Normal MF lens

[andrei_kvasyuk]

So many words have been pronounced about the features of the wide and

telephoto lenses: good DOF, perspective compression, effective

background/foreground, attractivness and creativity achieved by

proper using of these lenses and so on.

 

What's the PROPER using of normal (like in my case Pentax 645 75mm) ?

How offten do you use it ? What are the main subject, which comes out

best with these lens ?

 

And I still can't decide: normal lens is closer to wide or tele ?

 

Thank you,

 

Andrei.

[wim_van_velzen]

For me the use of wide-angle, standard and tele depends on subject and I guess my mood.

<p>

A few years ago I shot about half my landscape work with a 150mm (6x6), the last two years I am using my 50mm more and more - and a newly purchased 250!

<p>

When I am out with my Rolleicord only, I feel I can do a lot with just that 75mm. So go figure!

<p>

There is no other PROPER use of any lens than what fits in your vision. What do you feel seeing a scene, what will give the best composition. Just try! And yes, one can do a lot with a standard lens.

<p>

<a href="http://www.fotografiewimvanvelzen.nl">Wim</a>

[louis_webb]

A standard lens is supposed to give the same or similar angle of view as human vision.As Wim says,go out,what do you see?Take pictures, then look at the results.I read somewhere(can't remember where)that many photographers end up using the standard lens for 80-90% of their pictures!I would say that I use mine for around 40% of my stuff,with my wide-angle used 40%(landscapes are my thing),moderate telephoto 20% of the time.

[robert_potts1]

I need lenses covering a range from wide angle to telephoto for the subjects I shoot. The normal lens falls in the middle. Sometimes this lens fits the image I want to frame. It's as simple as that.

[jackflesher]

Decent question actually IMO... A better one might be the corollary: Why bother with a normal lens at all? For my types of photography -- landscape, travel, and people -- I use my 35, 45 and 140 (in 645) for most shots. Yet the 80 comes into play regularly as a two-person head-and-shoulders portrait lens or a full-body lens, and on occasion gets used as a landscape lens. However its biggest asset is its speed, which is usually one full stop faster than the slightly wider or slightly longer lens. BUT, if I'm heading out in the field, and a lens needs to come out of the bag to save weight or make room, it will usually be the 80.

 

Cheers,

[jay_.]

When I started in photography I used a fixed-lens camera with a "normal" lens, and then had an SLR with only a 50 for a while. SO it's my longest-used and most familiar lens. When I shoot with the Hasselblad and weight is a premium I take the 80 and the Mutar and leave the 150 at home.

[andrei_kvasyuk]

Jack Flesher:

 

Jack, you hit the spot. That's exactly what I started thinking about -why bother with the normal lens at all ? I bought the Pentax 645 kit, which included this lens (simple economy). And after a few monthes of shooting landscapes I came to conclusion, that I need wider and/or longer. Most of the my pictures would benefit from NOT using normal lens. Except, may be, the candid pictures of my kids.

 

Andrei.

[jonathan brewer]

Some days, I lay out my cameras and lenses on a table, close my eyes, wave my arm around and then stop, whatever I end up pointing at, I just load up and go shoot with.

[psychophoto]

I'm one of those weirdos that consistently uses a "normal" focal

length for the majority of my work. Easily 90% of the work I do

with my RB67 is done with the 127mm lens. I also own a 65mm

and a 250mm, and when I need them I need them, but I find that

not only can I effectively use the 127mm for the majority of my

work (mostly portraiture and editorial), it just fits the way I see

better than most any other lens. It's just a matter of personal

preference. And, theoretically at least (actual focal lengths vary),

a "normal" focal length is equally far from wide and tele. That's

the thing with a normal lens - its apparent magnification

approximates how we see with our eyes, so it neither pulls

subjects in as with a telephoto nor distorts/stretches perspective

as with a wide angle.