User ID

Yezzbudt ..... the eye has approximately the “1-inch” format so a 17mm FL would be about a 51mm equivalent.

I don’t actually care about this sort of mumbojumbo but I do know a whole schidt load of annoyingly inconvenient facts and occasionally feel moved to pay up for all this fine entertainment that overflows the catch basins of Hawgland.

So yeah, 50mm is the “human vision” lens even if it can’t be validated or even tested. Most surely thaz waaaay off but thaz inconsequential, cuz in your heart you know what you know to be how it is. And anywho, if you ever really learn how 50 was “selected” for the Ur Leica you’d be soooooo disillusioned that you’d pitch the whole thing in the trash. Such is the genesis of legends.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Contradictions abound here (As well as any other forum). How does one know when they get a real answer?
I guess they have to just pick one they like and run with it.
Someone is wrong here, so simply pick the answer you like and go with it.

♫♪♫ I read it on the internet,... ♪♫♪

I'll take door number 4 Tim, oh, wait, you don't have door number 4.......



Some like contradicting because it's fun for them to get a rise out of people.

Through playing on this one.

David in Dallas Loc: Dallas, Texas, USA

Why does anyone care what a "normal" lens is? I don't. One uses the lens that does what one wants it to for any occasion. Generally a camera will wear one lens most of the time, and that would be considered "normal" for that person, I suppose. In my case it would be an 18-200 VR2 zoom.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

By definition, not interpretation:

"...a lens that reproduces a field of view that appears "natural" to a human observer."
where something 25 feet away looks 25 feet away in the image.

You can call it a Klatzenforgen if you like.

pego101

What is a mm lens? Chinese brand?

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Focal length.
Depends on the number in front of it.

User ID

Perfect example of what’s wrong with that concept. It’s quite remarkable that you’ve gotten any images at all. Clearly “normal” cannot be subject to subjectivity !

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Most people would call that a "go to lens", or a "walk around lens", or a "favorite lens".
Even though it may be your 'normal lens', the one you normally have on your camera.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Nothing really compares exactly to what the "eye" sees, but for me 40mm on FF comes close.

In the 0ld days, when the first 35mm cameras were being made, 50mm was chosen as the kit lens because it was the simplest, cheapest, focal length to make reasonably fast (f2) - it had NOTHING to do with human vision.
.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

That's a depth perception issue, not a field of view issue. Depth compression and extension are the relevant factors at work. A wide angle lens gives you depth extension and a telephoto lens gives you depth compression. The crossover focal length between the two is very roughly 50mm, but the crossover is very gradual and not clearly defined.

Using magnification to determine what's normal is not a reliable method because much depends on how you do the viewing. Just changing the viewing distance from the print, screen, eyepiece or whatever will significantly affect the perceived distance within what's being viewed. Using perceived field of view is equally unreliable because it's not clearly defined, it varies considerably between individuals and perceived field of view is affected significantly by the extent to which our attention is focused.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

20,000 experts.
All with differing opinions, making things more complicated than they need to be, professing their great knowledge of everything.

Hilarious.

But That's Entertainment.

srt101fan

OK, Longshadow, you are turning into a cynic. Did you overindulge in turkey? 😁

k2edm Loc: FN32AD

..................

dbrugger25 Loc: Raleigh, NC

If you think about how the brain works with vision vs. how a camera ane lens works we are comparing apples to oranges.

A camera captures what is in the field of view and what is in focus at the instant the shutter activates.

The human eye communicates with a brain. The brain constantly moves the eye in smooth but small increments and is constantly focusing on objects that are dispersed both in lateral and vertical position and in distance. There is even a blind spot where the optic nerve attached to the retina. The brain takes in all this information and paints a composit picture very quickly and in real time. That is the vision that you see or perceive.

In astronomy, when you want to view a small faint object through a telescope you have to use averted vision; that is, you can't look through the venter of vision because that is the location of the blind spot so there is no way the brain can paint-in a composit view and process it. You have to consciously focus on the object using a part of the retina thst is away from the center. A camera doesn't do that. It captures what is in the entire field of view and what is in or out of focus depending on the wiew field and focus at an instant of time.

This all makes it impossible to compare the vision through two eyes with a camera with one lens.

topcat Loc: Alameda, CA

I think that the "normal" is about 40mm. Normal is also considered to be the diagonal of the film. In 35mm film, this comes out to be 43mm.
While 50mm was always the "Normal" lens for 35mm, I think that I was most happy with a bit wider. I would be happy with a 40mm lens.

In old PopPhoto, they had an article about this, comparing the lenses to the views of various landscape artists. I think that I remember the 40 mm being about right.
Don't confuse the "Normal" with the common. Normal has nothing to do with the use of 50mm as the standard lens of the old film days.