Ricoh
Well-known
RG used the 50mm DR quite a lot. It was interesting to hear his explanation on a COOPH video... the undestorted, life-like when enlarged 1:1 (also and importantly determined by viewing distance).
Out to Lunch
Ventor
'Retinax' has a good handle for his analysis...perhaps he's an ophthalmologist?
Ambro51
Collector/Photographer
well, Barnack used a 42mm Summar on the UR Leica. Do ya think he Knew Something? 
retinax
Well-known
Hehe no the handle comes from the Kodak camera. The only thing thing in my analysis that relates to my formal education is distortion from projections, I learned about them regarding maps, but it translates to lenses to a certain degree.
I will add that there is an argument to be made for maintaining the angle of view from capture to presentation: One could print an image to a such a size that, from a certain viewing position, one would see a have the same angles between image objects that the photographer had from the capture position. Or one could, from a fixed print size and viewing position, choose a focal length to achieve this.
Regardless of the question what would be gained, it would be rather impractical as it would require sticking with one focal length and rigid mode of presentation. That's probably why we don't see this argument made often. But it would make a lot more sense than the often repeated "natural field of view".
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I think, it was one mistake made by author of the video. FOV is such a red herring. Just like "film Leica M" on the other day.
olifaunt
Well-known
28 mm is not set in stone for cellphones. For a long time I had an older cellphone that was significantly narrower than 28 mm and really liked using it. It was when I got a newer phone with a 28 mm FOV that I stopped finding the cellphone useful for photography; it seldom occurs to me to use the cell for pictures anymore for this exact reason.
Before my iPhone XS was stolen, I was using the 56mm lens exclusively... l loved it. I like everything between 28-85mm, but if I have to choose one lens, it is a 50mm. Even more so now that wide angles are seemingly used by everyone.
olifaunt
Well-known
Well, there is something to the argument if you assume a standard comfortable solid angle (area/distance^2) for viewing the print/screen. You have to stand closer to the print to see a 18 mm print distortion-free than you do for a 50 mm print, for example. You can certainly stand that close to the 18 mm picture, but at that distance most people can't take in the whole image at once, or (if older) may not have the requisite near-vision acuity for it.
retinax
Well-known
I don't understand your formula but yes, that idea is what I also added in my response to Out to Lunch. I hardly ever hear that expressed though and it doesn't seem very practical. And that can't be what people mean when they talk about "natural human angle of view" or whatever because it's just geometry, human vision doesn't figure into it except to determine print viewing distance.
taemo
eat sleep shoot
misleading, I was hoping for a video on why 35mm is better than 120
I understand some of the guy's point on 35mm but don't fully agree with it.
personally I would rather go 28mm or 50mm.
I understand some of the guy's point on 35mm but don't fully agree with it.
personally I would rather go 28mm or 50mm.
Out to Lunch
Ventor
Bottom line...all newly fangled phones have wide angle lenses. And yes, some have zooms and other options but the basic lens is a wide angled one.
Ccoppola82
Well-known
I used to think I was a 35mm guy until I realized that I was cropping most of my 35mm shots. So, I picked up a 50mm and find it simpler to compose images from my personal comfort distance. Don’t get me wrong I still use a 35 and love it for certain things where space is a bit tighter, but primarily I’m loaded with a 50mm these days
zuiko85
Veteran
When the 35mm SLR was king, 50mm was about the shortest lens that could be designed that didn't have to use optical trickery to clear the mirror. In fact many 'standard' lenses were even 55mm to 58mm. Of course 35mm rangefinders (and today mirrorless digital) do not have that restriction.
That said, I like my 50mm field of view, and fast, cheap, small, and reasonably good lenses were made in the millions...back in the days of film.
For many of us, our first 35mm SLR was sold with a 50 as a matter of course, we didn't even think to ask why.
In my youth, friends, new SLR owners, would often ask 'what lens should I get next?'
My basic return question was, 'well, when taking pictures, do you often find yourselves backing up, trying to get more in the picture, or, when looking at your prints thinking, 'everything looks too small, I should have been closer.'
Depending on what the answer was, and sometimes it was a little of both, I might suggest a 28mm or some compact 135 f2.8 (or if weight and size was an issue, even a f3.5).
My strong advise however was only to buy one lens, and then shoot for a few months before deciding if they now needed the other lens option also.
That said, I like my 50mm field of view, and fast, cheap, small, and reasonably good lenses were made in the millions...back in the days of film.
For many of us, our first 35mm SLR was sold with a 50 as a matter of course, we didn't even think to ask why.
In my youth, friends, new SLR owners, would often ask 'what lens should I get next?'
My basic return question was, 'well, when taking pictures, do you often find yourselves backing up, trying to get more in the picture, or, when looking at your prints thinking, 'everything looks too small, I should have been closer.'
Depending on what the answer was, and sometimes it was a little of both, I might suggest a 28mm or some compact 135 f2.8 (or if weight and size was an issue, even a f3.5).
My strong advise however was only to buy one lens, and then shoot for a few months before deciding if they now needed the other lens option also.
pluton
Well-known
I consider 35mm (on 24x36) to be the most 'normal' of normal focal lengths.
Why?
Because it's the least gimmicky rendering lens that, excepting very close focus, can give an overall impression of everything being in focus.
The 50mm, even at f/16, can't sharply show both a person 2 meters away AND the environment around them. One can be in focus, the other will be distinctly blurred or soft.
My theory is that back in the early days of Leica and Contax, the 50mm was the widest lens that could have both decent image quality and a reasonable price. They couldn't make an affordable and good 35mm 'till some years later.
Why?
Because it's the least gimmicky rendering lens that, excepting very close focus, can give an overall impression of everything being in focus.
The 50mm, even at f/16, can't sharply show both a person 2 meters away AND the environment around them. One can be in focus, the other will be distinctly blurred or soft.
My theory is that back in the early days of Leica and Contax, the 50mm was the widest lens that could have both decent image quality and a reasonable price. They couldn't make an affordable and good 35mm 'till some years later.
Took a look, and persevered for a few minutes, but quickly found I prefer a Talking Heads video to a talking head video.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
For me it is very simple 35mm on a FF camera matches the way I see. When I work on the streets it is usually my MM and my 35.
olifaunt
Well-known
What was the reason for all the 40 mm fixed lenses in 70s cameras, and why did they stop making those?
steveyork
Well-known
Given the depth of field issues of a wide angle lens, I've always felt the 50mm focal length as the "normal" or natural lens for the human eye. I do agree, however, the 35mm is far more versatile and interesting focal length once mastered. A lot of it depends on subject/environment too, obviously. But a camera with a single 35mm lens is a great minimalistic outfit.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I hear you.
He is not as easy to digest as pop music, which I also like. Personally, I'm finding it difficult to understand very smart people. Sometimes I have to listen twice. Here is fresh interview with Noam Chomsky from Jan 10th and I didn't get most of he was saying.
Out to Lunch
Ventor
What about 15, 21, 24 and 28mm? Not so many moons ago, zoom lenses had a bad reputation but lens technology has evolved. I now often use a Fuji 2.8/16-55mm lens and it gives me whatever wide-angle option I fancy for whatever moment.