens will 'warp' my subjects a bit too much when, say, I'm sitting just a few feet from my subject at a dinner table...

Keep in mind that all of these observations are the result of looking through my 1D with a 17-40mm lens. Viewing the world at 28mm - my camera's equivilent of a 35mm SLR's 35mm lens - just seems to warp people too much for my taste.

The field of view is the same. The lenses are constructed differently. Therfore, the rangefinder lenses are usually smaller than a comparable SLR lens. 🙂

 

[sunsworth]

It varies from person to person. You wouldn't ask us to pick your partener so you shouldn't ask us to pick your lens ;-)

90% of people will be happy with something in the range 28-50mm. One of the advantages of having a rangefinder camera is that you can switch the framelines without having a lens attached. Do this and decide for yourself.

 

[ghost]

most people have used 28mm, 35mm, and 50mm lenses as their "standard".

 

[JohnL]

There's no difference in the field of view between lenses of the same focal length on a 35mm RF or a 35mm SLR, as already stated. However, usage of RF cameras tends more towards the wide end and usage of SLRs is very diverse, from fisheye to extreme tele. For street photography (for which the RF is very appropriate), 35mm is probably a good starting point. For portraits, you might consider something like 75mm (3/4 length) or 90mm (head and shoulders).

 

[ChrisN]

Many good answers above. "Normal" can have two different meanings here - normal can mean simply what I prefer. However there is also a technical meaning for "normal", in which the "normal" focal length for a given negative size (sensor size) is believed to be the diagonal measurement across the negative - for 35mm negs that's 43mm. Lenses at the "normal" focal length are widely believed to give a field-of-view that most closely matches the way humans see and perceive the world.

Personally - I prefer 35mm! It's interesting that Pentax make some legendary lenses for 35mm with a 43mm focal length.

 

[peter_n]

I used to use 50 as normal with an SLR, now I've switched to RF it's 35. I think the difference in the viewfinders is part of it. With an SLR its like looking through a tunnel; with the RF you see everything in context and the wider lens seems appropriate for that.

 

[Paul Connet]

Keep in mind that all of these observations are the result of looking through my 1D with a 17-40mm lens. Viewing the world at 28mm - my camera's equivilent of a 35mm SLR's 35mm lens - just seems to warp people too much for my taste.

SuitePhoto, I think you just answered your own question. If a 35mm look from your DSLR is too wide for you, it will also be too wide for you from a RF camera. I don't know why this sort of question always get a bunch of responses from those that really like wide angles and try to make a case for them as "normal". It just ain't so for a lot of us other shooters.

I have several rf cameras sitting around the house with a 35mm lens mounted on them and all of them have a roll of film that has a few shots taken, and then put aside for another time. I try to make myself use them but it never works. A Leica M6 with 35 Summicron sits in a bag with a roll still at "0" in shots taken. The other camera in the bag is a M3 with a 50 and it has had four or five rolls through it while the M6 sits unused. Same thing with a Canon bottom loader that has a 35mmf2.8 on it that is absolutely beautiful. It is loaded but has only had two shots taken and that was so long ago that I don't remember what I was shooting.

In the end you will have to determine what focal length will be your favorite on any rangefinder you buy.

Good Luck, and good shooting with whatever you decide.
Paul C.

 

[SuitePhoto]

Thanks for replies. My definition of normal would be a lens that doesn't bring you any closer (telephoto) but at the same time doesn't give the 'warp' effect that a wide-angle lens will give when used close to it's minimum focusing distance.

I want to be able to use the camera while sitting at a dinner table with friends - not for group shots, but for candid shots of individuals. And my worry is that the 35mm will give that 'warp' feeling that I'm not a fan of.

35mm would be great for street photography - but at the same time, I can't help but think that the 50mm might force me to focus on more abstract compositions (which is part of the reason I'm buying this camera)...

 

[ghost]

50mm is a better lens for abstract compositions and for isolating individuals at the dinner table.

 

[raid]

I view the 50mm lens as my "Normal" lens.
Anything shorter looks wide to me.

Raid

 

[ampguy]

I like 28-40 for normal, shorter than that wide, beyond that to 50mm still normal, but always stepping back a little for "normal" shots.

 

[PhotoJim]

Yep, 50 is a normal lens for 35mm no matter what the type of camera. I don't use a 5 very much but it is a normal lens regardless.

35mm is one of my favourite focal lengths, but it isn't great for getting close to people. If you feel that way about a 35-equivalent on digital, you might prefer using an 85 or 90 to a 35 on a 35mm rangefinder. But that won't be a "normal" lens... it just might become the lens that you usually use, though.

 

[Dougg]

I'd say 40mm - 55mm is pretty normal for a 35mm camera, likely to handle a large majority of situations. I too like the 35mm lens a lot, and suggest that the "warp" is perspective distortion which is based on the distances from the camera to various parts of the scene. Since the view is wider than "normal", you're likelier to be closer to main parts of the subject than with a longer lens, and the perspective can appear exaggerated. But this really is more distance-related than focal-length related: If you took a shot with the 50mm lens and then another immediately with the 35mm without moving, with the same center point, you could crop the 35mm pic to have exactly the same perspective and framing as the 50mm shot. It's all in the distances... 🙂

Here's a portrait shot with a 35mm lens...

I like moving in closer with the wider lens, for a more 3-D intimate feeling...

 

[wlewisiii]

Like many in this thread, I'm very much a believer in the 50 as the normal lens for 35mm film. When I'm not forcing myself to learn a new lens (currently a new to me Canon Serenar 28/3.5), my 50's are on my camera 80-90% of the time; it just tend to fit the way I view the world. Your mileage will vary.

One of the nice things about getting yourself a Bessa R is that there are an amazing number of really good & relatively inexpensive lenses in thread mount. Now, you've got one of the best 35mm lenses coming as a part of your kit. What I would suggest is buying a cheap 50mm lens to be able to compare how the focal lengths look to you. Once you have one, when you are at your dinner party say, try shooting the same composition with both lenses and see which looks more "right" to your eyes.

So what is a cheap 50? Good places to start are one of the FSU lenses - Jupiter 8 50/2 Sonnar clone or Industar 61L/D 50/2.8 Tessar clone - or else something like a Canon 50/1.8. The FSU lenses are very cheap - with patience you can get one with a working Fed lens cap for $20 and up. The Canon is a better made lens, but still it can be found easily for, oh, say, $125... 😉 (I have one I'm looking to sell so I may be just a bit biased here. Feel free to PM me if you might be interested as I think my ad has expired.)

William

 

[Finder]

The definition of "normal" is very simple - it is a focal length equal to the diagonal of the image area. In that case, it is 43mm for a 35mm camera regardless of the type of camera. This geometric relationship gives an angle of view of about 52 degrees which is often given as similar to human vision. However, human vision is not so simple and there is great debate to whether this is true or not, but for the most part it works well as a line separating wide from long. One problem with the definition of normal is it does not take format into account. While it is not bad at most normal aspect ratios, it does not work very well with panoramic formats.

Don't confuse "normal" with "standard." Standard simply defines the lens usually supplied with the camera. 50mm used to be the standard for most 35mm cameras - some manufacturers made 55mm as a standard lens. Now most "standard" lenses are 35 - 90mm zooms or some such range. Except for 35mm, most other formats do have a "normal" lens that is also "standard." 35mm is the odd ball.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I think if it's longer than you...that may not be "normal".