>
> I've long known that a "standard lens" is defined as one with focal
> length equal to the diagonal of the frame size which is in turn related
> to angle of view. However, I did not previously know how that is
> related to print size (or print diagonal) and viewing distance.
>
What is the issue? Rules? Are there laws of physics being broken?
I maintain that 50mm as the "standard" focal length for 35mm format was pure
genius. It's so easy to judge "magnification" as everything is an easy
multiple of 50mm. A 100mm is 2X, a 200mm lens is 4X, a 300mm lens is 6x, a
24mm lens is almost 0.5x. I believe that the overall success of the 35mm
format has been specifically contributed to by this "standard". Since the
35mm format has always been about convenience at the expense of
image-quality--from a technical perspective it has always been flawed, it
only makes sense to round the numbers to a convenient standard.
In reality, once you apply a typical crop to the image for final printing,
we are squaring up the image so even 42mm isn't a correct "standard" focal
length, but closer to 35mm focal length.
50mm has never been one of my favorite focal-lengths. It seems to always be
too long or too short. I personally prefer the 35mm focal length as my
"standard" just because it allows me to show my subject in its surroundings
without distortion. You can also zone-focus it. But does this have to do
with it being closer to 42mm? No, it just has to do with my own artistic
preference.
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|