The Online Photographer

As old-timers might know and some newcomers and early-days people might not, a "normal" AKA standard lens is the ordinary, everyday, middle-of-the-focal-length-range prime lens ("prime" being a not quite technically accurate term for single focal length) that used to be supplied as a starter lens on cameras before "kit zooms" came along. Its focal length varies with format; normals for press cameras such as Speed Graphics were 135mms—the number here refers to the focal length—which were moderate wides on 4x5-inch sheet film. Whereas the normal lens for the Asahi Pentax Auto 110 (the frame size is roughly the same as a 4/3 sensor) is 24mm. In its canonical state, the normal was a small, cheap-ish, medium-fast 50mm on a 135 (meaning the film format), or 35mm, camera. 135 / 35mm (formats) is now called "full frame," a term which is a status claim and doesn't make sense any other way, and I don't care what anybody says, he mumbled grumpily. There is or used to be a lot of confusion about the term "135," so here ya go:

The term 135 was introduced by Kodak in 1934 as a designation for 35mm film specifically for still photography, perforated with Kodak Standard perforations. It quickly grew in popularity, surpassing 120 film by the late 1960s to become the most popular photographic film size. (Wikipedia.)

The Ur-Leica, Oskar Barnack's prototypes for his miniature camera that eventually became known as the Leica—there might have been two of them originally, but one of them resides in Leica's headquarters in Germany and is possibly the World's Most Valuable Camera—had a 40mm normal lens, not a 50mm. This was discovered by Malcolm Taylor, the British master Leica repairman chosen by the company in the 1990s to service the totemic device, which task he carried out with appropriate reverence and care. Normals for 135 (the format) have also been 55mms and even 60mms on the narrower end and 45mm or even wider on the wide end. 

35mm cameras were once sold with standard
lenses, in this case a Yashinon 55mm ƒ/1.8

Pentax has a 43mm normal in its Limited series of lenses—which, oddly, were never limited—which is as close as can be to the 43.27mm diagonal of a 24x36mm rectangle, which is one definition of "normal." Although it is a wonderful lens and almost 3D-sharp, and, um, "Limited"—it doesn't qualify as a BHN as it's a rather petite almost-pancake lens. It works great to "smallen" and lighten a K-1 II, although it won't do at all for males who think of their lens as a penis substitute. In fact it makes so much sense that you can buy the camera and lens as a kit from B&H Photo. Reviewers by and large give the combo five stars.

A normal lens was once meant to be ordinary, basic, and practical. Most (even the 50mm Summicron designed by Walter Mandler after Leitz moved the M4 tooling to Canada) were (relatively) cheap. Early ones had minimal numbers of elements, because flare—the small percentage of non-image-forming light that is reflected rather than transmitted through an air-glass interface—quickly compounded in multi-element lenses to degrade the quality of the image. Lens coatings liberated lens designers; and yet, still, in the loss-leader normal lenses, corners were cut when they could be, and not every surface was coated. When multicoating came in, not every coated air-glass surface was multicoated. A cheap normal might have a mix of single-coated surfaces, mutlicoated surfaces, and uncoated surfaces. This led to some oddities in the way particular normals handled flare, and some of them would occasionally give strange effects in specific situations. I recall a Yashica lens that was very beautiful with evenly-lit subjects that flared like a mf when you shot against the sunlight. Hugh Crawford, who reportedly owns 50 50's, could tell us more about that. In the 1960s, when 35mm SLRs really got going, the included normal in a camera kit might have been a smallish 50mm with a moderate speed of ƒ/2. This might have been modified to  ƒ/1.9. ƒ/1.8, or ƒ/1.7 because those sounded better; but there was often little real or practical difference—Modern Photography magazine's lens tests used to measure the actual widest aperture of lenses, and it showed that these hopeful designations were somewhat more precise than the actual tolerances. There was a fair amount of slop in the system. I used to think of all of them as ƒ/2's, and you might as well.

The mighty Noctilux, normal ne plus ultra

Those early days are gone! "Normals"—primes of the middlin' focal length—are now some of the biggest, baddest, mostest and bestest lenses a camera company can produce, securing bragging rights for owners. As such they are completely over the top, ridiculous and absurd—hence, wonderful and desirable. The more absurd and extreme the better. In fact, whenever any photographer you know makes a plaintive wheedling little noise that he "needs" one of these lenses, the proper response should be "shaddup!" spoken like a '30s movie tough. There is no actual practical reason to own any of these lenses, so when someone claims a practical use—shaddup. "I need ƒ/1.2 for my theater work"—shaddup. "It gives me the bokeh I want"—shaddup! "I want to be ready for anything"—SHADDUP! Claims that the level of performance possible is actually needed could be a sign that the speaker doesn't have anything like the technique and understanding to get the best out of any lens. Shaddup. Biggest, baddest, mostest, bestest is what these lenses do, and it is what they are for. (Okay, you might also need it for your theater work or like the bokeh. I'm just trying to be amusing.)

The set-aside
When I went to Dartmouth, on the plane I was reading an issue of Vanity Fair magazine that I picked up in the airport, not one of my usual magazines. It happened to have an article about the best drinking schools in the country. At the beginning of the article, the author set Dartmouth aside as being so far ahead of all the others as to be beyond category—the big daddy, the Kahuna, matchless, the standout. If I recall correctly, there was a little liquor store on Nugget Alley in Hanover that was the biggest beer distributorship between Boston and Montreal. Dartmouth was a drinker's paradise, and oh-by-the-way had the highest percentage of alcoholics among its alumni at the time.

Similarly, to list some of these big honkin' normals, we have to first set aside the great-granddaddy of the breed, the original, the O.G. It is sui generis, and beyond ranking. That would be the Leica Noctilux for M-mount rangefinder cameras, an antediluvian holdover from the era when lens speed (i.e., its widest aperture) was the chief bragging point in the lens arms race. There were actually faster lenses made by several companies back in the day, but...too late. The Noctilux already secured the position. We won't rank this one but rather set it aside on a pedestal where it belongs. And lest you think lens worship is not a thing, "Uncle" Arthur Kramer, the longtime lens reviewer for the old Modern Photography magazine, had the very best lens he knew of—the 105mm Apo-El-Nikkor enlarging lens—cast in lucite to use on his desk as a paperweight. He was an executive for an advertising agency—was it Young & Rubicam? I forget, and there is no good bio of Uncle Arthur on the WWW, alas. I believe his was serial number 007. Note that my memory for numbers is not the greatest.

I notice that the new Noctiluxes have bifurcated into two lenses, something which had escaped my attention, and the iconic ƒ/1 has been "improved" to ƒ/0.95. This is nonsense of which I do not approve. One (1) is the numerological sign of identity and unity—"make me one with everything," said the Guru to the hot dog vendor. "ƒ/0.95" doesn't have the same cachet, I'm sorry. One (1) has roundness, wholeness, and perfection. However, our Noctilux (the Noctilux of now) also gets the palm for the most expensive normal, at a cool $13,295. Buy it through my link when you get yours and I will be in your debt—my spiff would be $398.85 and that would make my month right there! Be still, my beating heart*. For those whose Quest is the magic bullet that will automagically impart specialness to their pictures, the Noctilux is the pinnacle solution. One review at B&H Photo is titled, "Outstanding! Images have a special and distinct look." And so they do, so they do. Leica sells three a year.**

There is a smaller, less expensive, slower one too. But never mind. It would be much more practical, and thus is not to the manner born.

Having set the paragon aside, we will next proceed with a brief tour of the Big Honkin' Normals of Now, crowning champions left and right as we wend our way. Overlord lenses. Phat glass. For rangefinders, medium format to Micro 4/3, SLRs and mirrorless. With commentary of, shall we say, a somewhat tart nature. Stay tuned for Part II, maybe next week?

Mike

*I'm being tongue in cheek. If the Universe endures to be quadrillions of years old, no one will ever buy a Noctilux through my links. (AI Overview hilariously states, "The universe is expected to last trillions or even quadrillions of years, but it's difficult to be precise." Made me laugh.)

**I totally made that up.

Original contents copyright 2025 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Nigli: "My favorite 'normal' was the Pentax Super-Takumar 105mm ƒ/2.4. Lovely fall off and super sharp."

Mike adds: For the Pentax 6x7.