50mm vs. 35mm for street photography

[hepcat]

But, how about the fact that an SLR shows you exactly how it'll look perspective wise and a RF does not... i.e. the rangefinder is not showing you what the lens sees. This adds a little bit of chance into framing no? It could offer suprises that lead to creativity.

Hmm... parallax is a fact of life with a rangefinder camera. It's also a fact of life with twin-lens reflex cameras. With experience, you learn how to work with it. That's one of the major differences between the genres. There are folks who just can't do bright-line finder cameras. They never come to grips with how to use that kind of finder to their advantage.

I think that understanding perspective control with a bright-line finder camera is a different process than with an SLR, but I don't think it's any less precise or accurate.

 

[hepcat]

Apart from the bright lines, what I never got used to with DSLRs was the fact that they blocked nearly both my eyes, not only the one that looked through the viewfinder. That makes the tunnel vision unbearable for me: suddenly I become a cyclope!

I was born right-eye dominant. When I started shooting rangefinder cameras many years ago, I tried using my right eye, and closing my left. Because of the frequency and the amount of time I was looking through the viewfinder, I got eyestrain and my left eye muscles hurt from keeping them closed for extended periods. I tried leaving both eyes open to avoid that, and found that the visual confusion caused by two differing magnifications of the same view made it so that I couldn't effectively isolate either image. So, I started using my left eye to frame, and left my right eye open behind the camera where effectively it didn't get any image input.

I shoot comfortably that way to this day. I make a mess of my LCD with nose prints, but I can shoot comfortably all day. Interestingly, over the years, I have become left-eye dominant despite the fact that I'm right handed.

 

[mszargar]

So, I started using my left eye to frame, and left my right eye open behind the camera where effectively it didn't get any image input.

I frame with the left eye closed, looking through the viewfinder with the right eye. Then I open the left eye and wait for the moment and the situation I am expecting. When I see the moment approaching, I recheck through the viewfinder and shoot...

I guess that partially explains why I found RF such a revelation... 🙂

How do you like your Nokton 35 1.2 by the way?

 

[mszargar]

except the C Sonnar 50/1.5 which you have mentioned, because of the focus shift.

Hadn't noticed any shift with the Sonnar I had borrowed. I will necessarily rent one and try it extensively if I ever decide to purchase it.

Btw, I love the second shot. I'm a big fan of sunny days @ f/8! 😉

 

[Phil_F_NM]

I was born right-eye dominant. When I started shooting rangefinder cameras many years ago, I tried using my right eye, and closing my left. Because of the frequency and the amount of time I was looking through the viewfinder, I got eyestrain and my left eye muscles hurt from keeping them closed for extended periods. I tried leaving both eyes open to avoid that, and found that the visual confusion caused by two differing magnifications of the same view made it so that I couldn't effectively isolate either image. So, I started using my left eye to frame, and left my right eye open behind the camera where effectively it didn't get any image input.

I shoot comfortably that way to this day. I make a mess of my LCD with nose prints, but I can shoot comfortably all day. Interestingly, over the years, I have become left-eye dominant despite the fact that I'm right handed.

Sounds like you need a Nikon rangefinder! 😀

Phil Forrest

 

[Bingley]

As others have said, it's a personal thing, 35 v 50 for street. I started out using a 50 but have come to appreciate 35 for street, although I use both (as well as a 40). But here is one "objective" consideration: How close do you want to be to your subject?

With a 35, you can generally get an entire human torso in the frame at about 10 feet/3 meters. With a 50 from that distance, you're isolating detail.

Do you shoot on crowded streets? I'd lean toward a 35 so I can shoot closer to the subject. Do you shoot on broad avenues or in less crowded settings? Then a 50 may work well.

 

[Spicy]

M rokkor 40/2 for the win

 

[lam]

In the spirit of other threads;
Go 15mm! instead of capturing a moment, just capture the entire landscape of moments!!


I always find myself yearning for a 35 when in tight-er quarters, while a 50 is more so isolation and background gathering.

 

[sny]

I also use both, depending on the mood... There are times when I feel at home with a 35mm, other times with a 50mm. These two focal lengths complete themselves very nicely. The 35mm is maybe a bit more polyvalent...

Regards,

S.

 

[FrankS]

Totally personal depending on how close you want to be to the subject, but I prefer 35 or 28 due to the ease of zone focusing with the increased DOF of wider lenses. Pre-set the exposure and zone focus, and you've got a snapshot camera. Pic below was taken with a Leica llf and Canon 28f3.5 lens.

 

[Damaso]

I started with the 35mm and shifted over the years to the 50mm. I found the 35mm too wide for me, and this is after shooting with the 24mm for years. I feel pretty happy though of course there are times you wish the 50mm was a little wider...

 

[semilog]

I prefer shooting on the street with 35, 28, 21... I like to get close. 50 seldom works for me at all.

28mm (eq.):


Miami 17. South Beach: grab shot. by Semilog, on Flickr


Miami 20. Yes/Not yet. by Semilog, on Flickr

 

[Richard G]

Good post and good thread. Someone here once reckoned that on holidays there was so much to get into the frame he would have the 35 on the camera all the time, but going out the door near home there was less to cram in and he'd prefer the 50.

Simon Becker who was posting a lot here has an exhibition on in Berlin at the moment. He uses 35 almost exclusively. Furthermore he is almost never after shallow depth of field, and prefers the whole frame in focus with the composition across the frame being his interest rather than subject isolation. The whole Leica super fast glass ultra shallow depth of field thing is not to everyone's taste.

On the recent 28 threads the thing that interested me was the number of photographsers who consider that the focal length to be in with the subject(s). Bill Pierce, for a long time an habitual 35 user, found a friend's 50 a revelation, a short telephoto almost.

I'm not really a street photographer but do try it occasionally. Shooting without the viewfinder can be done with a 35, with the some care and practice. It's easier with a 28 and getting much easier with a 25 or 21. I have sometimes got a shot like this with a 50 but the failure rate is higher, both the framing, and camera motion blur that counts.

Although I had only a 50 for years and felt like a kid in too big a pool when I first put on a 35, I reckon I would start with that from what you tell us. I have the Summicron, but nearly always take the 2.8 Biogon lately. I never use f2 in the daytime with the 35. The Zeiss is bigger, but it's on an M9 which is big too. I do love the ultra compactness of the pre-ASPH Summicron on an M6, and that is my ideal stealth package. Scale focus by feel is easiest for me with the Leica focus tabs, rather than the Zeiss bumps.

I do use the 50 C Sonnar a lot and have gone weeks with just that lens on my camera. It's fine for street at f4 and smaller, and sure, I love it wider and am a sucker for its lovely shallow depth of field too. The 50 Summicron is more versatile.

It seems from many threads here that there is no bad 35 and most of the 50s are good too. Learning one lens over a period is more important than which focal length of these two it is.

 

[Godfrey]

Whichever suits your vision is fine.
No one can tell you which focal length is best for your vision.

The only way to know which one suits you best is to work with each until you master it, and then decide whether it's doing the right thing for you.

G

 

[Harry Lime]

Personally, I find 35s easier to use, as they offer a better depth of field at the same aperture,

Last but not least, decent fast 50s are cheaper than decent fast 35s. One can get a Zeiss Planar 50 f/1.5 for about a thousand bucks (and I absolutely love the way Planars render the image - have a Jupiter 3 on my Zorki).

The f1.5/50 is a sonnar design, not a planar. The 2/50 is the planar.


Get the 35. It's more flexible for street shooting. Depending on where you live the streets may be too narrow for the 50. Voigtlander makes a nice 1.4/35 and of course there is the Zeiss 2/35.

 

[DougFord]

The 35 is my preference for general walking around photography. Scale focus to about a meter and half and have at it. Viewfinder use is optional at such distances. With the 50, not so much. Anything farther away ain't worth photographing, probably. 😛

 

[jsrockit]

It depends on your habit, on the country and on the kind of street ( a lot of people or not).

For me it's almost impossible to use a 50mm that I consider much too long in street. I live in a big city and there are too many people in the street to use a long focal lens.

I agree. I live in NYC and can get away with 35mm and 50mm in the street. However, I recently went to Japan and there were many small roads where 28mm or wider would have been handy.

 

[jparriott]

I'm a little bit confused. You mention having a Zorki - an LTM mount - yet you're talking about M-Mount lenses. LTM can be adapted to M -- but not the other way around.

Your Jupiter 3 is a copy of the Zeiss sonnar - not a planar. So you already have a good idea of a 50 on your camera. (although Zorkis, like Leica IIIfs have no frame lines in the finder). The Jupiter 3, by the way, is an excellent lens for the money.

The preference of 35 or 50 is highly personal. I seem to gravitate to 35 frame, but shoot both. The 35 will give you the context of your subject's surroundings and potentially better framing elements. On the street, it's also nice to have some margin for error -- particularly when range focusing or shooting from the hip. I personally like the 50 when I feel I'm going to have a little time and room. With a 50, I always use the finder.

Buying advice? Grab a Canon 35/2 LTM on Ebay. Should be able to find a good copy for $400. It's small, sharp, with good contrast... and is an LTM mount that you can use on just about anything.

 

[mszargar]

I have a Zorki and a M6, a whole set of russian lenses and a Nokton 35 1.4. Now I am seeking to purchase some more reliable lenses as I have sold some gear. Again sorry for the Sonnar -> Planar confusion. I though I had corrected it.

I got many valuable comments above, and I would like to thank everybody.

 

[Rangefinderfreak]

Do a test: take your both hands and rise the index fingers on both. Adjust the angle of view ( without a camera) you see most comfortably with your fingers up. Then compare this to the leica finder. That`s your normal view. For me it is between 28mm and 35mm. Then just zoom with your feet...