Rediscover The 50mm Lens

svo · 03-23-2009, 10:11 AM

There was another article recently extolling the virtues of 50mm --> The 50mm f/1.4 lens: Photography's Magic Bullet

séamuis · 03-23-2009, 11:12 AM

Originally posted by svo

There was another article recently extolling the virtues of 50mm --> The 50mm f/1.4 lens: Photography's Magic Bullet

excellent article, but I will stick to my 55.

jsherman999 · 03-23-2009, 12:11 PM

.

Here are another few related articles - essential reading, IMO.

The Elusive Normal.

Great 50mm lenses.

My Favorite Lens.

.

heatherslightbox · 03-23-2009, 04:24 PM

Over my long weekend at the beach, I mostly used my ZX-M and FA43 and had a lot of fun with it; I'll be getting the developed film back tomorrow. Just so I could have something wider for the film body, I've got a M28/3.5 on the way; I'm also looking forward to trying this out on the K20.

I'm really liking the challenge of sticking to 1 prime at a time and seeing what each is capable of. Film is renewing my LBA for old manual primes--we'll see where this one is going.

Heather

estudleon · 03-23-2009, 04:38 PM

Don't forget the masterpieces of Cartier-Bresson and his Leica 50 mm.

jsherman999 · 03-23-2009, 05:59 PM

Originally posted by hwblanks

Over my long weekend at the beach, I mostly used my ZX-M and FA43 and had a lot of fun with it; I'll be getting the developed film back tomorrow. Just so I could have something wider for the film body, I've got a M28/3.5 on the way; I'm also looking forward to trying this out on the K20.

I'm really liking the challenge of sticking to 1 prime at a time and seeing what each is capable of. Film is renewing my LBA for old manual primes--we'll see where this one is going.

Heather

Neat stuff, Heather! Are you going to get the negatives scanned? I always like to see how the FA ltds do on film.

.

heatherslightbox · 03-23-2009, 06:38 PM

Originally posted by jsherman999

Neat stuff, Heather! Are you going to get the negatives scanned? I always like to see how the FA ltds do on film.

.

As a matter of fact, I am getting them scanned by the camera shop that's developing them. Eventually, I'd like to get to get my own film scanner so I can scan them at higher resolutions without paying the camera shop through the nose. The more reasonably priced scans are lower res and will be OK for printing up to about 8x10, I think.

At any rate, I'll most definitely be posting some of the better ones in either the film or "post your photos" section (or both, if the mood strikes me). I'll have 2 rolls to share--one on Fuji Reala 100 and the other on Ilford Delta 100.

Heather

heatherslightbox · 03-24-2009, 04:42 PM

I finally got some pics of the 43 on film posted. Here's a link to the posting in the film section. There's a link from there to my Fllickr set to check out the rest.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-film-slr-discussion/53503-cool-let...tml#post535627

Heather

Arjay Bee · 03-25-2009, 12:26 AM

@ Robin: Olaf's comments in response to the second article Jay linked to above responds to what you are driving at I think:

Quote:

Same here. I tried to get used to using 35 mm (54 mm-e) and 28 mm lenses (43 mm-e) as an image-format-adjusted standard lens on my APS-C-format DSLR camera ... but I keep falling back to the good old 50 mm lens (the Minolta AF 50 mm 1:1.7 in my case, 77 mm-e).

I keep wondering why this is. A possible explanation is viewfinder magnification. Most APS-C DSLRs' viewfinders have more or less the same magnification as their 35-mm-format counterparts but smaller fields of view. So with a 35 mm lens you'll get the same coverage as with a 50 mm lens on 35-mm format---but only with a 50 mm lens you'll get the same magnification presented in the viewfinder. Maybe we're thinking, or seeing, more in terms of magnification rather than field of view ... (just speculating).

When re-reading my earlier response above I realised I had missed the point you were making - but now I think I get it.

OregonJim · 03-25-2009, 12:53 AM

Originally posted by rparmar

How can 43mm be the most natural "eye view" on film and digital when for the resulting picture 43mm on film is matched by 28mm on digital?

Because 43mm is 43mm is 43mm, regardless of whether or not the camera is FF or APS-C or anything else. The only thing that changes is the field of view, not the focal length.

Think of it this way: You have an 8x10 picture frame and a 5x7. Hold up the 8x10at arms length in front of you - that's your FF field of view. Now place the 5x7 in front of it. That's your APS-C. The actual view through both frames didn't change at all - you just "cropped" it. Perspective didn't change, focal length didn't change, depth of field didn't change, only the field of view. So it is when moving lenses from one format to another.

Class A · 03-25-2009, 02:13 AM

Originally posted by rparmar

How can 43mm be the most natural "eye view" on film and digital when for the resulting picture 43mm on film is matched by 28mm on digital?

When you do your viewfinder experiment, don't forget that viewfinders have a "magnification", like x 0.85.
I don't know about the magnification of the old full frame cameras, but if they were close to x1 then this could explain part of the puzzle.

séamuis · 03-25-2009, 09:51 AM

Originally posted by Class A

When you do your viewfinder experiment, don't forget that viewfinders have a "magnification", like x 0.85.
I don't know about the magnification of the old full frame cameras, but if they were close to x1 then this could explain part of the puzzle.

film camera viewfinders were often designed around the 50mm lens. spotmatics were designed for the 55mm lens.

from the MX manual:

Quote:

95% of picture-taking area visible and 0.97 X magnification with 50mm lens at infinity.

from the MZ-5n manual:

Quote:

Field of view:92%, Magnification:0.8X(with 50mm lens at infinity)

K20D:

Quote:

Coverage (field of view) - 95%; Magnification - 0.95x (w/ 50mm f/1.4 at infinity)

**rparmar** · 03-25-2009, 05:15 PM

Originally posted by OregonJim

Because 43mm is 43mm is 43mm, regardless of whether or not the camera is FF or APS-C or anything else. The only thing that changes is the field of view, not the focal length.

Yeah, I know. So why does the image change but what I see through the viewfinder does not? That is the conundrum.

Originally posted by Class A

When you do your viewfinder experiment, don't forget that viewfinders have a "magnification", like x 0.85.
I don't know about the magnification of the old full frame cameras, but if they were close to x1 then this could explain part of the puzzle.

This could be the explanation, except AFAIK the K20D is similar to the film cameras at around 95% of coverage. It'd have to be quite different (50% different) to account for the 50% change in sensor size.

This mystery remains.

séamuis · 03-25-2009, 05:19 PM

Originally posted by rparmar

Yeah, I know. So why does the image change but what I see through the viewfinder does not? That is the conundrum.

This could be the explanation, except AFAIK the K20D is similar to the film cameras at around 95% of coverage. It'd have to be quite different (50% different) to account for the 50% change in sensor size.

This mystery remains.

but the viewfinder coverage wouldn't really have any effect other than you seeing less, quite like that of a APS-C sensor compared to 35mm. it would be the magnification that would have an effect if any, no?

**rparmar** · 03-25-2009, 05:49 PM

Originally posted by séamuis

but the viewfinder coverage wouldn't really have any effect other than you seeing less, quite like that of a APS-C sensor compared to 35mm. it would be the magnification that would have an effect if any, no?

Of course you are correct. My bad.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Which lens is better Pentax 50mm 1:2 Rikenon 50mm F2.0	mesuper	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	16	06-14-2012 11:27 AM
Pentax SMCP-FA 50mm f/1.4 Lens or Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM?	NicK10D	Pentax DSLR Discussion	7	06-23-2010 06:21 AM
50mm FA 1.4, 18-55 AL II Kit Lens and 16-50mm DA* Pics	jeremy_c	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	14	12-14-2008 06:20 PM
Which lens to keep? FA 50mm f/1.7 or Sigma 50mm f/2.8 MF Macro?	drabina	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	4	02-27-2008 06:15 AM

03-23-2009, 10:11 AM	#16
svo Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: MONTREAL, Canada ... and occasionally Prague, Posts: 53	There was another article recently extolling the virtues of 50mm --> The 50mm f/1.4 lens: Photography's Magic Bullet

03-23-2009, 11:12 AM	#17
séamuis Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H. Posts: 5,979	Originally posted by svo There was another article recently extolling the virtues of 50mm --> The 50mm f/1.4 lens: Photography's Magic Bullet excellent article, but I will stick to my 55.

03-23-2009, 12:11 PM	#18
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237 Original Poster	. Here are another few related articles - essential reading, IMO. The Elusive Normal. Great 50mm lenses. My Favorite Lens. .

03-23-2009, 04:24 PM	#19
heatherslightbox Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Gainesville, FL Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,599	Over my long weekend at the beach, I mostly used my ZX-M and FA43 and had a lot of fun with it; I'll be getting the developed film back tomorrow. Just so I could have something wider for the film body, I've got a M28/3.5 on the way; I'm also looking forward to trying this out on the K20. I'm really liking the challenge of sticking to 1 prime at a time and seeing what each is capable of. Film is renewing my LBA for old manual primes--we'll see where this one is going. Heather

03-23-2009, 04:38 PM	#20
estudleon Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 228	Don't forget the masterpieces of Cartier-Bresson and his Leica 50 mm.

03-23-2009, 05:59 PM	#21
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237 Original Poster	Originally posted by hwblanks Over my long weekend at the beach, I mostly used my ZX-M and FA43 and had a lot of fun with it; I'll be getting the developed film back tomorrow. Just so I could have something wider for the film body, I've got a M28/3.5 on the way; I'm also looking forward to trying this out on the K20. I'm really liking the challenge of sticking to 1 prime at a time and seeing what each is capable of. Film is renewing my LBA for old manual primes--we'll see where this one is going. Heather Neat stuff, Heather! Are you going to get the negatives scanned? I always like to see how the FA ltds do on film. .

03-23-2009, 06:38 PM	#22
heatherslightbox Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Gainesville, FL Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,599	Originally posted by jsherman999 Neat stuff, Heather! Are you going to get the negatives scanned? I always like to see how the FA ltds do on film. . As a matter of fact, I am getting them scanned by the camera shop that's developing them. Eventually, I'd like to get to get my own film scanner so I can scan them at higher resolutions without paying the camera shop through the nose. The more reasonably priced scans are lower res and will be OK for printing up to about 8x10, I think. At any rate, I'll most definitely be posting some of the better ones in either the film or "post your photos" section (or both, if the mood strikes me). I'll have 2 rolls to share--one on Fuji Reala 100 and the other on Ilford Delta 100. Heather

03-24-2009, 04:42 PM	#23
heatherslightbox Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Gainesville, FL Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,599	I finally got some pics of the 43 on film posted. Here's a link to the posting in the film section. There's a link from there to my Fllickr set to check out the rest. https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-film-slr-discussion/53503-cool-let...tml#post535627 Heather

03-25-2009, 12:26 AM	#24
Arjay Bee Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Horn Island, Torres Straits, Q Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,715	@ Robin: Olaf's comments in response to the second article Jay linked to above responds to what you are driving at I think: Quote: Same here. I tried to get used to using 35 mm (54 mm-e) and 28 mm lenses (43 mm-e) as an image-format-adjusted standard lens on my APS-C-format DSLR camera ... but I keep falling back to the good old 50 mm lens (the Minolta AF 50 mm 1:1.7 in my case, 77 mm-e). I keep wondering why this is. A possible explanation is viewfinder magnification. Most APS-C DSLRs' viewfinders have more or less the same magnification as their 35-mm-format counterparts but smaller fields of view. So with a 35 mm lens you'll get the same coverage as with a 50 mm lens on 35-mm format---but only with a 50 mm lens you'll get the same magnification presented in the viewfinder. Maybe we're thinking, or seeing, more in terms of magnification rather than field of view ... (just speculating). When re-reading my earlier response above I realised I had missed the point you were making - but now I think I get it.

03-25-2009, 12:53 AM	#25
OregonJim Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Willamette Valley, Oregon Posts: 1,327	Originally posted by rparmar How can 43mm be the most natural "eye view" on film and digital when for the resulting picture 43mm on film is matched by 28mm on digital? Because 43mm is 43mm is 43mm, regardless of whether or not the camera is FF or APS-C or anything else. The only thing that changes is the field of view, not the focal length. Think of it this way: You have an 8x10 picture frame and a 5x7. Hold up the 8x10at arms length in front of you - that's your FF field of view. Now place the 5x7 in front of it. That's your APS-C. The actual view through both frames didn't change at all - you just "cropped" it. Perspective didn't change, focal length didn't change, depth of field didn't change, only the field of view. So it is when moving lenses from one format to another.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-25-2009, 02:13 AM	#26
Class A Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 11,251	Originally posted by rparmar How can 43mm be the most natural "eye view" on film and digital when for the resulting picture 43mm on film is matched by 28mm on digital? When you do your viewfinder experiment, don't forget that viewfinders have a "magnification", like x 0.85. I don't know about the magnification of the old full frame cameras, but if they were close to x1 then this could explain part of the puzzle.

03-25-2009, 09:51 AM	#27
séamuis Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H. Posts: 5,979	Originally posted by Class A When you do your viewfinder experiment, don't forget that viewfinders have a "magnification", like x 0.85. I don't know about the magnification of the old full frame cameras, but if they were close to x1 then this could explain part of the puzzle. film camera viewfinders were often designed around the 50mm lens. spotmatics were designed for the 55mm lens. from the MX manual: Quote: 95% of picture-taking area visible and 0.97 X magnification with 50mm lens at infinity. from the MZ-5n manual: Quote: Field of view:92%, Magnification:0.8X(with 50mm lens at infinity) K20D: Quote: Coverage (field of view) - 95%; Magnification - 0.95x (w/ 50mm f/1.4 at infinity)

03-25-2009, 05:15 PM	#28
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,819	Originally posted by OregonJim Because 43mm is 43mm is 43mm, regardless of whether or not the camera is FF or APS-C or anything else. The only thing that changes is the field of view, not the focal length. Yeah, I know. So why does the image change but what I see through the viewfinder does not? That is the conundrum. Originally posted by Class A When you do your viewfinder experiment, don't forget that viewfinders have a "magnification", like x 0.85. I don't know about the magnification of the old full frame cameras, but if they were close to x1 then this could explain part of the puzzle. This could be the explanation, except AFAIK the K20D is similar to the film cameras at around 95% of coverage. It'd have to be quite different (50% different) to account for the 50% change in sensor size. This mystery remains.

03-25-2009, 05:19 PM	#29
séamuis Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H. Posts: 5,979	Originally posted by rparmar Yeah, I know. So why does the image change but what I see through the viewfinder does not? That is the conundrum. This could be the explanation, except AFAIK the K20D is similar to the film cameras at around 95% of coverage. It'd have to be quite different (50% different) to account for the 50% change in sensor size. This mystery remains. but the viewfinder coverage wouldn't really have any effect other than you seeing less, quite like that of a APS-C sensor compared to 35mm. it would be the magnification that would have an effect if any, no?

03-25-2009, 05:49 PM	#30
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,819	Originally posted by séamuis but the viewfinder coverage wouldn't really have any effect other than you seeing less, quite like that of a APS-C sensor compared to 35mm. it would be the magnification that would have an effect if any, no? Of course you are correct. My bad.