50mm suppose to be equal to human vision

I've come to a conclusion. I don't think 50mm is equal to human vision, it seems to tight if you ask me. I think 35mm would be closer to what the human eye see's?

The 50mm equation is based on 35mm film cameras and full sensor digitals. The 32-35mm is approximate for crop (APS) sensor digitals. The equation is different for medium and large format cameras.
Please, use the SEARCH FORUMS options for many more discussions of this subject.

Baydream wrote: The 50mm equation is based on 35mm film cameras and full sensor digitals. The 32-35mm is approximate for crop (APS) sensor digitals. The equation is different for medium and large format cameras.
Please, use the SEARCH FORUMS options for many more discussions of this subject.

I did, matter of fact I usually always use it. There are 1216 results for 50mm.

I found THIS result.

I've read (and don't remember where) that 85/90-100mm was supposed to be comparable to the distance you see naturally. I also read something about how 50mm became standard and that it was apparently somewhat arbitrary (like companies making cameras just decided for no particular reason that 50mm would be the standard).

I have older viewfinders and rangefinders that have shorter than 50mm (often 45mm) and if they have interchangeable longer lenses available they're 85-90mm but I don't know how the lens length was determined. Or why it changed to 50mm.

icepics wrote: I've read (and don't remember where) that 85/90-100mm was supposed to be comparable to the distance you see naturally. I also read something about how 50mm became standard and that it was apparently somewhat arbitrary (like companies making cameras just decided for no particular reason that 50mm would be the standard).

I have older viewfinders and rangefinders that have shorter than 50mm (often 45mm) and if they have interchangeable longer lenses available they're 85-90mm but I don't know how the lens length was determined. Or why it changed to 50mm.

I have not heard this before. So 85 to 100mm is the magic number. Boy was I way off. Might need to try this.

Vladimir wrote:

Baydream wrote: The 50mm equation is based on 35mm film cameras and full sensor digitals. The 32-35mm is approximate for crop (APS) sensor digitals. The equation is different for medium and large format cameras.
Please, use the SEARCH FORUMS options for many more discussions of this subject.

I did, matter of fact I usually always use it. There are 1216 results for 50mm.

Wow that's alot of posts for just one lens. I would say the 50mm this forum.

Vladimir wrote:

icepics wrote: I've read (and don't remember where) that 85/90-100mm was supposed to be comparable to the distance you see naturally. I also read something about how 50mm became standard and that it was apparently somewhat arbitrary (like companies making cameras just decided for no particular reason that 50mm would be the standard).

I have older viewfinders and rangefinders that have shorter than 50mm (often 45mm) and if they have interchangeable longer lenses available they're 85-90mm but I don't know how the lens length was determined. Or why it changed to 50mm.

I have not heard this before. So 85 to 100mm is the magic number. Boy was I way off. Might need to try this.

People tend to use 85mm more for portraits. Although you do hear many photographers using the 50mm. I say, if we want something that is more equal to the human vision, they need to start developing cameras for the eye.

Vladimir wrote: I've come to a conclusion. I don't think 50mm is equal to human vision, it seems to tight if you ask me. I think 35mm would be closer to what the human eye see's?

It seems to me that cameras and lenses aren't very similar to the way my eyes and mind work. Studying how they are different has helped my photography quite a bit, because there is often a difference between the scene in my mind and the scene as it will be captured by the camera and rendered in 2D.

www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/cameras-vs-human-eye.htm

The idea is that a 50mm lens on the 35mm film format (or "full-frame" DSLR) renders a magnification and angle of view that approximates the field that we can comfortably observe in some detail at a glance. It obviously isn't meant to represent the breadth of our entire visual field, nor does it represent the very narrow central area in which we see real sharp focus at any given moment. You could think of it as a the "snapshot" field of view of human vision. It is also close to the 43mm theoretical ideal "normal" focal length for that format, so it neither compresses the perspective like a telephoto, nor distorts perspective like a wide angle.

Many photographers find their own "normal," whether that be Gary Winogrand's 28mm wide-angle, Cartier-Bresson's 50mm, Salgado's 60mm, or a wildlife photographer's big tele.

Personally, I find that when I review the metadata of images I've made with my 24-70 zoom on Nikon FX format cameras, it seems the "normal" focal length I'm most comfortable with is 44mm. For whatever reason, I make far more images at 44mm than at any other focal length in the 40mm to 60mm range.

I also find it to be a very useful practice to pop a 50mm (or any other single prime lens, for that matter) on the camera and just spend some time using that single focal length. It's a good way to getting a better handle on finding the optimal camera position for the image in question, which is much more important than using a particular lens.

Interesting thoughts on it. Over the weekend I had out my Voigtlander with the 90mm lens and I felt like what I was seeing thru the viewfinder was pretty comparable as far as distance to what I saw w/out looking thru the camera. However this camera has a 1:1 viewfinder so that could be what's giving me that effect. And w/this viewfinder I can look thru it with either eye/both eyes open so that may make a difference too. Sounds like the lens length is different if you're using it with a film camera or different types of digital.