|
Post by sinedyar on Jan 18, 2006 9:31:54 GMT -5
For those who had cameras with interchangeable lenses, regardless of type, prime lenses were once the norm. Zoom lenses were rare or for the most part not very good. Zoom lenses have come a long way since then and can compete very well against primes. But, in most cases, primes still hold an edge in quality.
Not counting mirror lenses, I have prime lenses from 17mm to 400mm in focal length. I enjoy them all, so it would be hard to pick a favorite, and that, after all, will be dependent upon what one is photographing at the time.
However, there are a couple of things I’d like to mention about certain prime lenses. The first being that 50mm range lenses, this being anything from about 48mm to 58mm in most cases, has been around for decades and is one of, and usually the cheapest, prime lenses one can buy. However, today they seem to be overlooked. Mostly, it seems, because that focal length is covered by an awful lot of zooms and zoom lenses are very popular today. This is a shame, because these lenses are often the sharpest lenses made by a manufacturer, and as I said earlier, usually their cheapest lenses. I have many of these “normal” lenses, as they are usually called, such as 50mm f/2, 50mm f/1,4, 50mm f/1.8, 52mm f/1.8, 57mm f/1.2, and others.
The second thing I wanted to mention is this designation as “normal” lens. To me, a “normal” lens should be something which gives the basic perspective of the human eye. By that I mean that looking at something through a lens and then taking the camera away and looking at it with your eye, it looks the same size. This happens with lenses in the 85mm to 105mm range for most people. For me it’s 100mm. Because of this similar perspective, photos made with these lenses usually give pictures which are the most pleasing, because it looks real, as one’s eye would see it. And, I would say, that is why most people like portraits made with lenses of 85mm to 105mm in focal length. This is one reason I often take “portraits” of rocks, statues, animals, etc. with 85mm to 105mm lenses.
Denis
|
|
|
Post by herron on Jan 18, 2006 10:09:28 GMT -5
Denis: I agree that prime lenses generally hold an edge in quality. It took me a long time to acquire my first zoom lens for that reason! As to what constitutes a normal lens, I seem to recall that a "normal" lens was considered to be one whose focal length is roughly equivalent to the diagonal of the image projected onto the film within the camera. Supposedly, this roughly approximates the perceived field of view of the human eye. For a 35mm camera with a diagonal of 43mm, we have all seen cameras with focal lengths between 40-58mm that are considered "normal" and the most commonly used "normal" lens is probably 50mm. I also recall reading somewhere that the 50mm focal length was chosen by the creator of the Leica camera as a compromise between this theoretical value and good sharpness. At the end of the rainbow, I'm not sure what this means, but that's my two cents worth! (Heaven help me make sense of the bits of trivia floating in my head! :
|
|
|
Post by sinedyar on Jan 18, 2006 11:39:41 GMT -5
Herron:
You're right in how it was chosen. But anyone can see by looking through a 50mm lens that when its taken away from your eye whatever you were looking at then looks bigger to you. Therefore, I've always considered a 50mm lens, or actually any lens shorter than 85mm to be more of a wideangle lens, even though they are considered to be and are officially "normal."
Denis
|
|
|
Post by litesong on Jan 18, 2006 13:00:01 GMT -5
Hey, Gang...haven't we had this conversation before? I think in one of the past deleted forums. Anyhow, I'll continue the talk. Either Pop. or Mod. Photography ran an article in the '70s showing a year 1800 painting of a scene in Paris familiar to Parisians. When a photographer went to that place in Paris, he used an 85mm lens to nearly duplicate the perspective of the painting in a photograph. Does this argument change any perspectives as to what lens constitutes "normal"?
|
|
|
Post by herron on Jan 18, 2006 16:41:22 GMT -5
I was just adding my 2-cents worth about where the designation of a "normal" lens came from. I shoot a lot of landscapes and scenics, and actually prefer 28mm or 35mm to 50mm...go figure! LOL ;D
|
|
|
Post by sinedyar on Jan 19, 2006 1:48:57 GMT -5
It would be hard to say what my favorite focal length over all would be, or even what range of prime lenses would be my favorite.
However, over the past 40 years or so that I've had SLRs, there have been a handful of prime lenses that have a special place in my heart.
The first two would be Konica's Hexanon lenses 57mm f/1.2 and 200mm f/3.5 primes. For many years these were the only two lenses I had for my Konica camera, and an awful lot of what I learned were learned using those two lenses.
Another would be my first really wideangle lens, a 24mm f/2.8 Konica Hexanon lens, which brought me into the real world of wideangle photography. I now have wider lenses, but it is special, and a 24mm Nikkor is a favorite of mine today.
Another is my first good 300mm lens, a Nikkor (older model) 300mm f/4. It's still my favorite 300mm or longer lens.
And the last primes I'll mention is a 100mm f/2.8 Konica Hexanon lens. Being that I consider it as my "normal" lens and favorite for portraiture (both human and nature), and a Nikkor 105mm f/2.5 lens for the same reasons for my Nikon cameras.
Denis
|
|
|
Post by kiev4a on Jan 19, 2006 9:42:54 GMT -5
I'm with Ron. "Normal" to me is around 35mm. For primes for my nikons I have a 24mm, 35mm, 50mm and 300mm. The rest of the range is covered by a 35-135 Nukkor zoom and a 70-210 Kiron zoom. We're going on a crise the summer and I would like to find a lightweight af zoom that can cover a wide range of focal lengths w/o too much quality loss. The F4 Kiron is a tad on the heavy side as is the Nikkor zoom.
|
|
rover
Lifetime Member
Dad with a Camera, or two, or...
Posts: 101
|
Post by rover on Jan 19, 2006 9:50:34 GMT -5
Denis, interesting that a 100mm lens is "normal" for you as defined by what focal length gives you a 1:1 magnification factor in the viewfinder. I believe this will vary camera to camera, as each has a different viewfinder magnification. For instance, with Minolta SRTs a 58mm lens produces a 1:1 image magnification.
|
|
|
Post by kamera on Jan 19, 2006 10:23:27 GMT -5
Wayne,
In Nikon mount I have a newer version of the Tamron 28-300 3.5/6.3 AF which I use on my F3HP, F4s and N80. At 28 it is about 3/3/4 inches long and at 300 about 6 3/4 inches.
IMHO it is quite a good and versatile lens and, if I am only taking a body and one lens, this is now it. As a safety margin I do two things, however...shoot a little less wide than 28 and a little more wide than 300(although I have used the extreme ends of the focal range) and compose with a little extra margin on the edges of the frame. Just in case I detect some unsharpness or extraneous my aging eyes might have missed...I can crop a bit in Photoshop.
I believe you would find it to be such as you seek for the cruise.
Ron Head Kalamazoo, MI
|
|
|
Post by litesong on Jan 19, 2006 10:25:54 GMT -5
Hi Wayne...You may consider the Vivitar Series One AF 28-300mm zoom. It's lite weight & costs less than others, but has some problems. Its minimum focus is only 6 feet. Also, somewhere between 200mm & 300mm, the sharpness goes away...quite a bit! More testing is needed, but I concentrated on camera steadiness, particularly as I took pix past 200mm. Tho I didn't use a tripod, I kept my shutter speed up. Up to 200mm, image quality is better than I thot(thought) it would be if not as good as I hoped. I think the Vivitar Series One is also the Quantaray & Promaster. My question is why did Vivitar start putting their Vivitar Series One stamp on inferior optics?
|
|
|
Post by kiev4a on Jan 19, 2006 12:28:32 GMT -5
Thanks for the tips. I'll do some followup research.
|
|
|
Post by sinedyar on Jan 19, 2006 12:47:05 GMT -5
Rover: True, as far as you go. viewfinder magnification does matter and will give some variation. But viewfinder magnification of 1:1 doesn't neccesarily mean equal to what the human eye sees. Denis Denis, interesting that a 100mm lens is "normal" for you as defined by what focal length gives you a 1:1 magnification factor in the viewfinder. I believe this will vary camera to camera, as each has a different viewfinder magnification. For instance, with Minolta SRTs a 58mm lens produces a 1:1 image magnification.
|
|