Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/04/28
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]> Martin V. Howard wrote: > > >>The problem with "nosus humungus" is not that the nose is big, but > rather that it is *disproportionally* large (in relationship to the > rest of the face). Consequently, a nose ought to be more > disproportionally large with a 35mm from 19 inches away, than with a > 50mm near-focus from 19 inches away. Right?<< Sorry not right. If film had infinite grain all you would need is a 14mm lens and appropriate cropping at printing time. > Sounds reasonable to me (but I'm no optical expert)! But on a related > topic, I recently read (in a Leica catalog, I think) that a 50mm lens > most closely approximates the "angle of view" of the human eye (which > I guess refers to the 50mm lens's 45 degree angle of view); yet I also > recall reading years ago that what human eyes see as the relationship > among objects, near to far, is approximated by an 85mm lens. Can any > LUG member who HAS some optical expertise confirm that latter notion? This is my opinion on the whole "what is a normal lens" and "what lens has the same angle as a human eye" issue. http://www.ans.com.au/~chrisb/photo/technical/normal.html - -- Chris Bitmead http://www.ans.com.au/~chrisb mailto:chrisb@ans.com.au