Clearly, a 50mm lens together with a full frame sensor does not match "the human field of vision." But the human field of vision includes central vision (what you're looking at) and peripheral vision, where you may be aware of movement or light or color, but which you can't really be said to "see" in any meaningful way. Try, for example, to read the words on the cover of a book or magazine that is more than a few degrees from the object you are directly looking at. The advantage of having such a wide field of vision is that our eye (brain, really) can become are of a change of light or a sense of movement in the peripheral area and pull the eye toward it so as to see what's really going on there.

Here's a little experiment I tried. I don't know if it has particular value, but I found it interesting. Look directly into the viewfinder of your camera with one eye. Now, with the other eye open and not obstructed, try to overlay what you see with each eye. If one eye sees the subject as larger or smaller, adjust your focal length until they match. For me, that seemed to be about 60mm using a FF sensor. Does that make any sense?

For my way of seeing, the fullframe 35mm focal length more closely approximates a "normal" human eye field of view, not counting our inherent peripheral vision. I

I have had many 50mm lenses over the past five decades as a shooter, and I have a couple of zoom lenses that cover that focal length now, but dont any longer have a prime 50mm lens for my fullframe mirrorless system. I never reach first for that focal length anymore. I more often shoot wider than 50mm or more telephoto than 50mm.

Cheers and best to you all.

I have read numerous articles and descriptions of varioous lens focal lengths and nearly every one describes the 50 to 55 mm length, on a full frame DSLR, as the one that most closely matches the field of vision of the humn eye. I question whether or not that is really accurate. According to medical text books the human field of vision, with both eyes, is approximately 130 to 150 degrees wide, more or less. What I find in lens reviews is the 50 or 55 mm prime lens has a field of view of only around 40 degrees. Why is there such a discrepancy? A wider angle of view, say of a 35 mm on full frame, would more closely approximate the central portion of the viewed area of both human eyes together.

I know there is some edge distortion with wide angle lenses, 35mm or wider, but I would attribute that to the view being focused on a flat plane rather than on a curved plane like the eye's retina. Just a couple random thoughts that flow through my mind.

I have read numerous articles and descriptions of varioous lens focal lengths and nearly every one describes the 50 to 55 mm length, on a full frame DSLR, as the one that most closely matches the field of vision of the humn eye. I question whether or not that is really accurate. According to medical text books the human field of vision, with both eyes, is approximately 130 to 150 degrees wide, more or less. What I find in lens reviews is the 50 or 55 mm prime lens has a field of view of only around 40 degrees. Why is there such a discrepancy? A wider angle of view, say of a 35 mm on full frame, would more closely approximate the central portion of the viewed area of both human eyes together.

I know there is some edge distortion with wide angle lenses, 35mm or wider, but I would attribute that to the view being focused on a flat plane rather than on a curved plane like the eye's retina. Just a couple random thoughts that flow through my mind.

I have read numerous articles and descriptions of varioous lens focal lengths and nearly every one describes the 50 to 55 mm length, on a full frame DSLR, as the one that most closely matches the field of vision of the humn eye. I question whether or not that is really accurate. According to medical text books the human field of vision, with both eyes, is approximately 130 to 150 degrees wide, more or less. What I find in lens reviews is the 50 or 55 mm prime lens has a field of view of only around 40 degrees. Why is there such a discrepancy? A wider angle of view, say of a 35 mm on full frame, would more closely approximate the central portion of the viewed area of both human eyes together.

I know there is some edge distortion with wide angle lenses, 35mm or wider, but I would attribute that to the view being focused on a flat plane rather than on a curved plane like the eye's retina. Just a couple random thoughts that flow through my mind.

I have read numerous articles and descriptions of varioous lens focal lengths and nearly every one describes the 50 to 55 mm length, on a full frame DSLR, as the one that most closely matches the field of vision of the humn eye. I question whether or not that is really accurate. According to medical text books the human field of vision, with both eyes, is approximately 130 to 150 degrees wide, more or less. What I find in lens reviews is the 50 or 55 mm prime lens has a field of view of only around 40 degrees. Why is there such a discrepancy? A wider angle of view, say of a 35 mm on full frame, would more closely approximate the central portion of the viewed area of both human eyes together.

I know there is some edge distortion with wide angle lenses, 35mm or wider, but I would attribute that to the view being focused on a flat plane rather than on a curved plane like the eye's retina. Just a couple random thoughts that flow through my mind.

Clearly, a 50mm lens together with a full frame sensor does not match "the human field of vision." But the human field of vision includes central vision (what you're looking at) and peripheral vision, where you may be aware of movement or light or color, but which you can't really be said to "see" in any meaningful way. Try, for example, to read the words on the cover of a book or magazine that is more than a few degrees from the object you are directly looking at. The advantage of having such a wide field of vision is that our eye (brain, really) can become are of a change of light or a sense of movement in the peripheral area and pull the eye toward it so as to see what's really going on there.

Here's a little experiment I tried. I don't know if it has particular value, but I found it interesting. Look directly into the viewfinder of your camera with one eye. Now, with the other eye open and not obstructed, try to overlay what you see with each eye. If one eye sees the subject as larger or smaller, adjust your focal length until they match. For me, that seemed to be about 60mm using a FF sensor. Does that make any sense?

I have read numerous articles and descriptions of varioous lens focal lengths and nearly every one describes the 50 to 55 mm length, on a full frame DSLR, as the one that most closely matches the field of vision of the humn eye. I question whether or not that is really accurate. According to medical text books the human field of vision, with both eyes, is approximately 130 to 150 degrees wide, more or less. What I find in lens reviews is the 50 or 55 mm prime lens has a field of view of only around 40 degrees. Why is there such a discrepancy? A wider angle of view, say of a 35 mm on full frame, would more closely approximate the central portion of the viewed area of both human eyes together.

I know there is some edge distortion with wide angle lenses, 35mm or wider, but I would attribute that to the view being focused on a flat plane rather than on a curved plane like the eye's retina. Just a couple random thoughts that flow through my mind.

I have read numerous articles and descriptions of varioous lens focal lengths and nearly every one describes the 50 to 55 mm length, on a full frame DSLR, as the one that most closely matches the field of vision of the humn eye. I question whether or not that is really accurate. According to medical text books the human field of vision, with both eyes, is approximately 130 to 150 degrees wide, more or less. What I find in lens reviews is the 50 or 55 mm prime lens has a field of view of only around 40 degrees. Why is there such a discrepancy? A wider angle of view, say of a 35 mm on full frame, would more closely approximate the central portion of the viewed area of both human eyes together.

I know there is some edge distortion with wide angle lenses, 35mm or wider, but I would attribute that to the view being focused on a flat plane rather than on a curved plane like the eye's retina. Just a couple random thoughts that flow through my mind.

I have read numerous articles and descriptions of varioous lens focal lengths and nearly every one describes the 50 to 55 mm length, on a full frame DSLR, as the one that most closely matches the field of vision of the humn eye. I question whether or not that is really accurate. According to medical text books the human field of vision, with both eyes, is approximately 130 to 150 degrees wide, more or less. What I find in lens reviews is the 50 or 55 mm prime lens has a field of view of only around 40 degrees. Why is there such a discrepancy? A wider angle of view, say of a 35 mm on full frame, would more closely approximate the central portion of the viewed area of both human eyes together.

I know there is some edge distortion with wide angle lenses, 35mm or wider, but I would attribute that to the view being focused on a flat plane rather than on a curved plane like the eye's retina. Just a couple random thoughts that flow through my mind.

I have read numerous articles and descriptions of varioous lens focal lengths and nearly every one describes the 50 to 55 mm length, on a full frame DSLR, as the one that most closely matches the field of vision of the humn eye. I question whether or not that is really accurate. According to medical text books the human field of vision, with both eyes, is approximately 130 to 150 degrees wide, more or less. What I find in lens reviews is the 50 or 55 mm prime lens has a field of view of only around 40 degrees. Why is there such a discrepancy? A wider angle of view, say of a 35 mm on full frame, would more closely approximate the central portion of the viewed area of both human eyes together.

I know there is some edge distortion with wide angle lenses, 35mm or wider, but I would attribute that to the view being focused on a flat plane rather than on a curved plane like the eye's retina. Just a couple random thoughts that flow through my mind.