There might be a bunch of people that are going to disagree with me on this one but I just want to make sure that what I think i understand about the physics of lenses is right. So in the 35mm era (long long time ago... i am kidding) the 50mm lenses were considered "normal". What normal meant was that it reproduced what the human eye could see. Now with the crop factor, people have a different definition of what a normal lens is depending on the size of the sensor. For exemple, if you have a x1.5 crop factor people will consider a 33mm to be "normal". I think that by normal people back then were talking about the perception that the lens was giving of distances, right? What i mean by that is that when you shoot a wide angle lens, the distance between the subject and the background will look greater than in real life, if you shoot a telephoto the background will look closer than in real life, but if you shoot a normal lens, it will look normal. So how does the crop factor affect that? I mean, capturing a smaller portion of that same image is not going to affect the perception the lens renders of distances. I know people always say "compared to a 35mm camera" when they talk about crop factors. But how is that relevant when you talk to people like me who started getting serious about photography only with digital. When i have my 50mm on my camera and i look into the viewfinder, the distances look quite similar to what i see in real life! Now, little question on the side, i red somewhere that the "REAL" normal lens was the 43mm. IS this true?