This sounds right to me. One of the reasons I like the K 55mm f1.8 is that, on the KX, the eye in the viewfinder sees things at exactly the same magnification as the other eye. Put a 50mm lens on the KX, and this is no longer true.
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
Ok, but why then 50mm and not 43mm? My parents sometimes say when we talk about cameras that "in their times" 45mm was considered normal.
.True. The historical reason behind why 35mm film "normal" lens has .become 50mm instead of staying at 43mm (or 45mm) is out there somewhere, .but I can't retrieve it from my crowded gray cells! .Someone here will know and help us out! .You can still find cameras with 43mm lenses, so the practice is not .dead, just not often followed anymore. ================================================================
I think the reason they went to 58/55/50 was that these focal lengths typically gave a FINDER magnification of 1 (100%).
If they used a 43mm lens on an SLR, the image is smaller than %100 on most SLRs.
FWIW, Using 43.27mm as "normal" yeilds a 85mm as very close to 2X and 135 as fairly close to 3X.
JCO
================================================================
