Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/08/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 05:39 PM 11-08-97 -0800, you wrote: >Mon, 11 Aug 1997 15:30:17 -0400 (EDT) Alf Breul wrote: > >>In einer eMail vom 11.08.1997 18:54:55, schreiben Sie: >> >>>I always thought that the "normal" lens was one [snip] At the risk of beating a dead horse, for me a "normal" picture is one where if I return to the actual scene of the photo, hold the photo up in front of me, the subject pictured in the photo will exactly superimpose itself over the live subject. If the scence in the photo appears smaller than real life, then the lens used to take the photo is (by definition) a wide-angle lens. Likewise, if the subject appears larger than life, then the lens used was a telephoto (or long focus lens). Obviously, the size of the image in the photo depends also on how large I made the enlargement, and how far from my eye I am holding the print or slide, hence the formula that I posted here a week ago. I have heard the view that the 50 approximates the human eye. Well, maybe my eyes are different, but my vision extends much further to the sides than any 50mm lens I've ever encountered. In fact, I can't imagine any camera lens duplicating the effect of human vision. The other explanation I have heard many times is the one concerning the diagonal of the film equaling the focal length of the lens. A nice, tidy explanation, except for why? How is such a lens "normal"? The best alternative explantion of course is that a normal lens is one that a photographer most feels comfortable with. No arguments here. Dan C.