Live data from Hacker News

Classic 50mm “Normal” Lens

garyvoth.com

141–150 of 167 posts

Re: Classic 50mm “Normal” Lens

#141
post #131

Most 50's, at least down to f1.4 were designed or based on designs from the 1960's. They have really awful optical qualities by modern lens standards. Of course a good photographer will tell you great photographs have little to do with the camera/lens and everything to do with lighting, framing, subject etc but still...

I'm using a 60 years old lens on a 41mp monochrome sensor and it resolves skin pores and the micro hairs you have on your face from 5 meters away wide open

50mm lenses design didn't change much for decades because it was already very very good and still is very good

Re: Classic 50mm “Normal” Lens

#142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Almost all professional photographers who need to get the shot have moved to zooms for good reason. Nitpick: I imagine you mean telephotos, not zooms.

What ? Why ? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephoto_lens

A 30mm zoom would give the same perspective as a 30mm prime. I think the parent post was talking about telephoto vs wide-angle perspective distortion, not zoom vs prime.

Re: Classic 50mm “Normal” Lens

#143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What ? Why ? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephoto_lens

A 30mm zoom would give the same perspective as a 30mm prime. I think the parent post was talking about telephoto vs wide-angle perspective distortion, not zoom vs prime.

Lots of pros moved to zooms, 2x-7x f2.8 are pretty common for example

A telephoto lens isn't the opposite of a wide angle lens, it's a type of design for lenses with long focal lengths, not all long lenses are of telephoto design

Re: Classic 50mm “Normal” Lens

#144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I like optical viewfinders and say face closeup at an angle in low light can benefit from my discretion on what the best overall focus is rather than one sharp and one blurry eye. I know all of the other ideas like moving further away, or higher f stop and more lights. All I am saying is that once I am already looking at a shallow focus scene it's easier to rotate a ring till it looks good enough to me than hunt for…

It really depends on what your goals are. If you enjoy the process of taking a picture, and using manual camera controls - then you will surely have a different viewpoint.

For me, photography is not about being an expert camera operator, its about efficiency, and how productive I can be to create an image that I have visualized in my head. I care more about the final result than the process. Personally, I am welcoming the new AI/ML based focusing systems which can be trained to automatically put the focusing point on the subject. I don't think I can ever go back to the optical view finder and dslrs.

Re: Classic 50mm “Normal” Lens

#145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arguably your phone still doesn’t take great pictures in the situation the author is describing: indoors, medium to low light. In this situation the advice is still timeless, a camera with a 50mm ~f1.4 can create a truly great photo (skills outstanding), while the best phone will still produce a “good” photo.

I have an iPhone 13 Mini and in those conditions it will never take even a good photo. To make anything even half-decent excellent light is needed. When I look online at those articles-ads about phones being great at photography now they use a combination of great light and a boatload of RAW editing. Plus you need to mind that it’s the standard problem of people saying they don’t hear the fans of their computer, don’…

I have the same phone and your standards for “good” must be much higher than mine. This phone takes excellent snapshots in low light. They would look horrible if printed 8x10. They don’t look great when zoomed on a phone. But on a phone screen showing the whole photo, they look fine.

My point of comparison is my old point-and-shoot. In low light those things always resorted to flash and the results were terrible. Without flash I needed a tripod.

It’s not as good as a good SLR, of course not. But it’s good enough, a fraction of the size, and does iCloud photos automatically. I haven’t used my SLR in over a decade and should have sold it when I could have gotten a decent price for it.

Re: Classic 50mm “Normal” Lens

#146
post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's a classic, super cheap Tell that to Fujifilm's X-Mount 33mm (APS-C so 50mm equiv.) haha -- but man its fantastic glass even if it is $1400 AUD Though they have their 35mm WR lens thats a third the price, which is super cheap for the glass quality in my opinion. And you can always slap some older 35mm glass on it with adapters, if you don't mind giving up autofocus.

There is also a 33mm/f1.4 from Viltrox that has autofocus. I haven't used it (my Fuji 35/1.4 has to do) but I own their 56mm/f1.4 and I'm very happy with that particular lens.

Oooh I hadn’t seen the Viltrox! Good shout, I might get one.

Re: Classic 50mm “Normal” Lens

#147
post #4

These aren't dead! You can still find a variety of fast 50mm lenses, from a cheap f/1.8 for like $150 (which is still way better than most kit lenses) to a very nice f/1.4 upgrade at like $400 all the way to absurdly expensive ones. https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/comparisons/premium-50mm-le... Their primary advantages: * Amazing "bokeh" -- the quality and look of the background blur that modern phones mostly try to…

Absolutely agree, but have to add a small nitpick: 50mm primes used to be lightweight. The trend is towards Sigma Art / Zeiss Milvus/Otus dimensions, and that means much better edge sharpness but ~1kg in weight.

The Canon EF 40mm f2.8 is fun lens for DSLRs but with adapter to mirrorless bodies, the adapter eats the small size benefit as with the other small SLR-era lenses.

Sony has been keeping the mirrorless full-frame lenses quite small. The old Sony 55mm f1.8 (which I count to be in the class of 50 mms) is still sensibly sized (less than 300 grams) although a bit prone to flares but otherwise quite close to Otus class sharpness.

And then there's the Sony's 50mm F1.2 GM halo product which is still less than 800 grams. It seems that they are pushing down the weight at the same time they are improving the image quality.

Sigma's lenses are a lot of cheaper than Sony's GM lenses but they are bigger and heavier in many cases and in some cases they are still are old designs for DSLRs.

Re: Classic 50mm “Normal” Lens

#148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I think it is usually assumed that people talk about 35mm equivalent focal length[0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/35_mm_equivalent_focal_length

Re: Classic 50mm “Normal” Lens

#149
post #88
post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Get a Nikon FE! There are tons of cheap Nikon glass. It has exposure compensation as you mention. It has a brilliant way of turning of the light meter so it won't drain your battery, when not in use and is just an overall pleasure to use. Some of my best photographs has been captured on my Nikon FE. https://www.35mmc.com/10/02/2022/appreciating-what-you-alrea...

I have a Nikon FE with a 50mm prime, it's great. Would you mind sharing how do you process and scan you photos?

I have a 50mm prime as well, which is what I shot the images with. I have a lab locally process and scan the images. So unfortunately I do not have any further details about ingredients etc.

Re: Classic 50mm “Normal” Lens

#150

I have a sack full of just gorgeous Nikon lenses and camera 'backs'. But the backs are all single lens reflex for 35 mm film. I have nothing that uses CCDs (charge coupled devices, solid state, electronic photon captures). But the lenses are just gorgeous. Is there any way I can get a modern camera back , electronic, with a CCD or some such photon capture means, etc. that will let me exploit my old lenses, including,…

Gee, I didn't get any answers to my question.

So, I did some investigating, and, yes, now there is a theme in both still photography and movie making: Don't use any film. Instead, detect the photons with an electronic sensor, i.e., a thin little rectangle of CCDs (charge coupled devices). And for what used to be a view finder, just use the data from the sensor.

So, these are all digital cameras (camera backs), that is, use an electronic sensor and use no film.

Now a big example of this theme is the smart phone, either iPhone from Apple or an Android phone.

It's possible to make movies with a smart phone. But now an example of a high end camera for movie making is from a company Red (this investigation today was the first I ever heard of it), and one of their cameras can cost $30,000. Apparently compared with a smart phone, a Red video camera can have more pixels in the sensor, more dynamic range, and a higher frame rate.

And, yes, there are digital camera backs by Nikon, some of the other, old still image camera makers, and even Sony as I recall relatively new to cameras.

For my question about my old Nikon lenses: The old lenses were designed to work with the famous SLR (single lens reflex) Nikon F camera of 1959. The SLR meant that for the view finder, a mirror moved down, behind the lens, and in front of the film, and kicked the image up to a prism and into the view finder. So, this way the view finder showed essentially exactly what the film would see when a picture was shot at which time the mirror pivoted up and out of the way of the light to the film and a shutter over the film moved and exposed the film.

So, the many lenses for the Nikon F camera were called F series lenses. Well, my collection of Nikon lenses are all Nikon F series.

Now Nikon has some digital camera backs that can still use F series lenses. These cameras are called FX or full frame cameras, and, yes, the sensor is about the same size, width and height in millimeters, as old 35 mm film.

Some of these are SLR, that is, have a mirror. The Nikon D650 is an example.

But Nikon also has a new series of digital camera backs with, right, no mirror, called their Z series. These are also full frame and can use F series lenses but to do so need a tube between the back of the lens and front of the camera back.

So, to use my old Nikon lenses with a digital camera, I could buy a D650 digital SLR camera back or a Z series camera back with an adapter tube.

The sensors commonly have either ~24 million pixels or ~48 million pixels. And there is some question about the dynamic range of the pixels.

It appears that there is an engineering problem of handling the data rates of 48 million pixels per frame, with a lot of dynamic range (bits) per pixels, at a high frame rate, say, 60 or 120 frames per second for slow motion.

Another theme for these digital still cameras is to be able to take enough frames (exposures) per second to become essentially movie cameras. It appears that this engineering problem is slowing progress of these former still image cameras to being good movie cameras.

It appears that the Nikon Z series camera backs have little or no traditional optics, that is, lenses, mirrors, or prisms, and, instead, are all electronic or nearly so. E.g., the view finder is replaced by a small video screen.

Well, IMHO, any such all electronic device is highly vulnerable to rapidly falling prices. So, I would guess that the Z series prices will have to fall.

Soooo, if I get a digital camera back that will accept my F series lenses, I should go for a cheap one; for something more capable I should wait until prices come way down.

Post reply on HN