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



## dirtcastle (Jul 30, 2013)

Why are the standard focal lengths for primes the following?...

24mm
35mm
50mm
85mm

I understand why they are spaced relatively evenly. But couldn't it just as practically be the following?...

20mm
32mm
47mm
80mm

Ultimately, it seems like the "standard" lengths are probably arbitrary in their origins. Probably the first person to pick the original standard focal length was making a technical decision, rather than an aesthetic decision.

History buffs... bring it on!


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 30, 2013)

I have no clue but I know old school photojournalist had a wide, standard and tele primes to tell a complete story.

So they usually chose 28mm, 50mm, 135mm combos or similiar.


----------



## chris_w_digits (Jul 30, 2013)

I've often wondered the same thing. I have 28, 50, 85, 135, and 200 primes. Macros tend to be 50 and 100 though. I noticed the trend of going up by 1.6, roughly the ratio of crop to full frame, so it was easy to think "just go one focal length up on a full frame from what I used on a crop". Why go up by 1.6 rather than, say, the square root of 2?


----------



## ecka (Jul 30, 2013)

Actually, it would (kind of) make sense if every next FL had around 2x smaller FoV, like:
12mm<17mm<24mm<35mm<50mm<70mm<100mm<135mm<200mm<300mm<400mm...
or
10mm<14mm<20mm<28mm<40mm<60mm<85mm<120mm<180mm<250mm<350mm<500mm...

If you compare fast Canon L primes
24/14~1.71 >> 1.71*1.71~2.92x
35/24~1.46 >> 1.46*1.46~2.13x
50/35~1.43 >> 1.43*1.43~2.04x
85/50=1.7 >> 1.7*1.7=2.89x
135/85~1.59 >> 1.59*1.59~2.53x
200/135~1.48 >> 1.48*1.48~2.19x
then you'll see that they are not evenly spaced. The FoV difference varies from around 2x to almost 3x.


----------



## Tom W (Jul 30, 2013)

I've seen some folks go with a 24-50-100-200, though that jump from 24 to 50 is pretty big.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 30, 2013)

dirtcastle said:


> Why are the standard focal lengths for primes the following?...
> 
> 24mm
> 35mm
> ...



50mm is the single easiest focal length to design for a 35mm camera and it's a very nice even, basic number so that probably explains that. For 35 and 85 they probably just picked a nice div 5 number close to focal lengths that seemed to be both quite useful for certain purposes and far enough away from 50mm. Why 24mm became much more the standard than 25mm I have no idea though.


----------



## RAKAMRAK (Jul 30, 2013)

I cannot say for sure but my guess is when the first lenses were being made in the 1800s for medium and large format cameras the photographer scientists manufactured lenses with whatever focal lengths their state of the art technology allowed them to be made. Then those focal lengths became standardized because others also made similar lenses. Each of these focal lengths gave rise to a particular angle of view. Then probably when the 35 mm camera came the lens makers tried to emulate those angle of views and some particular focal lengths became manufactured repeatedly and became popular and then standardized. But all these are my guesses.


----------



## rs (Jul 30, 2013)

Like apertures, common focal lengths tend to follow multiples of the square root of two.

So, 24 (close to 25), 35, 50, 70 (OK, that's not a good example as 85 is used instead), 100, 135 (close to 141), 200, 300 (close to 283), 400 etc.

TC's follow this pattern too.

I guess it all centres around the 'normal' 50mm lens, even though 43mm is a better fit for a 35mm frame.

As for the actual focal lengths and apertures of lenses, remember the specs quoted are usually a near fit for the actual real life specs of the lens (as is often revealed in the patents), so they tend to get rounded to the nearest fit.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jul 30, 2013)

I've heard, in part, that the 45-55 range is approximately equal to the field of view of the human eye and so that formed the basis for the 'normal' lens being about 50mm, and wideangle at ~35mm is because, depending on the exact camera, that's only slightly shorter than most flange depths, and so only needs a mild or non- retrofocus design. Also apparently somewhat by convention, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide-angle_lens#Wide-angle_lenses_for_35_mm_format.


----------



## risc32 (Jul 30, 2013)

I don't know, and i bet so. they are to me anyway;D


----------



## gferdinandsen (Jul 30, 2013)

Drizzt321 said:


> I've heard, in part, that the 45-55 range is approximately equal to the field of view of the human eye and so that formed the basis for the 'normal' lens being about 50mm, and wideangle at ~35mm is because, depending on the exact camera, that's only slightly shorter than most flange depths, and so only needs a mild or non- retrofocus design. Also apparently somewhat by convention, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide-angle_lens#Wide-angle_lenses_for_35_mm_format.



According to the prosecuting attorney during the George Zimmerman trial, the human eye sees at 49.6mm. Yes, I actually learned something useful during the trial


----------



## LostArk (Jul 30, 2013)

"Normal" focal length for 35mm film is 43mm, which got rounded up to 50 by Oskar Barnack. The idea behind the progression of primes is this:

A 75mm lens will give you roughly the same framing from top to bottom when used in portrait orientation as a 50mm would when used in landscape. Put another way, if you took a photo take at 50mm in landscape orientation and cropped away the left 1/3 and right 1/3 of the frame, you'd get roughly the same image as if you used a 75mm lens in portrait orientation. Kind of awkward to describe so I hope that makes sense. 

So, it's not completely arbitrary. All primes are multiples of 43mm or 50mm (1.4x, roughly the square root of 2, much like f-stops). "Normal" focal lengths for larger formats are also familiar numbers: 85mm (medium format), 200mm (large format) etc.


----------



## Otara (Jul 30, 2013)

Many of those are known as military sizes for cannon, apart from 24mm more often being 25mm or 20mm.

I suspect their origin is in imperial, converted to round (ish) numbers for metric, ie 1 inch, 1.5 inch, 2 inch, 3.5 inch.

http://laurphoto.blogspot.com.au/2013/02/the-origin-of-32-aspect-ratio.html

This maybe explains the 24mm bit - 35mm film had 24mm of actual film .


----------



## max (Jul 30, 2013)

most of the lenses patents aren't even exactly 50mm, 24mm 35mm etc...


----------



## luciolepri (Jul 30, 2013)

In my opinion, if you have a field of view of 46°, you should contact an ophthalmologist!
The field of view of a 50mm lens, on a 35mm sensor, is similar to the "field of focus" of the human eye and it has a similar perspective rendition, but its field of view is much narrower.

An interesting article that doesn't answer the main question of this topic, but gives some information for an educated guess:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/08/lens-geneology-part-1


----------



## unfocused (Jul 30, 2013)

I think some of it has to do with the evolution of lenses and cameras.

Remember that using 35mm movie film started with rangefinders. 50mm does match the human eye in some respects. I have always read that 35mm became the standard wide angle because it gave a wider field of vision without much distortion. 85mm became the standard portrait lens because it was more flattering. I suspect that for many years those were the standards because on a rangefinder a much wider or longer lens was difficult to manage. 

Probably just carried over to the SLRs.

Doing a quick search, it looks like Leica introduced the 35mm in 1930; the 73mm, 90mm and 135mm in 1931 and the 105 mm in 1932. 

Back in the 70s I know from personal experience that 28mm, not 24, was considered the standard wide angle lens when you needed something wider than 35 mm and 135mm was the standard telephoto lens. I suspect that as lens technology improved lenses got wider and longer. 

As to why it is, say 135mm rather than 125mm or 140mm, I have no idea. Obviously, from the above, the standards were a bit more variable back in the early days of Leica.


----------



## gferdinandsen (Jul 31, 2013)

Looking at my last photoshoot, those focal lengths are the most used. Using primarily the 24-70 and to a lesser extent the 24-105:

Total: 396
24: 116
35: 29
40: 16
50: 13
85: 20

This is consistent with all of my folders. So to answer your questions, it seems that we just naturally gravitate towards certain focal lengths; even with a zoom, we tend to choose prime focal lengths more so than we choose non prime.

I always find it interesting to look at the focal lengths of my photoshoots, I find it amazing just how often they do gravitate towards primal focal lengths. But then again, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics!


----------



## dirtcastle (Aug 1, 2013)

gferdinandsen said:


> it seems that we just naturally gravitate towards certain focal lengths; even with a zoom, we tend to choose prime focal lengths more so than we choose non prime.
> 
> I always find it interesting to look at the focal lengths of my photoshoots, I find it amazing just how often they do gravitate towards primal focal lengths. But then again, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics!



That does seem uncanny that a disproportion of your shots landed on "standard" lengths. While you were shooting, were you aware of the focal lengths you were using?

I'm completely skeptical that 50mm is any more inherent or "gravitational" than, say 45mm, 55mm, or any other focal length that is near a standard prime focal length. 

Going one step further, I would guess that most people couldn't land on a specific focal length IF THEY TRIED TO. I'm guessing the margin of error would be around +/- 5mm for those who tried.

Few would debate that there are certain focal lengths that work well for certain types of shots. But my original question was really about why the standard focal lengths are PRECISELY 24/35/50/85mm, and not +/- 5mm off of those lengths.


----------



## gferdinandsen (Aug 1, 2013)

dirtcastle said:


> gferdinandsen said:
> 
> 
> > it seems that we just naturally gravitate towards certain focal lengths; even with a zoom, we tend to choose prime focal lengths more so than we choose non prime.
> ...



I find the same holds true to all my trips, with 24mm being my favourite focal length. It's even more uncanny if I include prime focal length +/- 2mm.

And no, I don't choose focal lengths based on focal length. I just compose the photo and shoot.


----------



## rcarca (Aug 1, 2013)

Classic film before 35mm was 72mm but 35mm (which is actually 36mm) rapidly became the dominant film standard. If you use Pythagoras theorem, you will note that the square root of the hypotenuse (the diagonal on the film) equals the square root of the sum of the square of the two other sides of the triangle (24mm and 36mm)For 35mm format film that gives approximately 43mm. That is the perfect match for what the human eye sees. That got rounded up to 50mm for most purposes. I rather suspect you will find similar relationships with other standard film sizes, although I have never done the maths.

Richard


----------



## preppyak (Aug 1, 2013)

rs said:


> Like apertures, common focal lengths tend to follow multiples of the square root of two.
> 
> So, 24 (close to 25), 35, 50, 70 (OK, that's not a good example as 85 is used instead), 100, 135 (close to 141), 200, 300 (close to 283), 400 etc.


I think a useful thing to remember is that a 50mm lens is rarely actually exactly 50.00 on the patent. Just like a 70-300 zoom is usually actually a 71.89 to 292.35 lens, but, they round it to make it simpler. Note that, 24mm aside, all those numbers land on a 0 or a 5. Just makes the numbers simpler. It's actually interesting to me that 14mm and 24mm are standard instead of 15mm and 25mm, because you could market it the same.

An example of this are the 100-400 patents. Technically the lens should be marketed as a 104 to 391, but they round it off to keep it simpler

So, to answer the OP, it's a combo of science and BS. The lenses all match a certain field of view and preferred look, but, the number that represents them is not always accurate


----------



## luciolepri (Aug 1, 2013)

preppyak said:


> It's actually interesting to me that 14mm and 24mm are standard instead of 15mm and 25mm, because you could market it the same.



Actually, with such short focal lenghts, 1mm makes quite a difference. For example, many years ago, Zeiss and Pentax produced the great and famous 15mm f/3.5 Aspherical (fow 86°). After that, Canon produced a 14mm f/2.8 (fow 90°) probably to show off a wider ad faster lens. The same thing most likely happend after Leica produced the first 25mm for a 35mm camera. So, I suppose that current standard focal lenses became standard for various reasons and technical improvements are definitely one of them.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 1, 2013)

rcarca said:


> Classic film before 35mm was 72mm but 35mm (which is actually 36mm) rapidly became the dominant film standard.



I'd dispute the first claim, after all what do you mean with the term "classic film"? But anyway, regarding 35mm film _"which is actually 36mm"_ you couldn't be more wrong, roll film is measured by its film gauge, that is, it is 35mm wide, hence 35mm film, it has nothing to do with the arbitrary dimensions of the film we expose. Look at the Hasselblad X-Pan with a 24mm x 65mm exposure area on 135 format film. Don't forget we, as still photographers, are actually using film in the "wrong" orientation to its primary original purpose, running through movie cameras and theater projectors.

As for "standard" lenses being the diagonal of the format, yes that holds up across formats.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 1, 2013)

Awesome thread. I've always wanted to know this. I understand fully well why certain lengths _in general_ are used, but I've never understood how they landed on the specific focal length values.

- A


----------



## Etienne (Aug 1, 2013)

dirtcastle said:


> gferdinandsen said:
> 
> 
> > it seems that we just naturally gravitate towards certain focal lengths; even with a zoom, we tend to choose prime focal lengths more so than we choose non prime.
> ...



They are not precisely 24/35/50/85 .... they are just labelled that way by the manufacturer for easy marketing I suspect. They are all off by a bit. Zoom ranges can be quite a bit off.


----------



## Vossie (Aug 1, 2013)

LostArk said:


> "Normal" focal length for 35mm film is 43mm, which got rounded up to 50 by Oskar Barnack. The idea behind the progression of primes is this:
> 
> A 75mm lens will give you roughly the same framing from top to bottom when used in portrait orientation as a 50mm would when used in landscape. Put another way, if you took a photo take at 50mm in landscape orientation and cropped away the left 1/3 and right 1/3 of the frame, you'd get roughly the same image as if you used a 75mm lens in portrait orientation. Kind of awkward to describe so I hope that makes sense.
> 
> So, it's not completely arbitrary. All primes are multiples of 43mm or 50mm (1.4x, roughly the square root of 2, much like f-stops). "Normal" focal lengths for larger formats are also familiar numbers: 85mm (medium format), 200mm (large format) etc.



+1

nice to learn about this part of photography history. Thanks!


----------



## dirtcastle (Aug 1, 2013)

Etienne said:


> dirtcastle said:
> 
> 
> > gferdinandsen said:
> ...



Good point! And that begs the question even further. A few possible scenarios...

1. There are true "standard" focal ranges (e.g. +/- 2mm) around the 24/35/50/85 marks; and, for marketing purposes they have always rounded to a number that sounds good.

2. There are no inherent or intrinsic "standards" and everything is just a product of arbitrary historical precedent.

Personally, I think the standards are arbitrary. Great shots can be had at any focal length.

I think the reason why people accept the standards (and some believe they are baked into the fabric of life) is that they do serve successfully as guides for choosing lenses and composing shots. But it would seem to me that in a parallel universe (or by quirk of history)... 22/32/46/80 could just as easily be the standard focal lengths.

On a side note, I should point out that the most commonly used focal lengths (35mm equivalent) are probably...

Samsung Galaxy S III: 26mm
iPhone 5: 33mm
iPhone 4s: 33mm
iPhone 4: 29mm
HTC One: 27.54mm

From this we can see how marketing departments might be tempted to round up or down to 28mm and 35mm. Certainly "27.54" has a bad ring to it. And if rounding up or down by 0.5 is no sin, then surely rounding by .75 or even 1.75 is no sin either! ;-)


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 1, 2013)

dirtcastle said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > dirtcastle said:
> ...



+1

Super insightful comment -- great thinking. Smartphone makers don't have to satisfy the 1% of the population that appreciates 'standard' focal lengths. Instead, I'd imagine Apple, Samsung, etc. mined what focal length people tended to shoot and built their 'standard' around that.

And it should be no surprise where they landed, really. Most people aren't shooting tightly cropped headshots with their phones. So lenses in the 24-35 neighborhood play very well with users.

-A


----------



## rcarca (Aug 1, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> But anyway, regarding 35mm film _"which is actually 36mm"_ you couldn't be more wrong, roll film is measured by its film gauge, that is, it is 35mm wide, hence 35mm film, it has nothing to do with the arbitrary dimensions of the film we expose.



Let me be more precise. The gauge (from edge to edge of the film including the sprocket holes) is 35mm. The area we exposed on a 35mm film was 24 x 36mm. That is the relationship that drives the "standard" lens. 

I will research further on the relationship with cinema film. 

Richard


----------



## Rocky (Aug 2, 2013)

The diagonal of the 36 X24 mm film is 43. 27mm. It was rounder up to 45mm. A lot of fixed lens 35mm film cameras from the 40's to the 60's are 45mm lens. It also happens that is about the same"clear viewing " angle of the human vision. Leica further round it up to be 50mm. Here comes the film SLR in the 30's. Due to the mirror, it is hard (expensive) to make a 50mm standard lens. Therefore 55mm became the standrd SLR lens until the 50's or even early 60's. So the 50mm standrad focal length is semi arbitrary. For the "portrait lens", Leica arbitrarily assign the 90mm focal length, while others are using 85, 100 or 105mm. 135mm is the longest focal length that Leica feel comfortable with their range finder camera without additional attachment. Leica does make longer focal length for their visoflex reflex housing. Since Leica is the premium and propular range finder camera in the 50's, the 135 mm beomes a "standard". 35mm (0.7X of 50 mm) is the comfortable "wider' angle of view to have a easily controllable perpective distortion. It became a standrad also. 24 mm is 0.7X of 35mm and becomes another standard with large perspective distortion that is not that easy to control. Then 28mm is right between the 35mm and 24mm in terms of viewing angle to be wider than 35mm and more controllable perpective distortion than the 24mm.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 2, 2013)

Those standard focal lengths have been around for a long time


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 2, 2013)

Rocky said:


> Due to the mirror, it is hard (expensive) to make a 50mm standard lens. Therefore 55mm became the standrd SLR lens until the 50's or even early 60's.



It is very easy and cheap to make 50mm lenses, even for 135 format reflex cameras, thought 135 format was adopted long before the SLR became a standard and rangefinders are even easier to design lenses for, 50mm lenses have no technical hurdles to overcome, no retrofocus or similar issues. That is why, even today, you can buy new auto focus 50mm lenses for $100!

Canon and Nikon were selling 55mm lenses well into the '70's, often alongside 50mm versions.


----------



## Rocky (Aug 2, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Rocky said:
> 
> 
> > Due to the mirror, it is hard (expensive) to make a 50mm standard lens. Therefore 55mm became the standrd SLR lens until the 50's or even early 60's.
> ...


Now it is cheap and easy to make 50mm lens for SLR due to the new technology in glass making and grinding process. In the 40's and the 50's it is entirely different story. 55mm was use to avoid retrofocus and keep the price reasonable. I would suggest you to look into the history a little bit more, pay attention to the price of lens and camera in the 40's and 50's also.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 2, 2013)

Rocky said:


> Now it is cheap and easy to make 50mm lens for SLR due to the new technology in glass making and grinding process. In the 40's and the 50's it is entirely different story. 55mm was use to avoid retrofocus and keep the price reasonable. I would suggest you to look into the history a little bit more, pay attention to the price of lens and camera in the 40's and 50's also.



Leica's first lens was a 50mm, the 135 format and the 50mm "standard", became popular long before slr's. There is zero retrofocus issue with a 50mm multi element lens on an 18mm- 38mm flange distance, common rangefinder interchangeable lens flange distances. Even with slr's requirement for larger flange distances closer to 42mm-48mm there is still no retrofocus issue with multi element 50mm lenses.

For the Canon FL system, their first interchangeable slr system, from 1964-1971 that morphed into the FD system and shared mount and flange distance, they made six 50mm lenses and one 55mm lens and two 58mm lenses, the later three being the more complex f1.2 version of their standard lens.


I love it when people say stuff like "suggest you to look into the history a little bit more" without having the slightest idea of who they are talking to, nor give references for their own education.

As a primer, read this.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/08/lens-geneology-part-1


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 2, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Rocky said:
> 
> 
> > Now it is cheap and easy to make 50mm lens for SLR due to the new technology in glass making and grinding process. In the 40's and the 50's it is entirely different story. 55mm was use to avoid retrofocus and keep the price reasonable. I would suggest you to look into the history a little bit more, pay attention to the price of lens and camera in the 40's and 50's also.
> ...



;D

Maybe a little history lesson from CR archives would be a good start !


----------



## dirtcastle (Aug 2, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> As a primer, read this.
> 
> http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/08/lens-geneology-part-1



Good call! I recognized my 50mm f/1.4 in those configurations!

The lens configuration diagrams beg the question of whether there are inherent "sweet spots" in the lens configurations. Obviously it is easier to make a 50 f/0.95, than it is to make a 500mm f/0.95. 

What I'm talking about is shifting the entire prime intervals up or down by +/- 5mm. Would it pose a challenge to engineers? And, obviously, I'm talking actual focal length... not the focal length put on the box by the marketing department. ;-)

I'm assuming that, in the 24-85mm range, lens engineers can create a comparable IQ lens at ANY length in that range. I'm assuming there aren't difficult lengths in that range that engineers struggle with. Please correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## Rocky (Aug 2, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Leica's first lens was a 50mm, the 135 format and the 50mm "standard", became popular long before slr's. There is zero retrofocus issue with a 50mm multi element lens on an 18mm- 38mm flange distance, common rangefinder interchangeable lens flange distances. Even with slr's requirement for larger flange distances closer to 42mm-48mm there is still no retrofocus issue with multi element 50mm lenses.
> 
> For the Canon FL system, their first interchangeable slr system, from 1964-1971 that morphed into the FD system and shared mount and flange distance, they made six 50mm lenses and one 55mm lens and two 58mm lenses, the later three being the more complex f1.2 version of their standard lens.
> 
> ...



All the example that you have quoted are either Range finder lens (Leica) or post 50's SLR lenses 
Ziess Biotar is from the 30's till early 50's It is even at 58mm. if you can spend time to look at ebay, you will find a lot old 55mm lens. 
The reason that I mention 55mm (or 58 mm) for early SLR to to show how arbitrary the standard lens can be. I have not yet mention the 40mm for the fully auto 35mm film camera in the 80's t0 90's and Canon's 'shorty forty" yet.
But if you think that you are right and know them enough, then you are right. Let us not to waste any more time on this pointless discussion.


----------



## dirtcastle (Aug 2, 2013)

Lots of good information from everyone here. No need to get hung up on a few details.


----------



## gtog (Aug 2, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> For the Canon FL system, their first interchangeable slr system, from 1964-1971 that morphed into the FD system and shared mount and flange distance, they made six 50mm lenses and one 55mm lens and two 58mm lenses, the later three being the more complex f1.2 version of their standard lens.



Actually, a visit to the Canon Camera Museum would show the Canon Flex http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/film/data/1956-1965/1959_flex.html?lang=us&categ=srs&page=r&p=1 to have been Canon's first SLR in May 1959, with one 58mm f/1.2 and three 50mm f/1.8 lenses in the R lens mount line-up. 

I would also note that even the older S mount series lenses shows the "standard" focal lengths, supporting the notion that those focal lengths are not reflex oriented or constrained. 

I would certainly add the Canon Camera Museum to the list of sources commended to readers attention for further historical research.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 4, 2013)

gtog,

You are right, how could I have forgotten the little R mount? I hang my head in shame....

Having said that, as you point out, history, as evidenced by the lenses available at the time, doesn't actually support the problematic 50mm theory, and it is worth noting the R mount had the same 42mm flange distance the FL mount did, and that was the same as the FD and FDn.

I'd hardly lump the 1950's into "modern lenses" but each to their own. 

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.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 4, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> 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 (Aug 5, 2013)

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 (Aug 6, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> 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 (Aug 6, 2013)

dirtcastle said:


> 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 (Aug 6, 2013)

gferdinandsen said:


> dirtcastle said:
> 
> 
> > 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? ;-)
> ...



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


----------



## Grumbaki (Aug 6, 2013)

dirtcastle said:


> 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 (Aug 6, 2013)

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 (Aug 6, 2013)

@ 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 (Aug 6, 2013)

Hillsilly said:


> 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 (Aug 7, 2013)

Grumbaki said:


> dirtcastle said:
> 
> 
> > 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? ;-)
> ...


+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 (Aug 7, 2013)

Grumbaki said:


> dirtcastle said:
> 
> 
> > 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? ;-)
> ...



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


----------



## Etienne (Aug 7, 2013)

Hillsilly said:


> 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 (Aug 8, 2013)

Etienne said:


> Hillsilly said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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


----------



## dickgrafixstop (Aug 15, 2013)

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.


----------

