Rethinking focal length conventions

Started 7 months ago | Discussions thread
Gerry Winterbourne Forum Pro • Posts: 19,039
Re: 6%
4

Phil A Martin wrote:

jrtrent wrote:

tko wrote:

You're thinking you need a 40 mm instead of 35 mm? Of what importance is this? How did you get this conclusion? How would a 85/80 = 6% difference in FL rock your world? I don't get this at all. It would seem like you think your numbers are better since they are "more rounded off," and you want lens manufacturers to come up with new products where the focal lengths are "prettier."

You may be right about the difference between 80 and 85 mm, but apparently there's a noticeable difference around 40mm:

"40mm is the "Perfect Normal" focal length for full-frame. Unlike 50mm lenses which often are too long or 35mm lenses which are often too wide, 40mm is always just right."

And that's from Ken Rockwell himself!

He's wrong, it's 43mm is actually the perfect focal length for full frame. It corresponds to the sensor diagonal of 43.27mm.

There is no single "perfect" focal length. Human eyes vary in size; if "perfection" means matching human vision then it varies depending on the individual. 43mm was picked out of the range of visually "normal" focal lengths because it corresponds to the diagonal of 135 format - an arbitrary choice that doesn't confer perfection.

-- hide signature --

Gerry
________________________________________________________________________
I'm happy for anyone to edit any of my photos and display the results
_________________________________________________________________________
First camera 1953, first Pentax 1985, first DSLR 2006
http://www.pbase.com/gerrywinterbourne
gerry.winterbourne@ntlworld.com

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
tko
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow