Here's a question that has been bugging me for a while... A lot of photography books state that the 50mm lens is the normal lens because it best approximates the human eye's "perspective". However some other folks have mentioned that a 35mm lens is a better alternative. However, when I look through the viewfinder and then look up and over the camera, the only time the viewfinder view matches my peripheral vision is when the lens is at about 24mm. Even a 28mm lens won't cut it. BTW, this is being tested with a camera that has a viewfinder with 94% coverage and .77x magnification. Am I missing something here? Is the difference between a 94% viewfinder and a 100% so large that it would take a 24mm lens to make up the difference? When the figures of 35mm or 50mm are said to represent the eye's perspective are we not talking about what the human eye can see left to right and top to bottom? Or to ask it in another way, what is the "average" focal length that represents what the "average" human eye sees when looking straight ahead and therefore would best approximate what the naked eye would see if someone were looking out over, say, an ocean view? Please e-mail me off-list unless you think that this is something others would be like to know as well. Regards Carlo Terlizzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] ____________________________________________________________________ Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.amexmail.com/?A=1 * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
