50mm focal length. How is it on .72 or .85?

A

Asim

Well-known
Local time
6:52 PM
Joined
Feb 21, 2010
Messages
235
View My Gallery
I'm thinking of getting a 50mm as an all-round lens and using it alongside a 24mm lens. Therefore the 50 would be my longest focal length and the one that would stay on the body most of the time.

I have a couple of questions about it because I've never really tried one out before. I've only tried lenses in the 20-43mm range and 75-90mm range.

1. Do you feel that a fast 50mm focal length can perform much the same way as a 75mm?

2. Can it be used to take detail shots such as a flower pot, a door, a head and shoulder shot?

3. If I compliment it only with a 24mm lens (which requires an external finder), would you say that I must have a .85 viewfinder and definitely not a .72 finder? The body would be either an M6 or M7.

4. Which viewfinder magnification works best if I were to attach a magnifier?

Thanks for your help
 
There is no "must have" answer for this question. If you get a Noctilux or 75 Summilux then the .85 finder will be of some benefit.

As for the focal length, I find that I love the 50 but it does not take the place of my 75 because of the way they compress the subjects and the looks of my individual lenses. The 75 gets close to the close focus limit of the DR Summicron and a 90mm that will couple down to 1m will just about match the closest field of view and magnification you can get with the DR 'Cron but neither takes the place of the way the 'Cron draws. If you get a 50mm that focuses down to the RF limit range of the Leica then it will serve you very well for most of the closer stuff. For very detailed shots only a lens like a DR 'Cron or, even better, a 90 Macro will do. Again, it depends upon your work.

You're just going to have to try some out and see how you like them.

Phil Forrest
 
.72x is just fine for most 50's in my opinion, as you still get to keep your 35mm frame and can shoot a 28 on the very edges of the finder, and the magnifications is good for at least Summicron 50's, and probably the Summilux as well.

But for the money spent on a Summilux or faster, the extra money spent on the .85x would be well worth the cost in my opinion.
 
I use a 50 Summilux on my .58 M6. It's wonderful and accurate. I understand the higher magnification bodies, but you don't really need it even for 50/1.4. If you think you might want to add a 75 or longer lens later on, the .85 is a good choice, if you want to shoot wider the others are better. For a 50mm though it hardly matters.

I never used a 75mm lens so won't comment there. But a 50, especially one that can focus down to 0.7 meters, is great for close-up and head+shoulder shots. Don't expect macro functionality, but 0.7 meters really is very close.
 
Speaking from the point of view as an M3 user who shoots only 50mm really, the high magnification finder (0.92) is perfection itself. Initially when I shot at first with M's, I used a 0.72 mag M6 and found that fine too, a lot more space around the frameline but that was cool too. Best of both worlds for flexibility though really is a 0.72 body with eyepiece magnifier, but that said, increased magnification while nice is probably really only necessary for 90mm and greater in my opinion.
 
I have an .85 m6 and a .72 m6. I prefer the .85 for 50 just cause it makes the frame lines seem bigger and i have more of an idea what will be in the shot. On the other hand my .72 was cla'd recently and i find it easier to focus with but still like the .85 most of the time.
 
I too have a 0.85 M6 and a (of course) 0.72 M2 and i prefer the first for 50mm. It has been my first Leica and i also shot 35mm on it, without having any Problem. If I go shooting i take both with the 35mm on the M2 and the 50 on the M6, which it works great for me. I shot 50 on the M2 though and it works fine, too.

I think your decision should be based upon how sure you are about your lenses. If you are sure that you will not get a 28 in the near future and if you are sure about preferring the 50 above the 35, 0.85 it is. If you are not sure, take the 0.72.
 
I bought the .85 because I shoot the 50mm lens the most. I also like the 90, and 35mm is the widest I have so it was an easy choice for me.

I had tried the .72 before buying and found that I like to shoot with both eyes open which is easier (for me) on the .85.
 
I also own Leicas with both 0.72 and 0.85 finders.

50mm is my favourite focal length and I have no problems with using it on my .72 leicas. In fact, I use it almost exclusively on a .72 camera. If I use a focal length greater than 50mm (usually 90mm), then I switch to a .85 finder.

John
 
I also use 0.72x and 0.85x bodies and tend to use the 0.85 for Noctilux, 75, 90 and 135mm lenses. I use the rest on 0.72 bodies and have good eyesight so no problem focusing an f2 or 1.4 on them. I use a 75mm Summicron and I have to use it on the 0.85 body as that's the only one I have with 75mm framelines, and for detail shots like head & shoulders I prefer the 75 as you are one step removed from the subject over a 50.
 
Like many others in this thread, I have 0.72 and 0.85 mag M6's, the former as an "all-rounder" and the latter for use with longer/faster lenses. I've used 50's (f/2 and f/1.4 varieties) on both more or less interchangeably, at which point body choice then becomes a question of what other lens I'll be carrying with me. 90mm = 0.85 finder. 35mm = 0.72 finder. YMMV.

Mike
 
.72 is fine with a 50mm. As I've said before (to the point of annoyance), I shoot a lot in low light--live concert stuff. I regularly use a 90mm Summicron on my .72 mag M--quite often wide open, and I still get dead-on focus. I consider .72 the "general purpose" magnification--it works well with most of the lenses you're going to use.

So I think your 50mm will do just fine with .72 magnification.
 
I have only ever enjoyed shooting 50mm with a 0.85 finder. That's just me perhaps. On a 0.73 body I feel the 50mm feels small and 'remote.'
 
I have used all three finder magnifications with a 50mm lens. I wear glasses so the quickest "grab" shot is with the .58, but the best compromise is the .72 model. I still like the .85 finder for focusing my Noctilux, since I tend to slow-down while using that hunk of glass and I have plenty of time to move my eye around the finder to see the brightline frames.

Dave
 
The M3 is 1:1 and that's what I started out with. You can keep both eyes open with a 50 and the frame-lines appear super-imposed on the world. It is a very "transparent" way to go about picture taking. I have used a 0.72 for years with a 50 Summicron; for years it was my default lens. It works fine. Keep in mind that your ability to actually focus your attention on a point of focus is a very narrow angle. With an 0.72 finder you can see what is in the frame, and what is about to enter to the frame -- this is useful in many situations. I found I was able to focus the Noctilux and 75 Summilux, both demanding lenses, on the 0.72 without any problems. Five years ago, I got an 0.85 M6 TTL. I use it occasionally, but not more or less often than the 0.72 or my M3. What you lose with the higher magnification finder (and indeed a limitation of the M3) is the ability to use wider angle lenses without auxiliary finders. Since I purchased the 0.85, I have started to use wider angle lenses more routinely, hence less use of that body. I don't like external finders all that much so I use the 24 Elmarit on the 0.72 body with the camera's regular finder. The widest framelines on an 0.72 are for a 28, so using a 24 is a challenge -- right past the framelines to the physical edge of the frame.

If it were me, I'd get the 0.72. It is the most flexible of the finder magnifications out there, in my opinion. Your vision may "widen" over time as mine did/is. In any event, it is perfectly fine for a 50.
 
The .72 along works fine with the 50mm. It has the benefit of working with a 28mm without a separate finder. Add the 1.25x or 1.4x magnifier (expensive but brilliant) and you are well fixed up to 135mm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom