Normal Lens - Uses?

[VegasGeorge]

The 28 f/1.8 I ordered will arrive tomorrow. I'll use it on my 20D as a "normal" lens, giving me a fixed focal length equivalent to a 45mm lens on a 35mm film camera. I ordered it for a fast, point and shoot, lens to take to parties, or out to dinner, or on other occasions where I may want to take a picture, but don't necessarily want to "play photographer."

I just thought I'd ask what uses you find for your "normal" lens, assuming that you have a zoom (like I do) that covers that "normal" focal range. I 'll be interested to read your comments. Thanks.

[DocFrankenstein]

Low light situations... Also with that lens the picture has to contain something interesting, instead of perspective distortion.

[tim]

Tamron 28-75.

[lostdoggy]

Normal in 35mm lingo means the angle of view is equivalent to a view with your eyes making it normal. So, with a normal focal length you will be capturing views that you would normally see with your eyes. For instance you were walking along a path and came across a breath taking view of a mountain range that is partially covered with clouds. You pull out your camera frame it like you originally see it and fire. Now you have a picture that'll last you a life time. Memories of being there.

[Dante King]

It all depends. I find that when I use a 40-50mm (crop into account) lens, I am cropping the image to something that would represent a longer focal length most of the time. I like zooms from my 16-35 to 70-300 for framing the image to include just what I desire. I use my primes for more set up shoots like protraits or for low light work that no other lens in my bag can accomplish.

[DocFrankenstein]

Normal in 35mm lingo means the angle of view is equivalent to a view with your eyes making it normal. So, with a normal focal length you will be capturing views that you would normally see with your eyes. For instance you were walking along a path and came across a breath taking view of a mountain range that is partially covered with clouds. You pull out your camera frame it like you originally see it and fire. Now you have a picture that'll last you a life time. Memories of being there.
Errr...

What if you have a 35mm lens? You'll still get the same thing, cause the perspective is the same.

Normal lens has something to do with the diagonals of the frame matching the focal distance.

[VegasGeorge]

I find that when I use a 40-50mm (crop into account) lens, I am cropping the image to something that would represent a longer focal length most of the time.

Interesting! I remember working with my Nikon 50mm lens back in the old days, and moving up to my subject in order to frame the shot in the viewfinder. Back then, the budget didn't include any dark room work, ergo, no cropping.

But, what about one lens situations, where you would tend to choose the normal lens to take on the camera?

[Dante King]

Interesting! I remember working with my Nikon 50mm lens back in the old days, and moving up to my subject in order to frame the shot in the viewfinder. Back then, the budget didn't include any dark room work, ergo, no cropping.

But, what about one lens situations, where you would tend to choose the normal lens to take on the camera?

Yeah I crop with my feet with my primes when able. I find it easier to use a zoom for shoots where you dont know if you can do that, or if I am such low light I use a prime and then crop later depending on foot room.

One lens only, would have to be my 28-135 or 70-300. cropping is easy, IS is nice and I can stay put most of the time and pour all my attention to the image and not worry about tripping over stuff as I am a klutz.

[VegasGeorge]

Normal lens has something to do with the diagonals of the frame matching the focal distance.

I read somewhere that "normal" means that the focal length of the lens is equal to the diagonal of the film plane. Huh? :rolleyes: First person to get a good shot of the squaw on the hippopotamus is the WINNER!!!! :lol: Now, if we can only figure out what a "normal photographer" is.

[ron chappel]

A normal lens is one that gives the same magnification as the human eye.
(by the way-if you want to test this theory a zoom lens on your camera,be aware that the viewfinder has it's own magnification ratio that will completely screw up your results unless allowed for)
No lens can give the same magnification AND angle of view as the human eye at the same time so that's why there are so many arguments and questions about what a normal lens is.
The diagonal-of-the-film-plane idea is simply a crude rule of thumb.Trying to reconcile this idea with ,say, 6x6 format verses 6x9 format (to pick just two) shows how silly it gets as an argument point.

So what good is a normal lens? Mostly for subjects that you don't want distorted ,as Doc F has allready said.
Some of the worlds most famous pictures were taken with normal lenses (but along with that one could argue that the image would have worked just as well or better with other lenses if the photographer had actually had a choice of lenses.

Often a normal lens is actually a disadvantage-it's quite rare for an image to look it's very best with a normal lens.
Portrait for example usually look best with some compressed distortion, extreme sports tend to be mostly close up with a wide angle,that kind of thing
In fact a great many journalists don't even use a normal lens.They tend to have a wide zoom plus a long zoom with a gap in the middle.This is because pics taken with a normal lens tend to look boring-that last thing a newspaper needs

[VegasGeorge]

So what good is a normal lens? Mostly for subjects that you don't want distorted ... pics taken with a normal lens tend to look boring-

Taken together, and somewhat out of context, Ron's comments raise an interesting question. Do we want to photograph reality as it really is? Or, do we want to see things in a "distorted" way? Hum ... Distortion can be fun and very artsy-fartsy, but I always thought of everyday photography as a challenge to capture a true to life image. Another way to put it is that I never thought to myself, "I'll take my zoom today because I feel the need to distort reality a bit." What say you?

[DocFrankenstein]

Taken together, and somewhat out of context, Ron's comments raise an interesting question. Do we want to photograph reality as it really is? Or, do we want to see things in a "distorted" way? Hum ... Distortion can be fun and very artsy-fartsy, but I always thought of everyday photography as a challenge to capture a true to life image. Another way to put it is that I never thought to myself, "I'll take my zoom today because I feel the need to distort reality a bit." What say you?
You should read a cognitive psychology book on how the visual system works.

From the physics perspective, our eyes are extremely wide angle. The field of view horisontally is more than 180 degrees.

So, when you're in a church like that (600 kb image) you still see all of it up close with your eyes:
http://andrew4137.fotopic.net/p5425100.html

To replicate that on film, you use a wide angle lens... and when viewed on print it looks ok.

But if you're sitting with your gf on a date, and she's across the table (and madly in love of course) your eye acts like say... 85 mm lens or 100mm because it disregards all of the information.

And there's not such thing as "normal" lens at all IMHO... because normality depends on the viewing distance to the print. You can take canon's 14mm L and take a shot. Then you make a wall sized print and look at it from... say 70 cm. You'll see no perspective distortion whatsoever. In fact, you'll be amazed at the experience.

NUDITY:
http://www.photo.net/philip-greenspun/photos/pcd2668/feet-color-14mm-40

Try looking at that picture on your monitor from about 7cm or 3 inches. Don't let your wife see you! :lol:

The picture is going to appear "normal"... so it's all relative... and probably very few people actually understand what it means, you need to know physics, psychology, optics and characteristics of your lens to actually understand what's happening. I know I don't have a clue as to what's going on.

So I'll shut up and go take some pictures.

[RichardtheSane]

I have the 28mm F1.8, it is my 'walkabout' lens.
But when you use it I imagine you will find you are actually playing photographer. I don't find it is much of a quick snap lens, maybe that is just me and I need more practise with it.
I find myself framing and taking a shot, the thinking 'That could be better' and I will move, and reframe. And again. and again.
But that I think is the nature of that field of view - the lens does not really add anything to the photograph. It puts you, the photographer, in a position where you have to make the photograph. YOU have to work hard to make it good.

And I love it, a truly fine lens and it will be my party lens also. Good luck with it :)

[ron chappel]

Good point Vegasgeorge
I can't think too well at the mo but can make one small comment.
Slight telephoto lenses are used for portraits so as to AVOID distortion oddly enough. If a normal focal length lens is used one has to get in close to give reasonble cropping... and that tends to introduce a little perspective (near/far) distortion giving the subject a big nose,etc. In fact some photographers really take this to the extreme and use slightly different focal lengths for different ethic groups so that they allways look normal in the pictures

[skyphix]

I am going to be getting the 28 2.8 (I cant bring my wallet to produce 200 dollars more for the 1.8, for some reason, its money creation function has slowed considerably) to use for a walk around. Most of my photos when I walk around with the kit lens are in the 25-30 range, and my 50 is a little bit long for festivals, and would be way too long for the buildings and such that I like to take photos of.

So, what do you use a "normal" lens for? I guess if the 28mm is a normal lens, I'll be using it as my general, stay on the camera lens.