combatentropy
Veteran
Forget-me-not, by Camille Marotte (55s). 5D + 50mm
Behind the move, by Kendy Ty (6m 21s). Rebel + 30mm
Hong Kong in Melody, by mor (2m 4s). Blackmagic Pocket + 17.5mm
the tale, by Mike Kobal (59s). 5D + 50mm
Wood Shop of a good time, by Ben Sandfoss (2m 6s) Rebel + 30mm
Moeraki, by Artico Studio (2m 16s) Rebel + 30mm
Awaken your senses, by Artico Studio (2m 22s) Rebel + 30mm
White ride, by phillipp bauer & micha heinz (4m 7s) Rebel + 30mm
---
". . . it has a certain 'chameleon' property. That is, it can be made to mimic a slightly telephoto 'look' and also a slightly wide-angle look . . . " --- Normal Lens = Universal Lens? by Carl Weese
See also The Forgotten Lens, by Gary Voth.
"With zooms, it's easy to take thoughtless pictures, since you just turn the ring until something fits from wherever you're standing. With fixed lenses, we have to move around. . . . the best angle is rarely the point from which we just happen to see something interesting the first time." --- Why Fixed Lenses Take Better Pictures, by Ken Rockwell
Like Ken Rockwell also says in his article, I used to "worry that I'd miss all kinds of pictures by not carrying everything from 14mm through 400mm." He recommends to take just two or three prime lenses. Some people have taken it a step farther and gone around with just one prime lens, at least as an exercise for a time. Naturally you're going to spend some time thinking about exactly which lenses you're going to bring. Me, I prefer the normal focal length.
The normal focal length is poorly defined in almost everything I read. Some people say it equals the diagonal of your sensor, but this is too short. Some say it approximates the field of view of the human eye, but this is ridiculous. Your field of view, even without moving your eyes, is like 14mm on full frame. I have a different theory on how to calculate the normal focal length.
The normal focal length is the one that gives a 45-degree angle of view on the diagonal. This involves a lot of math. First you have to figure out the exact width and height of your sensor. This involves digging through the manufacturer's literature. Then you have to figure out what its width and height really are when shooting 16:9 video, which is usually cropped from the sensor if it's also a still camera. For example, a Canon 5D is 36 x 24mm, but in movie mode it would be 36 x 20.2. Then you have to find the diagonal, which is the hypotenuse, which is that a[SUP]2[/SUP] + b[SUP]2[/SUP] = c[SUP]2[/SUP] formula. That's 36 times 36, added to 20.2 times 20.2, and if that's not hard enough, you now have to take the square root.
But that's the easy part, because now that you have the dimension, you need to calculate the angle of view. Here's the formula:
Yeah, have fun with that.
That's why I wrote a web page that does it all for me. But here are some common formats:
135: 50mm
S35: 35mm
APS-C: 30mm
4/3: 24mm
S16: 17.5mm (so the Voigtlander is perfect on the Pocket)
Again, these are calculated based on a 16:9 crop, in case the format starts out at a different shape, like 3:2 and 4:3.
So why 45°? Instead of degrees, think of it as slices in a pie. In the 180° side that you face, 45° is exactly 1/4. That whole-number division gives it a certain right feeling to my eye. Something else, like a 38° angle, would cut your field of view into 4.7386... pieces. I have wondered if lenses that cut the field of view into exactly 1/3 or 1/8 would also have a certain comfort to their feeling. And I have looked a bunch of shots, and after a while, I gave up. I can't tell. My whole theory about integer division of your field of view may be hogwash. But I have a sub-part of my 45° angle theory that I still hold onto, that it makes right angles look right, it just makes the angles in a photograph look correct in relation to the borders of the frame. And this is the reason that a normal lens looks natural --- not because it matches human eye's field of view.
Why the diagonal? Why not the width or the height? Well, different formats will have different shapes. And the diagonal averages the overall feel of the frame. Are you trying to convert from anamorphic to 4:3, to find a lens on each that has a similar feel? Well, it will never be the same, but going by width or height will throw you way off. The diagonal captures the overall feel. It may also be because for a circle that's just big enough to go around the frame, its diameter would be the diagonal.
What I'm talking about is choosing your lens based on feel. Obviously if you're filming sports, wildlife, or something else where you cannot choose the exact best spot to stand, you're probably going to want a choice of focal lengths. But otherwise, I think when selecting a shot you first put the camera down and stand in the best spot that you think feels right for how you want to portray the subject. Close or far? High or low? That is choosing the perspective, which has the biggest effect on how the photograph will feel. Then you ask yourself, how much do you want to crop? That's when you select a focal length.
Or you just walk around with a normal lens. When you see something you want to shoot, and then move into an interesting position to shoot it, I think the normal lens will always frame the shot nicely.
I hope you enjoyed my long spiel. My intent is not to restrict you with some rule (you must use a normal lens, or you must carry no more than three lenses, and they must be primes). I was mainly wanting to showcase, in those videos, how much you can accomplish with a lens that weighs half a pound, opens to f/1.4, is probably sharper and straighter than any zoom you own, and costs a hundred bucks.
Behind the move, by Kendy Ty (6m 21s). Rebel + 30mm
Hong Kong in Melody, by mor (2m 4s). Blackmagic Pocket + 17.5mm
the tale, by Mike Kobal (59s). 5D + 50mm
Wood Shop of a good time, by Ben Sandfoss (2m 6s) Rebel + 30mm
Moeraki, by Artico Studio (2m 16s) Rebel + 30mm
Awaken your senses, by Artico Studio (2m 22s) Rebel + 30mm
White ride, by phillipp bauer & micha heinz (4m 7s) Rebel + 30mm
---
". . . it has a certain 'chameleon' property. That is, it can be made to mimic a slightly telephoto 'look' and also a slightly wide-angle look . . . " --- Normal Lens = Universal Lens? by Carl Weese
See also The Forgotten Lens, by Gary Voth.
"With zooms, it's easy to take thoughtless pictures, since you just turn the ring until something fits from wherever you're standing. With fixed lenses, we have to move around. . . . the best angle is rarely the point from which we just happen to see something interesting the first time." --- Why Fixed Lenses Take Better Pictures, by Ken Rockwell
Like Ken Rockwell also says in his article, I used to "worry that I'd miss all kinds of pictures by not carrying everything from 14mm through 400mm." He recommends to take just two or three prime lenses. Some people have taken it a step farther and gone around with just one prime lens, at least as an exercise for a time. Naturally you're going to spend some time thinking about exactly which lenses you're going to bring. Me, I prefer the normal focal length.
The normal focal length is poorly defined in almost everything I read. Some people say it equals the diagonal of your sensor, but this is too short. Some say it approximates the field of view of the human eye, but this is ridiculous. Your field of view, even without moving your eyes, is like 14mm on full frame. I have a different theory on how to calculate the normal focal length.
The normal focal length is the one that gives a 45-degree angle of view on the diagonal. This involves a lot of math. First you have to figure out the exact width and height of your sensor. This involves digging through the manufacturer's literature. Then you have to figure out what its width and height really are when shooting 16:9 video, which is usually cropped from the sensor if it's also a still camera. For example, a Canon 5D is 36 x 24mm, but in movie mode it would be 36 x 20.2. Then you have to find the diagonal, which is the hypotenuse, which is that a[SUP]2[/SUP] + b[SUP]2[/SUP] = c[SUP]2[/SUP] formula. That's 36 times 36, added to 20.2 times 20.2, and if that's not hard enough, you now have to take the square root.
But that's the easy part, because now that you have the dimension, you need to calculate the angle of view. Here's the formula:
2 × arctan(d / 2f)
Yeah, have fun with that.
That's why I wrote a web page that does it all for me. But here are some common formats:
135: 50mm
S35: 35mm
APS-C: 30mm
4/3: 24mm
S16: 17.5mm (so the Voigtlander is perfect on the Pocket)
Again, these are calculated based on a 16:9 crop, in case the format starts out at a different shape, like 3:2 and 4:3.
So why 45°? Instead of degrees, think of it as slices in a pie. In the 180° side that you face, 45° is exactly 1/4. That whole-number division gives it a certain right feeling to my eye. Something else, like a 38° angle, would cut your field of view into 4.7386... pieces. I have wondered if lenses that cut the field of view into exactly 1/3 or 1/8 would also have a certain comfort to their feeling. And I have looked a bunch of shots, and after a while, I gave up. I can't tell. My whole theory about integer division of your field of view may be hogwash. But I have a sub-part of my 45° angle theory that I still hold onto, that it makes right angles look right, it just makes the angles in a photograph look correct in relation to the borders of the frame. And this is the reason that a normal lens looks natural --- not because it matches human eye's field of view.
Why the diagonal? Why not the width or the height? Well, different formats will have different shapes. And the diagonal averages the overall feel of the frame. Are you trying to convert from anamorphic to 4:3, to find a lens on each that has a similar feel? Well, it will never be the same, but going by width or height will throw you way off. The diagonal captures the overall feel. It may also be because for a circle that's just big enough to go around the frame, its diameter would be the diagonal.
What I'm talking about is choosing your lens based on feel. Obviously if you're filming sports, wildlife, or something else where you cannot choose the exact best spot to stand, you're probably going to want a choice of focal lengths. But otherwise, I think when selecting a shot you first put the camera down and stand in the best spot that you think feels right for how you want to portray the subject. Close or far? High or low? That is choosing the perspective, which has the biggest effect on how the photograph will feel. Then you ask yourself, how much do you want to crop? That's when you select a focal length.
Or you just walk around with a normal lens. When you see something you want to shoot, and then move into an interesting position to shoot it, I think the normal lens will always frame the shot nicely.
I hope you enjoyed my long spiel. My intent is not to restrict you with some rule (you must use a normal lens, or you must carry no more than three lenses, and they must be primes). I was mainly wanting to showcase, in those videos, how much you can accomplish with a lens that weighs half a pound, opens to f/1.4, is probably sharper and straighter than any zoom you own, and costs a hundred bucks.
Last edited:
