Bosk
Make photos, not war.
I think I've finally started to "get it", why everyone loves the 50mm focal length so much.
Lately I've been walking around with just my Leica, handleld meter and a 50 lens and have hardly felt like anything is missing.
But to begin at the beginning, when I first started out in photography (with DSLRs, regrettably) everyone told me 'you should get a fast 50mm lens'. I quickly worked out why, with even the worst 50 primes destroying most zooms in speed and optics - not to mention size which to me is just as important.
Of course 50 on a DSLR is 75, not 50. It's a nice focal length I found, good for most walk-around stuff but of course a touch too telephoto for serious landscape stuff.
Then I discovered rangefinders and bought my first 50 Summicron before I even owned a camera to put it on. This was the black version without the 50 on the barrel, 1970s model I think.
For some reason it and I never managed to 'hit it off', maybe because the jump from an all-auto digicam to a meterless Leica was too big a shock to the system and manually focusing any lens at the time was going to be a challenge.
So... I sold it. :bang:
Then I 'discovered' the 35mm focal length by snapping up a used Voigtlander 35/2.5 which I later traded for a 35 Summicron, but ended up trading back and still own today. (awesome lens, tiny - sharp - cheap)
For a long time I thought the 35 focal length was 'the answer' and I still do when it comes to some subjects.
Ages later on a whim I bought a cheapy Russian Industar 50 2.8 from eBay.
Suffice to say, you don't want to know how flimsy it feels! But I was amazed at the images this "throw away" lens (a Tessar I later found out) was able to produce. Tons of character, great bokeh, and little if any distortion. If only the handling was better I could probably live with it very happily.
Naturally after using the Industar 50 so often and being surprised with the results I realised a more 'serious' 50 was needed, so I snapped up a Canon 50 1.4 screw mount. This was maybe the sharpest lens I've owned, aside from the DSLR Sigma 30 1.4 (though that had woefull corner sharpness) and was built like a little tank. I say was because I've now sold it. The problem? Too big, too heavy, not sexy enough! 🙄
And now I've been contemplating what to replace it with. Initially I was thinking over the early 50 2.8 Elmar but now I'm leaning towards an early Summicron of some sort.
Results aside what really does it for me most about 50 lenses is those framelines. I think they're just about perfect with tons of room outside to watch your subjects walk in and out of the shot but still a good area of coverage, enough to make really good compositions.
It really doesn't hurt that 50 lenses are optically the finest. 😀
I've also begun wondering if 50 is such a great focal length because it allows just the right amount of visual information that a 35mm negative can supply.
Shots taken with a 28 or 35 on the other hand can sometimes get a little 'lost' because there isn't physically enough room on the neg to lend detail to each subject in the frame, particularly on landscape shots with lots of distant houses for example.
And finally, something I love about the 50 focal length is that it just gets out of the way and lets the subject speak for itself in a way other focal lengths don't.
On the flip side wide-angles can be great because they help generate interest themselves by virtue of the exaggerated perspective, but I don't think it works for all subjects or types of photography.
So anyway, that's my little story about why I think 50mm lenses are (as members of the younger generation might put it) the shiznit.
Thanks for reading! 😉
Lately I've been walking around with just my Leica, handleld meter and a 50 lens and have hardly felt like anything is missing.
But to begin at the beginning, when I first started out in photography (with DSLRs, regrettably) everyone told me 'you should get a fast 50mm lens'. I quickly worked out why, with even the worst 50 primes destroying most zooms in speed and optics - not to mention size which to me is just as important.
Of course 50 on a DSLR is 75, not 50. It's a nice focal length I found, good for most walk-around stuff but of course a touch too telephoto for serious landscape stuff.
Then I discovered rangefinders and bought my first 50 Summicron before I even owned a camera to put it on. This was the black version without the 50 on the barrel, 1970s model I think.
For some reason it and I never managed to 'hit it off', maybe because the jump from an all-auto digicam to a meterless Leica was too big a shock to the system and manually focusing any lens at the time was going to be a challenge.
So... I sold it. :bang:
Then I 'discovered' the 35mm focal length by snapping up a used Voigtlander 35/2.5 which I later traded for a 35 Summicron, but ended up trading back and still own today. (awesome lens, tiny - sharp - cheap)
For a long time I thought the 35 focal length was 'the answer' and I still do when it comes to some subjects.
Ages later on a whim I bought a cheapy Russian Industar 50 2.8 from eBay.
Suffice to say, you don't want to know how flimsy it feels! But I was amazed at the images this "throw away" lens (a Tessar I later found out) was able to produce. Tons of character, great bokeh, and little if any distortion. If only the handling was better I could probably live with it very happily.
Naturally after using the Industar 50 so often and being surprised with the results I realised a more 'serious' 50 was needed, so I snapped up a Canon 50 1.4 screw mount. This was maybe the sharpest lens I've owned, aside from the DSLR Sigma 30 1.4 (though that had woefull corner sharpness) and was built like a little tank. I say was because I've now sold it. The problem? Too big, too heavy, not sexy enough! 🙄
And now I've been contemplating what to replace it with. Initially I was thinking over the early 50 2.8 Elmar but now I'm leaning towards an early Summicron of some sort.
Results aside what really does it for me most about 50 lenses is those framelines. I think they're just about perfect with tons of room outside to watch your subjects walk in and out of the shot but still a good area of coverage, enough to make really good compositions.
It really doesn't hurt that 50 lenses are optically the finest. 😀
I've also begun wondering if 50 is such a great focal length because it allows just the right amount of visual information that a 35mm negative can supply.
Shots taken with a 28 or 35 on the other hand can sometimes get a little 'lost' because there isn't physically enough room on the neg to lend detail to each subject in the frame, particularly on landscape shots with lots of distant houses for example.
And finally, something I love about the 50 focal length is that it just gets out of the way and lets the subject speak for itself in a way other focal lengths don't.
On the flip side wide-angles can be great because they help generate interest themselves by virtue of the exaggerated perspective, but I don't think it works for all subjects or types of photography.
So anyway, that's my little story about why I think 50mm lenses are (as members of the younger generation might put it) the shiznit.
Thanks for reading! 😉
