What a steaming load...
It ignores the camera maker's initial reasons for standardizing on
the 50mm "normal" lens. Beside just being "in the middle," it was
the shortest focal length you could attach to an SLR before the
introduction of retrofocus wide angle lenses.
The perspective from a 50 is just about the worst you can get on a
24 x 36mm camera, with only the 35mm lens being close, which should
be no surprise, since they're about equidistant from the true
"normal" focal length of 43mm.
A true "normal" lens would give the same field of view as the human
eyes, which is about 150? from left to right. That's why
photographs and movies shot with superwide lenses look so much more
real than those shot with longer focal lengths.
Herber Keppler once wrote (I think it was in Modern Photography)
that he had no use for lenses longer than 28mm and shorter than
85mm, and I realized that he had put into words something I had
felt for a long long time. That middle range is as boring as Bud
Light and Wonder Bread. Have great pictures been taken in that
range? Sure. But they probably would have been better if the
photographer had moved in with a wide, or backed up with a tele.
I tend to think in terms of another great photographer whose name
eludes me. But he was a war photographer, and he said, "If your
pictures aren't good enough, you weren't close enough!" Give me a
wide over a normal any day of the week.
For those who wonder about the difference in wide angle and
telephoto lens.. for those who think that wide angle lens and
telephoto lens does not make a difference in depth.
any thoughts about this?
http://hobbymaker.narod.ru/English/Articles/perspective_eng.htm
--
Minë Corma hostië të ilyë ar mordossë nutië të
Mornórëo Nóressë yassë i Fuini caitar.
Un thoron arart’a s’un hith mal’kemen ioke.
Saurulmaiel
