Where does the 24/35/50/85mm standard originate? Is it arbitrary?

[Sporgon]

But back to more interesting stuff, didn't Olympus push for shorter "standard" lenses in the '70's, I remember seeing kits with the 40mm and OM-? Though even they had a proliferation of 50's from a 1.2 to a 3.5 macro and the one 55mm 1.2.

I think you're getting Olympus OM system and Pentax M mixed up. It was Pentax who introduced the 40mm M series lens as a 'budget' alternative to the 50mm f1.7 M in 1975.

It was a great little 2.8 lens, recently revived by Pentax as the 40mm Limited. If you look at the lens design it is a very basic Planar design. They market it as an APS lens but actually it has the full image circle as it is a 1970s 35mm lens. The new Canon 40mm is basically identical, and makes for a really good 'standard ' lens on FF.

Don't ever remember a 40mm Zuiko lens being available for the OM 1 and 2, but could be wrong, it's a long time ago

 

[privatebydesign]

Sporgon,

You could well be right about that, I looked up the Olympus and they didn't introduce their 40mm pancake until 1984.

It does seem that 40mm lenses are the smallest and cheapest to make for the typical 135 format slr, even today with the EOS 40mm pancake, they obviously don't present technical issues even with 44mm flange distances so it begs the question, why isn't the 40mm pancake the "standard" lens?

 

[dirtcastle]

It does seem that 40mm lenses are the smallest and cheapest to make for the typical 135 format slr, even today with the EOS 40mm pancake, they obviously don't present technical issues even with 44mm flange distances so it begs the question, why isn't the 40mm pancake the "standard" lens?

I would much prefer a 40mm L standard prime. I know this is just a self-centered observation, but for me 50mm is just about 10mm too long and 35mm is about 5mm too wide.

As far as my lens quiver lineup goes, I wouldn't mind not having a prime between 24mm and 40mm. In fact, that would free me up to carry a 24mm, 40mm, and something a bit longer.

But ultimately what I crave, like many people, is a single prime that will cover all-day, all-night, multipurpose shooting. I think most shooters agree that 50mm is just a bit long for that. An approximate 35mm length seems to be the survivalist length of choice. But c'mon, we all know it's just a bit wide for most portraits. Right? ;-)

 

[gferdinandsen]

But ultimately what I crave, like many people, is a single prime that will cover all-day, all-night, multipurpose shooting. I think most shooters agree that 50mm is just a bit long for that. An approximate 35mm length seems to be the survivalist length of choice. But c'mon, we all know it's just a bit wide for most portraits. Right? ;-)

It's called the 24-70 f2.8L. lol

 

[dirtcastle]

But ultimately what I crave, like many people, is a single prime that will cover all-day, all-night, multipurpose shooting. I think most shooters agree that 50mm is just a bit long for that. An approximate 35mm length seems to be the survivalist length of choice. But c'mon, we all know it's just a bit wide for most portraits. Right? ;-)

It's called the 24-70 f2.8L. lol

Oh, I want one of those too! :'(

 

[Grumbaki]

But ultimately what I crave, like many people, is a single prime that will cover all-day, all-night, multipurpose shooting. I think most shooters agree that 50mm is just a bit long for that. An approximate 35mm length seems to be the survivalist length of choice. But c'mon, we all know it's just a bit wide for most portraits. Right? ;-)

If you have a fast prime, you can bokeh the crap out of a poor background.
If you have a nice body, you can crop the crap out.
If you have a set of balls you can get closer.
If you have a good eye, you can do environmental portraiture.

This is a message from the 35/85 liberation front.

 

[Hillsilly]

Not only is it arbitrary, but it also changes over time. For example, when I was growing up, 28mm lenses were far more common than 24mm lenses. But these days, I doubt many people are buying 28mm lenses - all the interest is in 24mm lenses or wider.

The same could be said for 85mm. While appreciating that many people buy 85mm lenses, I suspect that the "standard" longer prime would be in the 90-135mm range (especially when you consider all of the macro lenses in that range that are sold).

 

[alexanderferdinand]

@ Olympus and 40mm.
I still own a 35RD, has a 40mm 1:1,7.
Lovely camera. Silent, lightweight.

Around 50mm primes: thinking about their weight and how big the apertures can be: seems to be easier to design then any other focal lenght.

 

[Pi]

Not only is it arbitrary, but it also changes over time. For example, when I was growing up, 28mm lenses were far more common than 24mm lenses. But these days, I doubt many people are buying 28mm lenses - all the interest is in 24mm lenses or wider.

The same could be said for 85mm. While appreciating that many people buy 85mm lenses, I suspect that the "standard" longer prime would be in the 90-135mm range (especially when you consider all of the macro lenses in that range that are sold).

+1. The numbers 35/50/85 have more to do with the fact that we have five fingers than to anything photography related. The 24mm was introduced as an improvement to the then standard 28mm, and it had to look wider enough; so 25mm, I guess, was not considered impressive enough.

 

[Rocky]

But ultimately what I crave, like many people, is a single prime that will cover all-day, all-night, multipurpose shooting. I think most shooters agree that 50mm is just a bit long for that. An approximate 35mm length seems to be the survivalist length of choice. But c'mon, we all know it's just a bit wide for most portraits. Right? ;-)

If you have a fast prime, you can bokeh the crap out of a poor background.
If you have a nice body, you can crop the crap out.
If you have a set of balls you can get closer.
If you have a good eye, you can do environmental portraiture.

This is a message from the 35/85 liberation front.

+1; Some people travel around the world with Leica M,a 35mm f2.0 and a 90mm f2.0 lens in order to "travel light".

 

[Drizzt321]

But ultimately what I crave, like many people, is a single prime that will cover all-day, all-night, multipurpose shooting. I think most shooters agree that 50mm is just a bit long for that. An approximate 35mm length seems to be the survivalist length of choice. But c'mon, we all know it's just a bit wide for most portraits. Right? ;-)

If you have a fast prime, you can bokeh the crap out of a poor background.
If you have a nice body, you can crop the crap out.
If you have a set of balls you can get closer.
If you have a good eye, you can do environmental portraiture.

This is a message from the 35/85 liberation front.

Just make sure to bring some ND filters with you to get the most bokeh you can

 

[Etienne]

Not only is it arbitrary, but it also changes over time. For example, when I was growing up, 28mm lenses were far more common than 24mm lenses. But these days, I doubt many people are buying 28mm lenses - all the interest is in 24mm lenses or wider.

The same could be said for 85mm. While appreciating that many people buy 85mm lenses, I suspect that the "standard" longer prime would be in the 90-135mm range (especially when you consider all of the macro lenses in that range that are sold).

I agree with the 24mm vs 28
But 85mm is still by far the most popular short telephoto.
B&H has almost 1400 reviews of the 85 1.8, and only 90 reviews of the 100 f/2, even though these two lenses are about the same price, same size, and deliver the same IQ

 

[ecka]

Not only is it arbitrary, but it also changes over time. For example, when I was growing up, 28mm lenses were far more common than 24mm lenses. But these days, I doubt many people are buying 28mm lenses - all the interest is in 24mm lenses or wider.

The same could be said for 85mm. While appreciating that many people buy 85mm lenses, I suspect that the "standard" longer prime would be in the 90-135mm range (especially when you consider all of the macro lenses in that range that are sold).

I agree with the 24mm vs 28
But 85mm is still by far the most popular short telephoto.
B&H has almost 1400 reviews of the 85 1.8, and only 90 reviews of the 100 f/2, even though these two lenses are about the same price, same size, and deliver the same IQ

IMHO, if there was EF 75mm f/1.4 USM for the same price, then it would beat the 85/1.8

 

[dickgrafixstop]

One of my very favorite lenses is the Leica Summicron 75mm f2.0. Paired with the 35mm Summilux there is very little that I would "miss" on a photo shoot. The canon 24/50/85 L trio might be interesting but I'm not sure I'd
like to carry it for extended distance or time.