Re: Normal lens

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Irwell, Dec 15, 2010.

  1. Irwell

    Irwell Guest

    On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 18:20:39 -0800, Savageduck wrote:

    > On 2010-12-14 15:27:36 -0800, Alfred Molon <> said:
    >
    >> Why is a 50mm lens "normal" (in a full frame camera)? Because it
    >> corresponds to the usual angle of view of the human eye, or just because
    >> this focal length lies in the middle between wide and tele?

    >
    > The anal pedantic types who will undoubtably reveal themselves to voice
    > their opinion on the matter, will question all but their answer to your
    > question.
    >
    > So given that, here is what(a bunch of bozos pounding at keyboards who call themselves) wikipedia has to say on the matter.
    > < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_lens >
    Irwell, Dec 15, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Irwell

    Mike Guest

    On 12/14/2010 9:59 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2010-12-14 18:43:11 -0800, Irwell <> said:
    >
    >> On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 18:20:39 -0800, Savageduck wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 2010-12-14 15:27:36 -0800, Alfred Molon <>
    >>> said:
    >>>
    >>>> Why is a 50mm lens "normal" (in a full frame camera)? Because it
    >>>> corresponds to the usual angle of view of the human eye, or just
    >>>> because
    >>>> this focal length lies in the middle between wide and tele?
    >>>
    >>> The anal pedantic types who will undoubtably reveal themselves to voice
    >>> their opinion on the matter, will question all but their answer to your
    >>> question.
    >>>
    >>> So given that, here is what(a bunch of bozos pounding at keyboards
    >>> who call themselves) wikipedia has to say on the matter.
    >>> < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_lens >

    >
    > Why I am I not surprised?
    >


    Because the first of the anal pedantic types has just been revealed.
    And, went so far as to alter (incorrectly, I might add) your statement
    to "prove" their point.

    Mike
    Mike, Dec 15, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Irwell

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Dec 15, 5:20 am, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    > On 2010-12-14 19:17:41 -0800, rwalker <> said:
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 18:59:46 -0800, Savageduck
    > > <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >
    > >> On 2010-12-14 18:43:11 -0800, Irwell <> said:

    >
    > >>> On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 18:20:39 -0800, Savageduck wrote:

    >
    > >>>> On 2010-12-14 15:27:36 -0800, Alfred Molon <> said:

    >
    > >>>>> Why is a 50mm lens "normal" (in a full frame camera)? Because it
    > >>>>> corresponds to the usual angle of view of the human eye, or just because
    > >>>>> this focal length lies in the middle between wide and tele?

    >
    > >>>> The anal pedantic types who will undoubtably reveal themselves to voice
    > >>>> their opinion on the matter, will question all but their answer to your
    > >>>> question.

    >
    > Let me fix this.
    >
    >
    >
    > >>>> So given that, here is what(bozo entry fixed) wikipedia has to say on
    > >>>> the matter.
    > >>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_lens>

    >
    > >> Why I am I not surprised?

    >
    > > The way it was originally explained to me was this.  A normal lens for
    > > a given camera gives a field of view such that a given object seen
    > > through the camera is about the same size as seen with the naked eye.
    > > Obviously the field of view would be much narrower than with the naked
    > > eye, but what is visible in the camera would be the same size as the
    > > center of your field of view without the camera.

    >
    > ...and that was the way it was originally explained to me.
    > I was young and gullible at the time, and might have believed almost
    > anything. I was given a demonstration which may, or may not have been
    > valid. I was told to view a scene through a 50mm lens mounted on a
    > Spotmatic, and then move my head from the viewfinder to view the scene
    > with that eye sans camera. I was to note there would be no perceptible
    > change in what I saw through the viewfinder and without it, and I'll be
    > darned if it didn't seem so.


    That's what I was told, but it isn't the case.
    I thought it came from the 'magnification' of the image on the film
    plan/viewfinder
    as you say comparing it to the persons vision the magnification is
    about 1x with a ~50mm lens

    I just tried to measure my angle of view and I estimated it at 110
    deg.
    ____________________
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_eye#Field_of_view
    Field of view

    The approximate field of view of a human eye is 95° out, 75° down, 60°
    in, 60° up. About 12–15° temporal and 1.5° below the horizontal is the
    optic nerve or blind spot which is roughly 7.5° high and 5.5° wide.[4]
    __________________________

    >
    > Since then I have been given the more detailed explanations based on
    > the focal length being about (now there is an exact technical term)
    > equal to the diagonal size of the film, resulting in a "normal"
    > appearing print when viewed at a "normal" viewing distance.
    > The wikipedia explanation didn't seem to far removed from that to be
    > very wrong, or too distorted by bozos.


    Not yet anyway ;-), but I've always used the term 'standard' lens
    rather than 'normal' lens.
    Whisky-dave, Dec 15, 2010
    #3
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Wim Joppe

    Difference between Canon 18-55 USM and normal lens

    Wim Joppe, Jun 19, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    736
    Wim Joppe
    Jun 21, 2004
  2. john

    50mm "normal" lens with digital SLR?

    john, Jun 19, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    86
    Views:
    10,303
  3. James M
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    556
    Sabineellen
    Jul 28, 2004
  4. Replies:
    5
    Views:
    701
    timepixdc
    Feb 18, 2006
  5. Replies:
    13
    Views:
    4,333
    Doug Jewell
    May 31, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page