What is this weird hatred of different focal lengths?

I don't get this oddball hatred of focal lengths not in the "norm" of
camera focal lengths. Scroll down 2/3 and see the comment by sour old
Wizniewski. He claimes 55-58mm focal lengths all "failed." Was it too
difficult getting 10-15% further away from a subject so you end up with
your precious 50mm focal length, if it's that important??

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/09...Distagon-55mm-
F1-4-for-Canon-Nikon-lenses-for-mirrorless-system-cameras

On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 21:11:58 -0500, Rich wrote:
: I don't get this oddball hatred of focal lengths not in the "norm" of
: camera focal lengths. Scroll down 2/3 and see the comment by sour old
: Wizniewski. He claimes 55-58mm focal lengths all "failed." Was it too
: difficult getting 10-15% further away from a subject so you end up with
: your precious 50mm focal length, if it's that important??
:
: http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/09...Distagon-55mm-
: F1-4-for-Canon-Nikon-lenses-for-mirrorless-system-cameras

The picture of "sour old" Wisniewski (note spelling) makes him look a good bit
younger than me, and probably you. But we'll let that pass. Wisniewski's point
may be pedantic and irrelevant (and it was pounced on by at least one other
commenter), but it's based on historical fact. When SLRs first started to
compete with 35mm rangefinder cameras, most came with "normal" lenses of 55mm
or 58mm, rather than the common rangefinder "standard" of 50mm. The
presumption at the time was that it was easier to keep the slightly longer
lens away from the mirror. But the 50mm standard was pretty well ingrained in
the mentality of 35mm photographers, and soon enough the SLR manufacturers
replaced the longer lenses with 50mm designs compatible with their cameras. So
in that sense the longer lenses did "fail".

But surely you knew all that?

Bob

On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 17:50:02 +0100, Bruce wrote:
: Robert Coe wrote:
:
: The picture of "sour old" Wisniewski (note spelling) makes him look a good bit
: younger than me, and probably you. But we'll let that pass. Wisniewski's point
: may be pedantic and irrelevant (and it was pounced on by at least one other
: commenter), but it's based on historical fact. When SLRs first started to
: compete with 35mm rangefinder cameras, most came with "normal" lenses of 55mm
: or 58mm, rather than the common rangefinder "standard" of 50mm. The
: presumption at the time was that it was easier to keep the slightly longer
: lens away from the mirror.
:
:
: A small correction:
:
: The true focal length of a 50mm rangefinder lens with Leica mount
: (screw or M bayonet) is about 51.6mm. A lens with a true focal length
: of 50mm needs a second rangefinder helicoid machined into the rear of
: the lens to compensate for the difference in focal lengths.
:
: I am told, but have never confirmed, that the Carl Zeiss 50mm lens for
: M bayonet mount has such a helicoid and, because of its true 50mm
: focal length, has a greater angle of view than Leica "50mm" lenses.
:
: Deviations of a couple of millimetres from the focal lengths engraved
: or painted on the lens are not unusual. I had a Tokina 20-35mm lens
: which actually had a greater angle of view at the wide angle end than
: the Nikon 18-35mm. It's not desperately important unless you are
: upset that you are not getting an angle of view as wide as you thought
: you were paying for.

That's interesting information, but a non sequitur in the thread. Sour old
Wisniewski's point, although he didn't fully explain it, was that although
lenses labelled as 55mm and 58mm were common on early SLRs, they died out
rather quickly in favor of lenses labelled as 50mm, when SLRs entered serious
competition with 35mm rangefinder cameras, on which 50mm lenses were
ubiquitous. Rich objected to Wisniewski's characterization of this phenomenon
as a failure of the longer lenses. At no point did the discussion address the
entirely separate issue of whether the focal lengths of any of those lenses
was accurately stated. What does seem clear, though, is that the SLR lenses
were redesigned to a shorter focal length to accommodate the prevailing
opinion that a 50mm lens was "normal" on a 35mm camera.

Bob

"Robert Coe" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 21:11:58 -0500, Rich wrote:
: I don't get this oddball hatred of focal lengths not in the "norm" of
: camera focal lengths. Scroll down 2/3 and see the comment by sour old
: Wizniewski. He claimes 55-58mm focal lengths all "failed." Was it too
: difficult getting 10-15% further away from a subject so you end up with
: your precious 50mm focal length, if it's that important??
:
:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/09...Distagon-55mm-
: F1-4-for-Canon-Nikon-lenses-for-mirrorless-system-cameras

The picture of "sour old" Wisniewski (note spelling) makes him look a good
bit
younger than me, and probably you. But we'll let that pass. Wisniewski's
point
may be pedantic and irrelevant (and it was pounced on by at least one
other
commenter), but it's based on historical fact. When SLRs first started to
compete with 35mm rangefinder cameras, most came with "normal" lenses of
55mm
or 58mm, rather than the common rangefinder "standard" of 50mm. The
presumption at the time was that it was easier to keep the slightly longer
lens away from the mirror. But the 50mm standard was pretty well ingrained
in
the mentality of 35mm photographers, and soon enough the SLR manufacturers
replaced the longer lenses with 50mm designs compatible with their
cameras. So
in that sense the longer lenses did "fail".

Which is all rather amusing when you consider the more serious photographers
used an 85mm lens and a 35mm lens combination far more often than anything
in the 40-70mm range. If anything a 58 mm lens was a little better for
portraits than a 50mm one at least, even if not by much. A fast 50mm is a
much better lens now on a non FF sensor DSLR however IMO.

Trevor.

On Sun, 09 Sep 2012 13:59:40 +0100, Bruce wrote:
: Robert Coe wrote:
:
: On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 17:50:02 +0100, Bruce wrote:
: : Robert Coe wrote:
: :
: : The picture of "sour old" Wisniewski (note spelling) makes him look a good bit
: : younger than me, and probably you. But we'll let that pass. Wisniewski's point
: : may be pedantic and irrelevant (and it was pounced on by at least one other
: : commenter), but it's based on historical fact. When SLRs first started to
: : compete with 35mm rangefinder cameras, most came with "normal" lenses of 55mm
: : or 58mm, rather than the common rangefinder "standard" of 50mm. The
: : presumption at the time was that it was easier to keep the slightly longer
: : lens away from the mirror.
: :
: :
: : A small correction:
: :
: : The true focal length of a 50mm rangefinder lens with Leica mount
: : (screw or M bayonet) is about 51.6mm. A lens with a true focal length
: : of 50mm needs a second rangefinder helicoid machined into the rear of
: : the lens to compensate for the difference in focal lengths.
: :
: : I am told, but have never confirmed, that the Carl Zeiss 50mm lens for
: : M bayonet mount has such a helicoid and, because of its true 50mm
: : focal length, has a greater angle of view than Leica "50mm" lenses.
: :
: : Deviations of a couple of millimetres from the focal lengths engraved
: : or painted on the lens are not unusual. I had a Tokina 20-35mm lens
: : which actually had a greater angle of view at the wide angle end than
: : the Nikon 18-35mm. It's not desperately important unless you are
: : upset that you are not getting an angle of view as wide as you thought
: : you were paying for.
:
: That's interesting information, but a non sequitur in the thread.
:
:
: It's called 'broadening the discussion', sometimes termed 'thread
: drift'. Sorry if it offended your sensibilities. ;-)

You portrayed it as a "correction", which I think is confusing to the reader
(as it was to me at first), since it doesn't address anything Rich or I said.
By any other name, I'm fine with it. The fact is that I've contributed to
thread drift myself often enough.

Bob

"Trevor" writes:

Which is all rather amusing when you consider the more serious photographers
used an 85mm lens and a 35mm lens combination far more often than anything
in the 40-70mm range. If anything a 58 mm lens was a little better for
portraits than a 50mm one at least, even if not by much. A fast 50mm is a
much better lens now on a non FF sensor DSLR however IMO.

A 58mm is great on a 1.5X DSLR for portraits :-)
--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

In article c78ea956-44cd-4f57-80b8-85ef06d59896
@u19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com, RichA says...
On Sep 9, 1:43*pm, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
"Trevor" writes:
Which is all rather amusing when you consider the more serious photographers
used an 85mm lens and a 35mm lens combination far more often than anything
in the 40-70mm range. If anything a 58 mm lens was a little better for
portraits than a 50mm one at least, even if not by much. A fast 50mm is a
much better lens now on a non FF sensor DSLR however IMO.

A 58mm is great on a 1.5X DSLR for portraits :-)

But does it behave the same way as say an 85mm on a FF for the same
subject matter?

Why shouldn't it? The only issue might be the different DOF.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

Alfred Molon writes:

In article c78ea956-44cd-4f57-80b8-85ef06d59896
@u19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com, RichA says...
On Sep 9, 1:43Â*pm, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
"Trevor" writes:
Which is all rather amusing when you consider the more serious photographers
used an 85mm lens and a 35mm lens combination far more often than anything
in the 40-70mm range. If anything a 58 mm lens was a little better for
portraits than a 50mm one at least, even if not by much. A fast 50mm is a
much better lens now on a non FF sensor DSLR however IMO.

A 58mm is great on a 1.5X DSLR for portraits :-)

But does it behave the same way as say an 85mm on a FF for the same
subject matter?

Why shouldn't it? The only issue might be the different DOF.

You're not using the edges, so vignetting and edge quality issues
(common in ultra-fast lenses) are less important.

The DOF is different (at any given aperture), yes. I don't find this
actually matters in practice, but that'll depend on kind of photos and
personal taste, it's a real difference. The DOF formulas work with real
focal length not "equivalent". You also have to pick a circle of
confusion, which depends partly on your standards for "sharp" and partly
on the degree of enlargement planned and the viewing distance planned --
and the degree of enlargement is greater for smaller sensors.
--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

Alfred Molon wrote in
:

In article c78ea956-44cd-4f57-80b8-85ef06d59896
@u19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com, RichA says...
On Sep 9, 1:43*pm, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
"Trevor" writes:
Which is all rather amusing when you consider the more serious
photog
raphers
used an 85mm lens and a 35mm lens combination far more often than
any
thing
in the 40-70mm range. If anything a 58 mm lens was a little
better fo
r
portraits than a 50mm one at least, even if not by much. A fast
50mm
is a
much better lens now on a non FF sensor DSLR however IMO.

A 58mm is great on a 1.5X DSLR for portraits :-)

But does it behave the same way as say an 85mm on a FF for the same
subject matter?

Why shouldn't it? The only issue might be the different DOF.

How about the flattening effect (compression) of the focal length? m4/3
and 50mm versus FF and 100mm, for instance. Same effective area coverage
but would it look different, even if DOF was compensated for by using
different apertures?

Rich writes:

Alfred Molon wrote in
:

In article c78ea956-44cd-4f57-80b8-85ef06d59896
@u19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com, RichA says...
On Sep 9, 1:43Â*pm, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
"Trevor" writes:
Which is all rather amusing when you consider the more serious
photog
raphers
used an 85mm lens and a 35mm lens combination far more often than
any
thing
in the 40-70mm range. If anything a 58 mm lens was a little
better fo
r
portraits than a 50mm one at least, even if not by much. A fast
50mm
is a
much better lens now on a non FF sensor DSLR however IMO.

A 58mm is great on a 1.5X DSLR for portraits :-)

But does it behave the same way as say an 85mm on a FF for the same
subject matter?

Why shouldn't it? The only issue might be the different DOF.

How about the flattening effect (compression) of the focal length? m4/3
and 50mm versus FF and 100mm, for instance. Same effective area coverage
but would it look different, even if DOF was compensated for by using
different apertures?

Thre is no flattening effect or compression caused by focal length.

Perspective (which technically means the relationships between objects
in the rendered image) is controlled by camera location. If you take a
photo from the same place with the center of the frame pointing exactly
the same direction with a 24mm lens and 600mm lens, and crop the 600mm
angle of view out of the center of the 24mm image, the perspective will
be the same. (With that big a crop, there will probably be visible
noise/sharpness issues, but the perspective will be the same.)

(In the real world, one either picks a lens for a position you want to
shoot from to get the framing you want, or else picks a position that
gives the framing you want for the lens you have; the decisions are
often made intertwined, not independently.)
--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info