50mm Photographers

L

londonsnapper

Messages
16
Edit My Images
No
Hi guys, can anyone suggest any famous photographers who use a 50mm lens/focal length. Past or present masters all welcome. I know Cartier-Bresson did, but who else?

Links to examples would also be great!

Thanks!
 
Jayst84 said:
Probably almost every famous photographer ever. Any particular reason? Seems strange to only be interested in them for the focal length they shot with.
Click to expand...

I'm just trying to understand why it is such a revered focal length. Any suggestions?

Thanks!
 
londonsnapper said:
I'm just trying to understand why it is such a revered focal length. Any suggestions?

Thanks!
Click to expand...

Cheap and relatively simple lens to make - was a kit lens on many film cameras in the time before zooms. Nothing specifically special about the focal length.
 
POAH said:
Cheap and relatively simple lens to make - was a kit lens on many film cameras in the time before zooms. Nothing specifically special about the focal length.
Click to expand...

This.

I'd also take with a pinch of salt statements that say a 50mm mimics the perspective as seen by a human eye.
 
londonsnapper said:
I'm just trying to understand why it is such a revered focal length. Any suggestions?

Thanks!
Click to expand...

It's the focal length which (on a 35mm camera) most matched the field of view and perspective of the human visual system.
 
Pinch of salt added but however the natural field of view does hold some weight.
What 50mm on 135 format means is a relatively close representation of what we see when looking straight ahead and is regarded as the "normal" focal length.
Of course this changes with format. So using a 50mm on a cropped sensor won't achieve the same field of view as that of full frame (135)
Format. For aps-c normal focal length is around 30mm. what i can remember the normal/standard lens thing goes like this
aps-c=30mm
135=50mm
120=80mm
4X5=120mm
8x10=300mm
i wouldn't go down the road of saying that a 50mm is cheap to produce, try buying a 50mm summicron lol
no, anything can be made cheap and cheerful, but can also be made with quality and performance built in.

So to answer the op original question, your limiting yourself to perhaps a single format.
The bigger you go the wider 50mm gets ;)
 
Rapscallion said:
This.

I'd also take with a pinch of salt statements that say a 50mm mimics the perspective as seen by a human eye.
Click to expand...

Yeah, i'd say so as well, for me 50mm seems slightly wide. Others may be different (well, they will be different I suppose), maybe 50 was taken as average view for the human eye or something...I would say 60 or 70 at least is 'normal' for me (i'm not some weird breed of cyborg either:LOL:). I shoot 35mm on my crop most of the time though. Reasons: due to space restrictions (in the house), I like 1.8, I find it light/small, and as above it's cheap:cool:

So yeah, i'd say it's close(ish), but never understood this 'human eye' thing either (maybe i do have weird eyes and nevere realised:LOL:), and it might be 'pinch of salt' job indeed. Perhaps it was a 'normal' lens - kit lens, the lens you 'normally' get with the camera and 'normal' has gradually meant 'normal for what the eye sees'? Dont know:thinking:
 
st599 said:
It's the focal length which (on a 35mm camera) most matched the field of view and perspective of the human visual system.
Click to expand...

?

A pair of human eyes sees about 120 - 180 degrees horizontally, a 50mm lens on full frame about 40 degrees.

And surely perspective is just to do with where you stand?
:thinking:
 
Simon photo said:
Pinch of salt added but however the natural field of view does hold some weight.
What 50mm on 135 format means is a relatively close representation of what we see when looking straight ahead and is regarded as the "normal" focal length.
Of course this changes with format. So using a 50mm on a cropped sensor won't achieve the same field of view as that of full frame (135)
Format. For aps-c normal focal length is around 30mm. what i can remember the normal/standard lens thing goes like this
aps-c=30mm
135=50mm
120=80mm
4X5=120mm
8x10=300mm
i wouldn't go down the road of saying that a 50mm is cheap to produce, try buying a 50mm summicron lol
no, anything can be made cheap and cheerful, but can also be made with quality and performance built in.

So to answer the op original question, your limiting yourself to perhaps a single format.
The bigger you go the wider 50mm gets ;)
Click to expand...

Hi Simon, i think the term ' normal lens' is originated in the lens construction, not that it apporxiamtes a normal view.
 
Rapscallion said:
Hi Simon, i think the term ' normal lens' is originated in the lens construction, not that it apporxiamtes a normal view.
Click to expand...

Nope, its to do with the diagonal dimension of the film plane. Or sensor if you like.
To appreciate the rule of looking normal like the human eye sees you need to view the final image at the right size and viewing distance.
 
Last edited:
Simon photo said:
The human eye has a field of view nearly 180 degrees, but not a 50mm lens. The thing i guess i forgot to mention is perspective.
This also affects how we perceive images.
So to add, the 50mm has a similar and natural/normal perspective.
Click to expand...

But isnt perspective determined by where we stand rather than focal length?
 
Rapscallion said:
But isnt perspective determined by where we stand rather than focal length?
Click to expand...

I don't understand? Perspective for the human eye is fixed. No? (Edit. Sorry, engaging words before brain)
I know what you mean. But a 50mm on 135 will provide the same or similar perspective as we experience
 
Last edited:
Rapscallion said:
But isnt perspective determined by where we stand rather than focal length?
Click to expand...

Nope, try standing somewhere with a 8mm fisheye or a 500mm mirror lens. Your eye will never see that perspective.

Also, the eye has a wide view but the central, in-focus portion is small. You subconsciously move your eyes and head slightly to build a larger field of view and have an unfocused peripheral vision.

The 50mm is meant to match what you'd see with no head and minimal eye movement.
 
Just had to check and i think its to do with the fovea (where sigma get the name for their foveon sensor lol)
Its basically the HD portion of our retina and what we use when looking straight ahead. This area is what the 50mm is trying to replicate
 
Anyhow, back to the OP, it depends on what format your talking about.
Like i mentioned earlier.
I guess your talking 35mm film.
I think your question is rather like asking what famous chefs use what brand, style or size knife? It really doesn't matter to be honest so long as their clean, sharp and used correctly then its the cooking that matters.
 
st599 said:
Nope, try standing somewhere with a 8mm fisheye or a 500mm mirror lens. Your eye will never see that perspective.

Also, the eye has a wide view but the central, in-focus portion is small. You subconsciously move your eyes and head slightly to build a larger field of view and have an unfocused peripheral vision.

The 50mm is meant to match what you'd see with no head and minimal eye movement.
Click to expand...


Hmm, i think we are confusing each other over our use of terms.

In my world, perspective is not changed by focal length, focal length just changes angle of view. Specific lenses may add their own optical anomalies (eg fisheyes), but assuming no distortion, the perspective between a 10mm lens and a 800mm lens will not change unless you move your feet. I see the view from a 800mm lens as being a 'cutout' of the view from a 10mm lens, no difference in perspective between the 2, just a difference in angle of view.
 
ChrisGilbert said:
The Fovea is just a tiny area at the very centre of the Macula. It is a very important part of how the eyes serve the purposes of the brain but it covers only a very small area of the entire field of view.
Click to expand...

And do you think that seeing as the human eye has up to 180degree vision, the area that the fovea covers is approximately the same as a 50 on 135? Or is it tiny?
 
st599 said:
It's the focal length which (on a 35mm camera) most matched the field of view and perspective of the human visual system.
Click to expand...

^^^ This. Though not the field of view part, and there are no hard and fast rules.

If you look through a 50mm lens on a full-frame camera, the view will be very close to life-size - as if you're looking through a small window on the world. If you then make a print and view it from a normal distance, it looks about right, like a slice of real life. Approx 40 degrees field of view.

It's basically a perspective thing and has got little to do with the human eye's field of view. You can make arguments for that ranging from 2 degrees of critically sharp vision (the bit you're using now to read these words) to roughly 60 degrees of high awareness that you can access by moving your eyes without moving your head, to 180 degrees where there is at least some peripheral awareness.
 
Last edited:
Simon photo said:
And do you think that seeing as the human eye has up to 180degree vision, the area that the fovea covers is approximately the same as a 50 on 135? Or is it tiny?
Click to expand...

Teeny tiny.

Exactly what field of view anyone sees is somewhat variable. Physically most of us can see all the way past 90 degrees because that's the extent of the retina as it wraps around the back of the eye. We're aware of and use stuff in periperhal vision at the mechanical level otherwise the peripheral vision wouldn't be there but in terms of seeing stuff that we're going to kill to eat, or kill to defend ourselves from or mate with it's usually the middle 40-60 degrees. Mapping focal length and field of view of camera lenses to focal length of the eye (roughly 20mm equiv on 35mm camera technology) is simply a guide. It's very useful to know.
 
ChrisGilbert said:
Teeny tiny.

Exactly what field of view anyone sees is somewhat variable. Physically most of us can see all the way past 90 degrees because that's the extent of the retina as it wraps around the back of the eye. We're aware of and use stuff in periperhal vision at the mechanical level otherwise the peripheral vision wouldn't be there but in terms of seeing stuff that we're going to kill to eat, or kill to defend ourselves from or mate with it's usually the middle 40-60 degrees. Mapping focal length and field of view of camera lenses to focal length of the eye (roughly 20mm equiv on 35mm camera technology) is simply a guide. It's very useful to know.
Click to expand...

Glad that's cleared up lol
Thanks for the info ;) we all get smarter every day as they say!
 
But which famous photographers actually use this standard 50mm focal length? I need to find a few references.
 
Rapscallion said:
Hmm, i think we are confusing each other over our use of terms.

In my world, perspective is not changed by focal length, focal length just changes angle of view. Specific lenses may add their own optical anomalies (eg fisheyes), but assuming no distortion, the perspective between a 10mm lens and a 800mm lens will not change unless you move your feet. I see the view from a 800mm lens as being a 'cutout' of the view from a 10mm lens, no difference in perspective between the 2, just a difference in angle of view.
Click to expand...

You need to check the technical definition of perspective - it definitely changes with focal length.
 
ChrisGilbert said:
Teeny tiny.

Exactly what field of view anyone sees is somewhat variable. Physically most of us can see all the way past 90 degrees because that's the extent of the retina as it wraps around the back of the eye. We're aware of and use stuff in periperhal vision at the mechanical level otherwise the peripheral vision wouldn't be there but in terms of seeing stuff that we're going to kill to eat, or kill to defend ourselves from or mate with it's usually the middle 40-60 degrees. Mapping focal length and field of view of camera lenses to focal length of the eye (roughly 20mm equiv on 35mm camera technology) is simply a guide. It's very useful to know.
Click to expand...

I would say interesting rather than useful. Drawing comparisons are extremely difficult, verging on the impossible. Confusing at best, and mostly irrelevant.

Human vision is more like a steroscopic, scanning video system, linked to a very sophisticated computer/brain that interprets the image on the retina. Field of view, colour sensitivity, even effective shutter speed, are all extremely variable and quite unlike any camera. Focal length is roughly around 22mm, but that's variable (for focusing) and doesn't equate to anything without defining the sensor size.

BTW, perspective is defined by distance - nothing else.
 
st599 said:
You need to check the technical definition of perspective - it definitely changes with focal length.
Click to expand...

But only if the viewer moves - it is this that changes perspective - imho of course!

Id be interested to see how perspective could possibly change with the viewer fixed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
HoppyUK said:
If you then make a print and view it from a normal distance, it looks about right, like a slice of real life. Approx 40 degrees field of view.
Click to expand...


A 6*4 print needs to be held at 8 inches in landscape for it to occupy 40 degrees, seems unnaturally close?
 
Rapscallion said:
A 6*4 print needs to be held at 8 inches in landscape for it to occupy 40 degrees, seems unnaturally close?
Click to expand...

The standard print viewing distance, if there is such a thing, is the length of the diagonal, which equates to roughly 50-60 degrees. At least that's the definition used for calculating depth of field, specifically referencing a 10in print at about 12in distance - a kind of comfortable arm's length.
 
HoppyUK said:
The standard print viewing distance, if there is such a thing, is the length of the diagonal, which equates to roughly 50-60 degrees. At least that's the definition used for calculating depth of field, specifically referencing a 10in print at about 12in distance - a kind of comfortable arm's length.
Click to expand...

You've got short arms!!

;)
 
Rapscallion said:
You've got short arms!!

;)
Click to expand...

Haha, but I didn't make the rules ;)

At the end of the day, we can argue and debate all these things, and all views are valid IMHO. But there are agreed standards, if only because they're needed to make measurements and comparisons, eg for depth of field. A couple of those are that a 'standard' lens has a focal length aproximately equivalent to the diagonal length of the sensor, and a 'standard' print viewing distance is also equal to the length of the diagonal.

I just measured the distance from my monitor now, that I set up as giving good vision and comfort. It's 23in corner to corner and I view from 24in, so I guess it works about right for me.
 
ChrisGilbert said:
Focal length affects the rate at which things diminish with distance, which is what perspective is. Wideangle lenses, for example, deliver exaggerated perspective wherein objects appear to diminish with distance at a greater rate than the natural focal length of the eye.
Click to expand...

No. There's another thread on this subject, but the only thing that affects perspective is distance, not focal length.

It is of course true that longer lenses tend to be used at greater range, compressing perspective, and wide-angles from much closer, that exagerates it, but it's the shooting distance that defines perspective.

Simple test - take a shot down the street with a wide-angle and then a longer lens, and enlarge the centre of the wide-angle image to match. Perspective will be identical.
 
HoppyUK said:
Haha, but I didn't make the rules ;)

At the end of the day, we can argue and debate all these things, and all views are valid IMHO. But there are agreed standards, if only because they're needed to make measurements and comparisons, eg for depth of field. A couple of those are that a 'standard' lens has a focal length aproximately equivalent to the diagonal length of the sensor, and a 'standard' print viewing distance is also equal to the length of the diagonal.

I just measured the distance from my monitor now, that I set up as giving good vision and comfort. It's 23in corner to corner and I view from 24in, so I guess it works about right for me.
Click to expand...

Just measured mine...

approx 26 inches away from a monitor with a diagonal approx 23 inches, so there or thereabouts.

And the definition you give about a standard lens is one i agree with, rather than the 'perspective of a human eye'. ;)
 
Rapscallion said:
Just measured mine...

approx 26 inches away from a monitor with a diagonal approx 23 inches, so there or thereabouts.

And the definition you give about a standard lens is one i agree with, rather than the 'perspective of a human eye'. ;)
Click to expand...

Not sure I said that. And it's not possible to draw exact comparisons, but the best I can come up with is a standard lens tends, in general, quite often/occasionally, to render the subject with natural looking perspective. Sometimes :D

The other day I saw an interesting diocumentary about Don McCullin, the famous war photographer, and he's photographed more reality than most people. he said he'd be quite happy with just two lenses (on full frame) - 28mm and 135mm. An unusual choice I thought, but it obviously works for him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top