Favorite natural perspective lens

[38wadcutter]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

What do you feel is the most natural perspective i.e. the lens that you feel best simulates your normal visual perspective of things?

[FlashGordonPhotography]

43mm.

Personally I see the world through a 50mm lens, which is slightly longer than *normal*. I really liked the 45mm lens on my XPan in Pano mode as well.

Gordon

[PeterGA]

8 minutes ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

43mm.

Personally I see the world through a 50mm lens, which is slightly longer than *normal*. I really liked the 45mm lens on my XPan in Pano mode as well.

Gordon

 

Interesting point - aspect ratio is more important to me than focal length in typical shots. So yes - my favourite film camera and favourite lens in pano mode.

The 3:2 or 4:3 framing using wides is too long on the vertical for the way I see things and not wide enough on the horisontal. So my workaround is to use the XPan crop with Fuji viewfinders ( nad previously in XID)  and the 3:1 with SL2 and always in B&W.

 

Pete

[Tailwagger]

I'm with Gordon. I tend to see things as 50mm and visualize up and down from there. Possibly an artifact of shooting with nothing but a 50mm for many years when I was a youth.  

[jaapv]

5 hours ago, 38wadcutter said:

What do you feel is the most natural perspective i.e. the lens that you feel best simulates your normal visual perspective of things?

That varies with the subject, and above all, the subject distance for me. Maybe just me, but in general I prefer framing and composition over perspective.

[LocalHero1953]

I've changed over time, inconsistently. Like every newbie photographer I went with the 50mm 'standard lens' option until I discovered the attractions of 35mm (a Summicron on my first M3). After I went digital with the M9 I thought that the Apo-Summicron-M 50mm ASPH would bring me back, but I found that 75mm offered me the best angle of view for capturing 'whatever I was looking at at the time' i.e. with an emphasis on seeing things rather than the scene. For some reason the 50mm Summicron-M was never used as intensively as I expected. I've now reverted, with the CL, to 35mm (with the wonderful Summilux-TL), which is intensively used, as a 50mm equivalent FoV.

[Donald M]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I started making photos with the Macro R 60mm, from there to a 80mm on the Rollei SLX (in fact 50mm in 24x36 terms). The last years I tend to use the range form 24-30mm with the SL 24-90mm the most. When I go walking longer distances I take the R 24mm or sometimes the M 21mm. So you could say I see the world rather wide angled.

Donald

[T25UFO]

4 hours ago, Donald M said:

I started making photos with the Macro R 60mm, from there to a 80mm on the Rollei SLX (in fact 50mm in 24x36 terms). The last years I tend to use the range form 24-30mm with the SL 24-90mm the most. When I go walking longer distances I take the R 24mm or sometimes the M 21mm. So you could say I see the world rather wide angled.

Donald

That’s interesting.  I went through a period of seeing everything in 24mm, but now I rarely use this lens.  You have reminded me to revisit.  I use 50mm the most now, although that is probably influenced by lens quality and compactness.  I have sold my SL 50mm Summilux, so by “compact” I mean the M 50mm APO.

 

Edited March 29, 2020 by T25UFO

[Michael Hiles]

As I look for possible pictures, my visual perspective usually is roughly what a 50mm lens sees.

For street photography, a 90mm often works well – it allows for a picture without moving so close as to interrupt the scene and social dynamic.

[david a. edwards]

A 75mm is close to the way I see the world.  I use the APO-Summicron-SL 50mm on my Leica CL.  The best of the best!

[AZN]

40mm for me.  Nice compromise between 35mm or 50mm.

I used the Voigtlander 40mm f2 SLII for years (Nikon F-mount), but have been using their more recent Nokton f1.2 for the last year (Leica M mount).

Of course use them with the appropriate adapters for the SL (and Sony ARII and ARIV)

[MarkinVan]

I started with the 50mm Summarit on my M240. When I got the 35mm Summarit it seems to stay permanently on the camera.

Now with the SL2 and Summicron 35mm it couldn't be better especially how I can crop if needed.

I'll have to go back and give the 50mm a fresh try.

 

Edited March 29, 2020 by MarkinVan

[scott kirkpatrick]

Back when M2s were affordable for a student, I got an M2 and a Canon 35mm f/2 lens and that, plus a Nikon F with the 105/2.5, was exactly how the world looked to me.  Two modes -- one general and one foveated on something specific.  When digital happened, I found the Olympus E-1 with its 50/2 macro exactly duplicated the feel of the F/105.  Digital Ms have always seemed to be wide angle cameras to me.  The 28/2.8 that Leica introduced at a very low price with the M8 seemed just right, but with the M9 became even more so.  At some point I got a 24/Elmarit-asph to use on the M8 (where it becomes a 35 mm), and that has also seemed a very natural view for more crowded situations on any M.

On the SL the new 35 Summicron feels as natural as the M2 with its 35.  I have longer lenses for it, but none picks out details as naturally as the old F/105.  An R Summilux 80.is probably the most intuitive longer lens on the SL for me.

[Fedro]

28mm

[adan]

It's funny - with a Hasselblad or other 6x6 cameras, I have "natural-perspective" pictures made with everything from 50-120mm lenses (~28-70mm equivalents) - and even some made with a 38mm Super-wide. (21.3mm equivalent).

It just depends on how I approached the subject matter - because equally I can find "unnatural-perspective" pictures that were made with all the same lenses.

It is a little different with 2:3 format, since I can use the semi-panoramic proportions to emphasize the perspective of the lens in one direction or another.

[Jared]

Best simulates how I naturally see the world just walking around?  It’s probably 75mm.  The catch is that has very little to do with the focal lengths I have used to take my best pictures.  For example, I do a lot of landscape photography, and while a short telephoto can make an excellent landscape lens for certain views, it would certainly not be my most used focal length for that kind of work.  

If shooting sports, no way I would choose a 75mm as my primary lens.  Another area of mine is astrophotography, and in this genre my best work has either been at 21mm or at 1,100mm depending on whether it is a “nightscape” or a deep sky image.  OK, I’ve had a few solid images at 650mm as well. Birders and wildlife photographers would probably tell you their best shots were somewhere in the 400-600mm range.

My point is, a good photographer can train himself/herself to “see” at whatever focal length is required for the image they want to create.  At one of my son’s recent mountain bike races, for example (pre corona virus), I knew that I wanted a low perspective so I could see riders’ faces.  I know I wanted a wide angle to exaggerate the size of the wheels and the sense of being in the action. I knew I wanted people coming around a corner or off a jump to give dramatic angles.  I also knew I didn’t want to get hit by a cyclist if he/she missed a line.  End result?  I had to “see” the image I wanted and pick the focal length and location that would best accomplish that.  35mm focal length, three feet below a sharply banked downhill corner, track my subject and crop as required.  Worked like a charm. It’s not how I see the world naturally—I normally see the world standing up not lying down on the ground—but it gave me the image I had planned for.  So, while I naturally “see” the world through a 75mm perspective, that doesn’t mean I necessarily take my best pictures at that focal length.  It’s just comfortable and easy.

[Mute-on]

35m is the most relaxed, and thereby natural, focal length for me. I do not have to contrive a photograph from whatever I see immediately before me ... as much as I would with any other focal length. 

Equally, I would also select 28mm, if not for the perspective distortion. 

[caissa]

It depends on the target and my intentions. If I want to stress the object, then F2 75mm is easiest. If I want to stress the scene, I use a f2 24-35mm (mostly 28 and 35 or thereabout).