Which Normal to Wide Angle Focal Length Matches Your Vision?

[mackguyver]

We all see the world differently and it's the reason why some people find the 50mm matches the way they "see" the world while others would say 35mm, 85mm, etc. I'm not talking about some scientific match to the human eye, but the way you see the world around you.

Personally, I find that 24mm matches the way I see the world around me. Maybe I keep more personal distance between myself and the people and things around me that most people, but if I go through my lens choices and EXIF, the majority of my landscape, architecture, street, and even portraits (I prefer environmental shots) are right around 24mm. Here are some examples of how I see things at 24mm:

I'm curious to hear about other people's views (& photo examples) on this particular subject.

 

[Sporgon]

24 mil ?! Are you talking FF ? No wonder your Avatar's an Eagle. Bet you don't see with the same degree of distortion as you have in the second picture though

I think I am quite normal in that I consciously ( not peripheral ) see the same field of view as a 35mm on FF, with the same magnification as a 50mm. ( I don't say perspective 'cos I don't want to open a whole can of worms ).

So if I look through a FF dslr with a 50mm on I'm getting a cropped view of how I see.

Below is one of our pictures shot with multiple focal lengths were we try to get the same field of view and magnification as we see. In other words to try and make it the same as actually being there. The trouble is though you cannot escape the fact that you are compressing a life size scene into a small paper, monitor, canvas or whatever, so inevitably the subject matter within the picture is pushed away and made smaller.

We haven't found a way round this yet other than having a life sized print.

 

[surapon]

We all see the world differently and it's the reason why some people find the 50mm matches the way they "see" the world while others would say 35mm, 85mm, etc. I'm not talking about some scientific match to the human eye, but the way you see the world around you.

Personally, I find that 24mm matches the way I see the world around me. Maybe I keep more personal distance between myself and the people and things around me that most people, but if I go through my lens choices and EXIF, the majority of my landscape, architecture, street, and even portraits (I prefer environmental shots) are right around 24mm. Here are some examples of how I see things at 24mm:

I'm curious to hear about other people's views (& photo examples) on this particular subject.

Dear Sir, My Teacher Mr. mackguyver
Yes, Sir, I total agree with you = 24 MM Lens ( Diagonal Angle of view = 84 degree) = " I find that 24mm matches the way I see the world around me. "
Before that, I miss thinking that 35 mm or 50 mm are normal Views of Human's eyes( Yes, Human's Eyes 170-180 Degree front view angle = from Internet, But Total sharpnest = only 70 to 90 degree of our eyes )------BUT, AFTER I GET THE NEW LENS PAST 5 MONTHS, Canon TS-E 24 MM . F/ 3.5 L MK II---Yes, I change my mind. Yes Now I have this Beautiful TS-E 24 on my Canon 5D MK II = 100% of the time. ( Yes Plus 70-200 L IS. on 7D for long range shooter too).

Have a great day, Sir.
Surapon

 

[Eldar]

This is almost funny. I grew up having been thoroughly taught that 50mm was normal. And the first couple of years in the mid-seventies, I used only a 50mm 1.8 lens. But I never thought of it as normal. In the late seventies I got a 35-70 zoom lens and I thought the 35mm end was much closer to what I thought I "saw" as normal. And in 1981 I bought my first 24mm lens and it all came together. 24mm is still my favorite focal length (excluding the super teles). It is gives me the wide angel of my normal vision, it is reasonable in edge distortion and it gives great perspective.

I always thought I was the odd ball, so here, +30 years later, I´m very happy to have met you fellow men, with similarly distorted vision

 

[paul13walnut5]

In terms of useful comparison, there isn't such a lens that gives a massive field of view with very small centre sharpness, but a camera body that does lots of stitching. Maybe think a 135mm format 50mm lens at f1.8 lens on large fromat body, but on a gigapan tripod. x2. Then combined.

Other than that 43mm on 135mm/minature/leica format or 28 on APS-C, should give a good similarity to the pictures your brain stitched in your head.

 

[mackguyver]

Thanks for the interesting replies and I'm happy to see that my 24mm (on FF) view isn't too unusual. Of course the perspective distortion doesn't match my actual sight, but it does match the mental picture/memory of the scene for me.

 

[Sporgon]

Actually I'm really surprised at you guys who say 24 mil gives you a picture as you remember it. Working from the other way around, how often have you seen pictures of places, and then when you actually go to that place yourself you find it is tiny compared with the views in the pictures you saw - which would have been taken on a wide angle lens.

 

[Eldar]

Actually I'm really surprised at you guys who say 24 mil gives you a picture as you remember it. Working from the other way around, how often have you seen pictures of places, and then when you actually go to that place yourself you find it is tiny compared with the views in the pictures you saw - which would have been taken on a wide angle lens.

You do of course have a very valid point. For me though, I guess it´s the width that makes it. In lens review terms it would probably be a horrible vignetting and rotten sharpness at the edges kind of lens, with clear tunneling symptoms, but still ...

 

[AprilForever]

I see longer... My walkaround lens does tend to be a 300 2.8... Although, I do also carry a 24-105 on a 5d mkII, because my wife likes landscape images...

 

[9VIII]

I'm pretty sure my area of concious visual focus is around 35mm. With the T3 and 18-55, using the lens zoomed out all the way is definitely too wide. To match the size of objects in the viewfinder with my other eye I have to zoom it in all the way, it would probably have to go to 57mm to be a perfect fit. I'm not sure how the viewfinder is adjusting things though. 85mm on the 5D2 is definitely more zoomed in than what I see, so 57mm is probably correct.

Now if you want to try something trippy, get a zoom lens to match your vision, so that keeping both eyes open with the camera in front of one looks normal, just with that eye cropped, then move the camera out of focus. I can actually get my brain to clearly focus on one object in my unobstructed eye, while seeing everything else out of focus through the camera. For the first few seconds before getting nauseous it was a really neat thing to look at, kind of a super bokeh effect.

 

[mackguyver]

I see longer... My walkaround lens does tend to be a 300 2.8... Although, I do also carry a 24-105 on a 5d mkII, because my wife likes landscape images...

300 2.8? Where are you walking around? Sounds like an interesting perspective, though I'll say that I find the 300 doesn't seem super zoomed to me compared to my focused/central vision, unlike my old 400.

Now if you want to try something trippy, get a zoom lens to match your vision, so that keeping both eyes open with the camera in front of one looks normal, just with that eye cropped, then move the camera out of focus. I can actually get my brain to clearly focus on one object in my unobstructed eye, while seeing everything else out of focus through the camera. For the first few seconds before getting nauseous it was a really neat thing to look at, kind of a super bokeh effect.

I've done this, too, and found my visual match was somewhere between 30 and 60mm depending on how heavily I weighted my peripheral vision. It's a fun experiment...

 

[Eldar]

Actually I'm really surprised at you guys who say 24 mil gives you a picture as you remember it. Working from the other way around, how often have you seen pictures of places, and then when you actually go to that place yourself you find it is tiny compared with the views in the pictures you saw - which would have been taken on a wide angle lens.

Yes, the distance to objects changes and when I look through the viewer with one eye and directly at the motive with the other, I also find app. 50mm to be "normal". But the width of vision is more correct with a 24mm. As an example, when I see a landscape motive, I can throw up the 24mm and capture it. With a 50mm I always feel restricted and with less ability to capture what I saw. I know, more feeling than science.

 

[mackguyver]

With a 50mm I always feel restricted and with less ability to capture what I saw.

Exactly the same, here. I've read (maybe in Lens Work?) that human vision is as wide as 15mm when viewing broad vistas with your peripheral vision, and as narrow as 90mm when your vision is focused on one subject.

The purpose of this thread was really to find out where other photographers find themselves most often in terms of focal length, science aside. It's how you see the scenes you photograph in your mind, how you remember them, and how you choose to capture them with you camera, to either hold onto the memory or share it with others. Yes, maybe a little too deep for a Monday morning, but that's where I was going with this post.

 

[danski0224]

Except for the distortion, my vision is 24mm wide most of the time.

 

[Dylan777]

either 35 or 50mm will do it for me.

 

[motorhead]

I use a Canon 24-70L as my standard lens, but in truth my natural eye tends towards 70mm rather than wider. Only rarely do I use my 16-35.

 

[albron00]

40mm

 

[madspihl]

For me it is 35mm. I have been on a couple of trips / holidays lately where I wasn't shooting a paid job, and the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 basically moved in with the camera body and stayed there.

 

[nWmR12]

I would say it varies from either my 21mm or 35mm. Depending on how I am seeing things on that particular outing. For most applications I can use my 35 without any problems and can compose it very easily. The 21, I find a nice complement to 35, where I can "see" the end result without having to look through the viewfinder.

 

[Rui Brito]

For me, 70mm on a 70-200 2.8L IS atached to a 5D MkIII, for a simple reason, with both eyes opened, one on the viewfinder, the other naked, gives me a perfect stereoscopic view like I have with both eyes naked. Only thing is that the eye on the viewfinder "gets" a dark framing. Can I see less of the world arround me? Yes, but nor bigger, neither smaller.