The 50 mm lens. An interesting commentary

[tbob]

This might interest some of us

https://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...normal/560276/

[Donald]

Interesting article.

[rpcrowe]

Quite interesting... When I shot 16mm motion picture film, the 25mm lens was considered "normal" for that format. For my hand held camera with a three lens turret, I used a 25mm, 16mm and a 10mm lens. Anything more than that was hard to hold steady.

[Manfred M]

Interesting, long-winded and with some inaccuracies.

I'm not sure I learned anything, but it sure took a long time to get to the end of the article. In the end it really did not say very much.

[xpatUSA]

This might interest some of us

https://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...normal/560276/

Thanks for the link Bill!

For my "general" photography viewed only on my P242W screen, I do like to see a minimum of "perspective distortion" by which I personally mean "not what my eyes saw".

[Shadowman]

I've tried framing a scene at 35 and 50mm in my mind to see if it matches unfortunately I think I see at a wider angle, doesn't mean the scene is in focus or if anything at the peripheral interests me but I know its there.

[george013]

I've tried framing a scene at 35 and 50mm in my mind to see if it matches unfortunately I think I see at a wider angle, doesn't mean the scene is in focus or if anything at the peripheral interests me but I know its there.

The article is talking about perspective. That's the difference in magnification of two identical objects at a certain distance. Not the angel of view.

George