Hacker News Reader

Comment by ISL | Hacker News Reader

If pointing someone to a single "normal" lens as a prime, I'd point them to a 40mm, not a 50.

When I work with a 50 (which I very much enjoy; used one yesterday), I find that it is tighter in composition than my normal field of view. The 40 much-better matches my own perception and experience. The 50 is a more-careful tool.

35 is a little wide for me (but perfect for human/photojournalism work). If you want to try out a 40, there are great pancake lenses out there at relatively low cost. The Canon 40mm STM (recently discontinued) and Fuji 27mm are the smallest lenses made by their manufacturers -- cheap, sharp, fast, flexible.

Edit to add: For the specific case of environmental portraiture of kids, I'd probably trend toward a 35 and perhaps even a 28 (the focal length-equivalent on the Google Pixel 3a and 4a and the Q/Q2). The perspective with which we perceive the experience of being a kid is a close and intimate one.

View on HN

> If pointing someone to a single "normal" lens as a prime, I'd point them to a 40mm, not a 50.

The article does have a section on exactly the issue (FOV) you note - it identifies that the 50mm lens is not the same with modern cameras (which have smaller sensors than 35mm film cameras), and recommends a 35mm lens for these cameras. Personally, I have a 35mm prime lens and quite like it, and I think it did help me improve my skills when I can't just zoom to get what I want in frame.

>it identifies that the 50mm lens is not the same with modern cameras (which have smaller sensors than 35mm film cameras), and recommends a 35mm lens for these cameras

That's a different thing, which is about the "crop factor".

Modern APS-C digital cameras have smaller sesnors, with a 1.5 crop factor and will need a 35mm lens to get 50mm angle of view. This is not needed for modern full-frame digital cameras, which can use a 50mm to get 50mm angle of view just like old film cameras.

The article in that section just tells people to get a 35mm for modern (APS-C crop factor) cameras, because that's what gives the 50mm effective angle of view on those.

This issue is orthogonal to the parent's suggestion for 40mm.

To put it in different terms, the article in that section is concerned with "what lens you need on a modern crop factor camera to get 50mm effective angle of view - hence the suggestion for a 35mm physical lens).

Whereas the parent is concened with the actual effective angle of view you get, and suggests 40mm effective angle of view is better than 40mm effective angle of view.

To get such 40mm effective a.o.v, you need a 40mm lens on a film camera or a full-frame digital, and a 27mm lens on a APS-C digital (the kind of cameras the article has in mind when it says that "modern cameras have smaller lensors).

I think the difference between your comment and mine is I assumed the parent commenter is complaining about 50mm FOV being too tight on a APS-C sensor, and you've assumed they're complaining that 50mm is too tight on a full frame sensor. Either could be right.

But I think we've all gotten a little lost in the weeds, as the original article was recommending it not specifically because of focal length, but also because of lens speed compared to the 18-80mm zoom lenses now common on DSLRs.

I think it is usually assumed that people talk about 35mm equivalent focal length[0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/35_mm_equivalent_focal_length

My comment was based on full-frame equivalence :).

50mm on an APS-C is short-telephoto; frequently pleasing for portraits, but less-useful as a single prime. (I still recommend 50mm f/1.8s as a second or third lens for people using APS-C, but not as an only-lens.)

Thank you for the clarification! I've been happy with my 35mm lens (50mm equivalent) largely because it cost about $200.

Everything you've said is spot on (and I prefer 40mm equiv. as my run-around lens), but 35mm gives you a 52.5mm equivalent. The Fuji X-Mount 33mm is exactly 50mm and subjectively feels very similar to my film 50mm glass of various mounts in terms of field of view.

But it's also incredibly expensive. Fantastic glass though, I've rented it a couple times for some shoots

There are two issues here. One is just the usual crop factor stuff. Photographers seem to have real problems dealing with this (probably thanks to the original sin of some marketer somewhere), but they have always and will always suffer from that. If you quote focal lengths in "mmeq" (35mm film frame equivalent focal length) then this problem goes into the background and stays there, out of focus, until the next thread of people talking past each other on a photography forum.

The second issue is that the normal lens focal length for a 35mm film frame, by the most common definition, is actually 43mm. There are, of course, other definitions. https://medium.com/ice-cream-geometry/what-is-a-normal-lens-... seems like a good discussion but I admit to having just skimmed it. So neither 35mm nor 50mm is particularly great. My X100V has a 35mmeq prime lens and I often find myself wishing it was a little narrower. (Though of course I might be saying the opposite if it were actually 50mmeq....)

If Fuji ever makes an X100 with a 50mm-equivalent lens (probably a 35mm f/2), they'll sell a boatload. Quite a few of them will sit on a shelf, though, compared with the 35mm-equivalent X100s of today. You can always crop in, but you can't crop out.

If Fuji did make a 50mm X100, though, I'd be on the list. Ricoh made a great choice by bringing the GR IIIx to market. If I ever jump on the GR train, it'll likely be with that 40mm-equivalent model. Less versatile, but the images that do hit will resonate with me more.

FUJIFILM TCL-X100 II Tele Conversion Lens - they dont sell a boat load of them.

My old X100 field-of-view is spectacular just the way the designer intended it to be.

https://shuttermuse.com/fuji-x100-conversion-lens-review-28m...

I have the TCL -- it does work well, but it is so large that it feels very un-X100-like. When I travel with the X100, the TCL comes along, but as a "sometimes" lens, rather than the default.

If Fuji were to come to market with a leaf-shuttered 35mm f/2 comparable in size to the X100's 23mm, I continue to maintain that there'd be a bunch of high-end buyers. It'd be the only 50mm-equivalent instrument of its kind on the market.

>If Fuji ever makes an X100 with a 50mm-equivalent lens (probably a 35mm f/2), they'll sell a boatload.

Why would they? 35mm is much more versatile and better for family, travel, and street photography, which is what those cameras are used for.

I've spent some time with a full frame Canon SLR with a few different fixed focal length lenses. (35,50,&85mm). My favorite lens is the Zeiss Distagon 35mm/1.4 even though it doesn't have autofocus. That being said, I have moved to the Fujifilm x100v and I'm happy with the results.

They’re already having trouble cranking out enough X100V models

Even when you're using an APS-C (1.5x) or m43 (2.0) cameras, 50mm equivalents do not meet the FoV of most humans, and parent is right. 40mm is a better alternative for street/casual photography.

I personally use a duo of 28mm & 50mm. 28mm is great for street photography in city centers, and 50mm is great for slightly zooming in. I'm saving for a 40mm next. After that I'll ponder on a 20mm for landscape and ultra-wide things.

After getting used to sharpness of a good prime, there's no going back to a zoom.

Also worth noting that with mirrorless cameras, large-aperture 35mm full frame lenses can be made much more compact than their SLR counterparts, which need retrofocusing design.

On a mirrorless full-frame camera a 35/1.2 or 35/1.4 makes a fantastic, portable, all-around landscape and environmental portrait lens. Not so true for a 35/1.4 DSLR lens.

Very good advice. I'm usng a Panasonic 20 mm as my go to lens and the Leica 15 mm on micro four thirds. That's exactly a 40 mm and 30 mm equivalent. With the Mamiya 7 I also found myself using the 80 mm extensively, which gives you about the same field of view on 6x7 as a 40 mm lens on 35 mm film of full frame equivalent digital.

50 mm is good for portraits. If you're doing a lot of portraiture, use a 50 mm as your go to normal lens.

"Human normal" is actually 47.5mm

Reply on news.ycombinator.com