From 40mm to 50mm, or cropping?

Z

zwarte_kat

Well-known
Local time
8:59 AM
Joined
Mar 27, 2010
Messages
282
View My Gallery
Hi,
I have a Minolta CLE and I do a lot of street/people shooting. Check my flickr set if you want to get an idea of what I shoot.

Though I have a 15mm and 90mm as well, I always find myself shooting with the 40mm Rokkor 2.0. I love this lens.

I often interact with my subjects, but I still have kind of an preferred distance. I think it's a "social distance". However, I end up cropping most of my images. Not substantially, but little distracting details on the side/top/bottom. Also, I often find that my subject is just a little too small in the frame.

Do you think getting a 50mm would limit this problem? Or would new distractions simply re-appear because of my shooting style? I could keep using the 40mm frame lines, and kind of get an auto crop.
If i would get a 50mm, it would probably be one that offers more than just 10mm difference, maybe a nice Zeiss 1.5 Sonnar, to make it more distinct from my current lens.

Or should i just crop and shut up. Will this greatly effect quality in printing?

Cheers, I am still a beginner so please tell me if you have experienced something similar!
 
The 40mm Summicron-C or Rokkor version is by far the best value out there as far as Leica glass goes; I know the Rokkor is by Minolta but it makes no difference. 😉

I use both 50 and 40, and the 50 is my 2nd most used FL. I'd say it's different enough to merit a separate lens, but like jsrocket said you could just step on foot forward and get the 50 perspective from your 40.
 
Thanks for your replies.
I would rather not take that extra step. I feel it would change the whole situation, I would be in peoples face too much. I am getting quite close as it is, often moving closer to them already. It might sound strange to you guys, but then I'd rather get a 50mm.

For me the only alternative seems to be cropping. Reading the posts here on this forum about cropping was quite interesting BTW. Though I sometimes feel a bit restraint to crop, because i am a bit of a purist when it comes to shooting, I generally don't mind to crop of some ugly corners. I just worry if it makes a difference when it comes to printing, which I want to do soon, but not by myself.

Maybe I should just get the cheapest 2nd hand 50mm available and see how I like it.
 
Ok

Ok

Okay cheers. No nobody seems to mention cropping, so I will try a 50, haha!
Now it's just a matter of finding a cheap one.

Or maybe I will make a crazy jump and go straight for the ZM sonnar. Just got another cheap ($200) 40mm, the Nokton SC, and I LOVE the smooth 1.4 rendering. Maybe I can even step it up with a Sonnar.
 
Second hand store in Tokyo, where I buy pretty much everything (don't have a credit card, so online is out of the question for me).
I should add that it has some fungus spots (or something) inside, which lowered the price. I always buy the fungus lenses, cheaper and I never noticed anything.

So I love fungus, well, in my lenses at least 🙂

Usually the prices are higher in that store than 2nd hand online, I think.
 
zwarte kat i'm in the same boat as you.
i have the m6 0.85 2 with a summicron 40mm
i'm thinking of getting a 50mm as well to get closer shots.
many people say just take one more step but the closest focus on the 40 is 0.8meters and i always want to go a little tighter.
i'm looking for either a hexanon or summicron DR
 
cropping shall do just fine. It increases effective grain a bit, decreases sharpness a bit, in theory - only to be seen if you print large, though.
Stepping closer changes perspective. Cropping does not.

Although there is some truth in Capa's statement that, 'if your photos are not good enough, it means you were not close enough' (or stg like that).
 
Fungus

Fungus

@jsrockit
Don't know, but there were white spots inside. I am translating the word for "fungus" here from one non-native language to the other BTW. I might be off on what it is exactly.
Anyway, it made it cheaper. I really love the lens. It made me appreciate softer pictures more, before I was more focussed on sharpness. If you look at my flickr, you can kind of see that turning point. For me a soft 100 ASA really shows the distinct style of film when compared to digital (I know, photoshop can make everything, but most people try to make their "mega zoom lens auto focussed 2.8 blur" portraits only sharper).

I guess I love film photography because it persuades you more to look for your own style. I am still in the beginning of that process, and it is wonderful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom