Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Classic 50mm “Normal” Lens

garyvoth.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 167 posts

Re: Classic 50mm “Normal” Lens

#111

Post by coldtea »

SECProto wrote: post #94
ISL wrote: post #87

If pointing someone to a single "normal" lens as a prime, I'd point them to a 40mm, not a 50. When I work with a 50 (which I very much enjoy; used one yesterday), I find that it is tighter in composition than my normal field of view. The 40 much-better matches my own perception and experience. The 50 is a more-careful tool. 35 is a little wide for me (but perfect for human/photojournalism work). If you want to try ou…

> If pointing someone to a single "normal" lens as a prime, I'd point them to a 40mm, not a 50. The article does have a section on exactly the issue (FOV) you note - it identifies that the 50mm lens is not the same with modern cameras (which have smaller sensors than 35mm film cameras), and recommends a 35mm lens for these cameras. Personally, I have a 35mm prime lens and quite like it, and I think it did help me imp…

>it identifies that the 50mm lens is not the same with modern cameras (which have smaller sensors than 35mm film cameras), and recommends a 35mm lens for these cameras

That's a different thing, which is about the "crop factor".

Modern APS-C digital cameras have smaller sesnors, with a 1.5 crop factor and will need a 35mm lens to get 50mm angle of view. This is not needed for modern full-frame digital cameras, which can use a 50mm to get 50mm angle of view just like old film cameras.

The article in that section just tells people to get a 35mm for modern (APS-C crop factor) cameras, because that's what gives the 50mm effective angle of view on those.

This issue is orthogonal to the parent's suggestion for 40mm.

To put it in different terms, the article in that section is concerned with "what lens you need on a modern crop factor camera to get 50mm effective angle of view - hence the suggestion for a 35mm physical lens).

Whereas the parent is concened with the actual effective angle of view you get, and suggests 40mm effective angle of view is better than 40mm effective angle of view.

To get such 40mm effective a.o.v, you need a 40mm lens on a film camera or a full-frame digital, and a 27mm lens on a APS-C digital (the kind of cameras the article has in mind when it says that "modern cameras have smaller lensors).

Re: Classic 50mm “Normal” Lens

#112

Post by trap_goes_hot »

cat_plus_plus wrote: post #99
trap_goes_hot wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but using auto-focus is even easier. I can achieve focus in under a second. And with subject detection + eye-AF, there really is no comparison. In my opinion, focus peaking is somewhat useful for video, macro and astro. I say somewhat because it depends on the implementation. Some implementations (e.g. Sony) also apply in-camera picture settings (which adds sharpening to the output of the JPEG engine - which fe…

Auto focus on something can be easier, however at this point you may not have enough focus points to hit the right thing, or the best shot can be a compromise focus between several things which is easier to achieve through analog interface.

Its not an analog interface. On the lens hardware side most lenses today focus by wire, and the EVF is digital, the focus peaking overlay is an edge + contrast-detection filter (which is imperfect due to JPEG sharpness misleading the engine to show an area as high focus when it isn't). Also the in the hardware/optical realm, the plane of focus is never flat in three dimensions, there is always a curvature to it (and this curvature changes based on the focusing distance).

Can you put forth an example of a real world situation that we can discuss?

Re: Classic 50mm “Normal” Lens

#113

Post by coldtea »

ISL wrote: post #106
exmadscientist wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are two issues here. One is just the usual crop factor stuff. Photographers seem to have real problems dealing with this (probably thanks to the original sin of some marketer somewhere), but they have always and will always suffer from that. If you quote focal lengths in "mmeq" (35mm film frame equivalent focal length) then this problem goes into the background and stays there, out of focus, until the next thre…

If Fuji ever makes an X100 with a 50mm-equivalent lens (probably a 35mm f/2), they'll sell a boatload. Quite a few of them will sit on a shelf, though, compared with the 35mm-equivalent X100s of today. You can always crop in, but you can't crop out. If Fuji did make a 50mm X100, though, I'd be on the list. Ricoh made a great choice by bringing the GR IIIx to market. If I ever jump on the GR train, it'll likely be wit…

>If Fuji ever makes an X100 with a 50mm-equivalent lens (probably a 35mm f/2), they'll sell a boatload.

Why would they? 35mm is much more versatile and better for family, travel, and street photography, which is what those cameras are used for.

Re: Classic 50mm “Normal” Lens

#114

Post by coldtea »

rhn_mk1 wrote: post #72
vwoolf wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a Sigma 30mm 1.4 in Fuji X-Mount ( https://www.sigmaphoto.com/30mm-f1-4-dc-dn-c ), which is ~45mm full-frame equivalent (FFE), and it's one of the most cost-effective lenses in existence, given its quality relative to its price. The downside around the "perfect framing" is that focal length will change perspective: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_(photog... (take a head a shoulders portrai…

Focal length doesn't do anything to perspective. Perspective is dependent on the location (distance) relative to subject. Different focal lengths will make you want to change your position, to get the entire subject in frame, or, conversely, to get more details. Then you will change your perspective.

>Focal length doesn't do anything to perspective. Perspective is dependent on the location (distance) relative to subject.

That's a pedantic way to put it, in the sense that someone says "it's not the fall that hurts you, it's hitting the ground". Sure, but not very usefull. It's the same if you add the extra parameter of "changing the position" into the matter of focal lens vs perspective.

Another way to see it is that if you stand in the same place and point to the same thing, a larger focal length will do compress the perspective more.

Re: Classic 50mm “Normal” Lens

#115

Post by avalys »

SpaceInvader wrote: post #96
CydeWeys wrote: post #95

A few caveats to this. One, the recommended 50mm focal length lens here is specific to full-frame cameras with 35mm sensors. If you have an APS-C camera, which is quite common, then you want a ~32mm lens, and if you use M4/3 like I do, then you want a 25mm lens, to achieve this same effect. Of course it's a lot simpler to abstract away the camera sensor size and simply look at field of view, which for a 50mm full-fra…

> If you have an APS-C camera, which is quite common, then you want a ~32mm lens, and if you use M4/3 like I do, then you want a 25mm lens, to achieve this same effect. It's not the same effect, far from it. It's different focal length, that will render different image.

A 50 mm lens on a full-frame sensor will render an equivalent perspective to a 32 mm lens on an APS-C sensor.

You can easily verify this by taking an 24-70 zoom lens on a full-frame sensor, taking one image at 50 mm in full-frame mode and another image at 32 mm in APS-C mode.

Depth of field and other optical properties may be different but the perspective will be the same.

The only thing that changes the rendering perspective is the physical location of the camera. If the camera does not move and you take a picture with the same field of view, the perspective will be identical regardless of the sensor size and focal length you used to achieve this.

The reason different focal lengths are imagined to produce different perspectives is because, implicitly, you need to stand a different distance from the subject to frame the same image at different focal lengths, and it's this difference in camera position that causes the change in perspective.

Re: Classic 50mm “Normal” Lens

#116

Post by SECProto »

coldtea wrote: post #111
SECProto wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If pointing someone to a single "normal" lens as a prime, I'd point them to a 40mm, not a 50. The article does have a section on exactly the issue (FOV) you note - it identifies that the 50mm lens is not the same with modern cameras (which have smaller sensors than 35mm film cameras), and recommends a 35mm lens for these cameras. Personally, I have a 35mm prime lens and quite like it, and I think it did help me imp…

> it identifies that the 50mm lens is not the same with modern cameras (which have smaller sensors than 35mm film cameras), and recommends a 35mm lens for these cameras That's a different thing, which is about the "crop factor". Modern APS-C digital cameras have smaller sesnors, with a 1.5 crop factor and will need a 35mm lens to get 50mm angle of view. This is not needed for modern full-frame digital cameras, which…

I think the difference between your comment and mine is I assumed the parent commenter is complaining about 50mm FOV being too tight on a APS-C sensor, and you've assumed they're complaining that 50mm is too tight on a full frame sensor. Either could be right.

But I think we've all gotten a little lost in the weeds, as the original article was recommending it not specifically because of focal length, but also because of lens speed compared to the 18-80mm zoom lenses now common on DSLRs.

Re: Classic 50mm “Normal” Lens

#117

Post by trap_goes_hot »

jeffbee wrote: post #102
trap_goes_hot wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Modern lenses will always benefit from modern materials, design and manufacturing techniques. That said the benefits of M43 as a format are shrinking with the advent of small compact FF cameras. Your 25mm f/1.2 lens is equivalent (from a field-of-view and depth-of-field standpoint) to a full-frame 50mm f/2.4 lens or thereabouts.

The size of the m43 kit was never the benefit, to me. The first thing I did was add a grip because the Olympus body was too small. Then I added another grip so I can hold it the other way. Now it's as big as any 35mm I owned.

Fair enough, but I'd wager most articles written about the benefits of the M43 format do bring up the size and weight savings compared to full frame systems.

To me, the smaller sensor in M43 does have a few unique benefits over FF.

* faster readout (less rolling-shutter)

* less power-consumption and therefore less heat-generation (longer record-time limits, more power for computational photography)

* less inertial mass for the sensor & assembly (better sensor-stabilization for hand-held video)

* higher wafer yield in manufacturing (hopefully lower cost , if economies-of-scale allow for it)

Re: Classic 50mm “Normal” Lens

#119

Post by twic »

petargyurov wrote: post #53

This is good timing -- I am literally in the middle of researching lenses and film SLR cameras for a beginner -- I'm looking to get into film photography. Anyone here have recommendations? I am currently reading about the Olympus OM-1 and it all sounds great apart from the lack of exposure compensation (but that might just teach me the hard way).

I bought a Canon A-1 in order to (re)learn shooting with film. I haven't used it intensively, but i have been happy with it. It's a bit later than the OM-1, so has electronic metering, including exposure compensation.

I was drawn towards a Canon by the abundant supply of second-hand old lenses for it. Nikon's old lenses are still (somewhat) compatible with their modern cameras, so they are more expensive; other manufacturers' lenses are a little harder to come by.

Re: Classic 50mm “Normal” Lens

#120

Post by nop_slide »

ISL wrote: post #106
exmadscientist wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are two issues here. One is just the usual crop factor stuff. Photographers seem to have real problems dealing with this (probably thanks to the original sin of some marketer somewhere), but they have always and will always suffer from that. If you quote focal lengths in "mmeq" (35mm film frame equivalent focal length) then this problem goes into the background and stays there, out of focus, until the next thre…

If Fuji ever makes an X100 with a 50mm-equivalent lens (probably a 35mm f/2), they'll sell a boatload. Quite a few of them will sit on a shelf, though, compared with the 35mm-equivalent X100s of today. You can always crop in, but you can't crop out. If Fuji did make a 50mm X100, though, I'd be on the list. Ricoh made a great choice by bringing the GR IIIx to market. If I ever jump on the GR train, it'll likely be wit…

They’re already having trouble cranking out enough X100V models
Post reply on HN