Why HCB uses a 50mm lens

[kshapero]

Henri Cartier-Bresson on the 50mm: “It corresponds to a certain vision and at the same time has enough depth of focus, a thing you don’t have in longer lenses. I worked with a 90. It cuts much of the foreground if you take a landscape, but if people are running at you, there is no depth of focus. The 35 is splendid when needed, but extremely difficult to use if you want precision in composition. There are too many elements, and something is always in the wrong place. It is a beautiful lens at times when needed by what you see. But very often it is used by people who want to shout. Because you have a distortion, you have somebody in the foreground and it gives an effect. But I don’t like effects. There is something aggressive, and I don’t like that. Because when you shout, it is usually because you are short of arguments.”

 

[Erik van Straten]

I fully agree with Henri here! It is a well-known saying of his.

It is very good to take only one lens with you when you are going to shoot. You are then free of the idea that for a certain photo the other lens would have been better.

Erik.

 

[Nitroplait]

With 35mm being that extreme in his eyes, I dare not guess what he thinks of my favorite focal length; 28mm.
His arguments are interesting, nevertheless.
I still do like his work, even if he wouldn’t approve of my favorite lens.

 

[boojum]

The 50 was the standard length lens for years. It may still be. It was the kit lens length. It works well and corresponds to what we see when we look. Bresson was reflecting reality, his stock in trade.

 

[steveyork]

For sure, the wider focal lengths are more difficult to use on a rangefinder (for me). Always felt easier to get "good" shots with a 50 on a rangefinder, because that pretty much matches what you see, but to get more than good, something unique, something not so flat, required something a bit different. That's just for me, everyone's different, but I find there's a few tricks the wider focal lengths have that just can't replicated on a standard lens as well (eg, something prominent in the foreground with a wide receding background, giving pictures lots of depth, not so flat).

Of course all of this depends on the skill of the photographer. A good photographer takes good pics with anything, no matter lens or camera type. Also so much depends on subject, environment, style, ect ... obviously. So don't think you can make black and white statements in this area, just individual preferences. Ha, ha, and sometimes they change over time.

Wonder whether someone like this would be different if they grew up shooting SLR's, or at a time where there were better, faster wide angle options? I mean, he practiced his craft when pretty much 50mm ruled, right?

When it comes to rangefinders, I like the minimalistic idea. Just a camera with one lens, keep things simple, and if I want to get closer, I just move my feet (and you can always crop). Ha, ha, I may travel with multiple lenses, but all the same focal length -- 35mm. If I mix up too much gear, the quality of my pics drop. Won't get every pic with that just one focal length (50 or 35) but you'll get most of them.

Still, maybe there's a 21mm lens in my future ....

 

[sjones]

For urban candids and such, I actually like the “shouting” effect of the 35mm or, more so, 28mm, but I only use a 50mm largely because it corresponds with my visual ‘constriction’ of pertinent elements. The last time I used a 35mm was probably around 2013, and even then, I would use it for about one roll of film per year. Some good photos taken, but it just never felt instinctive.

 

[raydm6]

Agree. Irrespective of the 50mm FL, he had an amazing eye and an uncanny knack for composition/timing and positioning - waiting for all essential elements to converge. It's been spoken of by others of his training as a painter and hunter which had an influence. I have also seen a reference that he studied cinematography with Paul Strand in 1932.

Some interesting insights into his philosophy in the article below, although I think at least one - (maybe) more - images the author attributed to him belong to others. Some, I have never seen before.

https://www.blissfrombygonedays.com/...artier-bresson

 

[steveyork]

Agree, irrespective of the 50mm FL, he had an amazing eye and an uncanny knack for composition/timing - waiting for all essential elements to converge. It's been spoken of by others of his training as a painter and hunter which had an influence. I have also seen a reference that he studied cinematography with Paul Strand in 1932.

Some interesting insights into his philosophy in the article below, although I think at least one - (maybe) more - images the author attributed to him belong to others. Some, I have never seen before.

https://www.blissfrombygonedays.com/...artier-bresson

Maybe a bit heresy, but looking at his pics, all great by the way, but not many he couldn't have also taken with a 35mm focal length, and some would actually look better with a bit more breadth. Think very much he was the product of his times, where 50mm was king. All the MF back then was that field of view, and you had some really good 50's -- the Sonnars, the Leica equivalent, but other than the slower f/2.8 Biogon, what did you have in a realistic wide angle option? How much of his belief was dictated by lack of options? I don't know, just something to consider.

You can always crop (I know, not his thing), or possibly take a step of two forward, but you can't expand if it's not on the negative.

 

[raydm6]

^^ I think there is a lot of validity to your observation. Plus, I don't think he was as much into gear and options as a lot of us are. You're right, different mind-set then. According to this timeline, he started shooting with a Leica (I believe with a 3.5 Elmar?) in 1932.

 

[Erik van Straten]

^^ I think there is a lot of validity to your observation. Plus, I don't think he was as much into gear and options as a lot of us are. You're right, different mind-set then. According to this timeline, he started shooting with a Leica (I believe with a 3.5 Elmar?) in 1932.

He started with 35mm with a Krauss Eka, in 1930, in Africa. He was there for a year. He had some experience with 9 x 12 plate cameras in the late 1920's. Back in France he made a trip through Europe with the Krauss: Poland, Czechoslovakia and Germany. Later, in 1932, he got some money from his father to buy his first Leica, a Leica Ia. He used the Leica with a VIDOM-viewfinder mounted. The VIDOM gives a mirror-wrong image. Maybe that's why Cartier-Bressons early pictures have such a strong composition. Many painters too look into a mirror to judge their work to improve the composition and the correctness of the drawing.

Krauss Eka, 35mm camera from the 1920's (the camera used unperforated film).

Erik.

 

[Coldkennels]

You can always crop (I know, not his thing), or possibly take a step of two forward, but you can't expand if it's not on the negative.

But it's not just the field of view that's affected. Using 50mm over 35mm gives you a little bit more distance from the subject, making you less obtrusive - meaning you're not influencing the scene as much. It allows for more subject isolation if you want it via tighter depth of field and also keeps the background larger and closer to the subject if you want that additional context.

I've not been remotely interested in street photography for a long, long time now, but the absolute jumble of a 35mm, 28mm or wider slammed straight into someone's face with everything behind them in focus? Not my thing. I much prefer the earlier stuff of Cartier-Bresson, Doisneau, Kertész etc; there's almost a more peaceful atmosphere to it. Part of that is definitely down to the lack of clutter in the scene - fewer cars, fewer sign posts, fewer people in that earlier time period - but I think part of that is also down to the slightly longer focal length preferred in that era rather than the wider lenses of Gilden, Winogrand et. al.

 

[jsrockit]

Focal lengths are subjective. I like 50mm best and my reasons are exactly the same as his. However, so many great photographers have used all other focal lengths to make great photographs that you can only chalk this up to personal preference. Sometimes shouting is necessary, sometimes being quiet is necessary.

 

[PaulDalex]

How much I like that sentence!
"But I don't like effects"
Examples. Out of focus areas is an effect. Long exposure that makes water look like cream is an effect. Etc

 

[Godfrey]

I like the 50mm lens on my Leica M cameras. I also like the 35mm lens on my APS-C camera, the 25mm lens on my FourThirds format cameras, and the 65mm lens on my 33x44 camera. They all give what is to me a natural, "normal" field of view that well suits my eye and a wide variety of subject matter. I'm glad Henri agrees.

I like other focal lengths too. 🙂

G

 

[Archlich]

What if, like, he didn't have much choice to begin with in the 1930s?

After all His Contax T of 38mm is well known enough among us.

 

[Dogman]

I'm on board with the 50mm. The 50mm and the 35mm are my most used lenses. But I'm not against occasionally using an 18mm. Or a 400mm. Or even a zoom. Nothing wrong with effects. That is unless effects are all you're into.

 

[luuca]

I don't understand this "shout" thing about 35mm.
with my 50mm lens I always feel like I have to step behind.

 

[sjones]

Any suggestion that Cartier-Bresson used a 50mm due only (or mostly) to technical limitations or contemporaneous photographic norms is a little bit presumptuous; perhaps not incorrect, but certainly speculative. After all, the 35mm Elmar (3.5) was available by 1932 (reportedly selling more than 1,950 pieces that year), and of course, Cartier-Bresson’s photographic career extended beyond the 1930s. Moreover, in the OP’s quote, he specifically states why he preferred the 50mm; it’s not as though he was unaware of the 35m and its rendering characteristics. One could make a similar argument that this or that photographer from the past only shot in black & white because color was not readily available; and that was true for perhaps the majority of photographers. But to this day, B&W photography continues…film continues. And for me (meaning just my opinion), I’ve never seen an HCB photo that made me think, if only sharper, or in color, or a more spacious perspective. And whether or not you get or agree with what Cartier-Bresson is saying is OK because this is all remarkably subjective. If you don’t like a normal lens, even if you hate it, that’s your God given right; even if there is no God.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Any suggestion that Cartier-Bresson used a 50mm due only (or mostly) to technical limitations or contemporaneous photographic norms is a little bit presumptuous; perhaps not incorrect, but certainly speculative. After all, the 35mm Elmar (3.5) was available by 1932 (reportedly selling more than 1,950 pieces that year), and of course, Cartier-Bresson’s photographic career extended beyond the 1930s. Moreover, in the OP’s quote, he specifically states why he preferred the 50mm; it’s not as though he was unaware of the 35m and its rendering characteristics. One could make a similar argument that this or that photographer from the past only shot in black & white because color was not readily available; and that was true for perhaps the majority of photographers. But to this day, B&W photography continues…film continues. And for me (meaning just my opinion), I’ve never seen an HCB photo that made me think, if only sharper, or in color, or a more spacious perspective. And whether or not you get or agree with what Cartier-Bresson is saying is OK because this is all remarkably subjective. If you don’t like a normal lens, even if you hate it, that’s your God given right; even if there is no God.

I fully agree!

Erik.

 

[Dogman]

Don't forget, in HCB's day photography was about pictures. Today photography is about something else. Not quite sure what that something is but it's becoming less about the pictures than the technology, politics, marketing and personalities. A great picture like Bresson's of the little boy with two big bottles of wine and a big smile on his face is likely to get criticized for cropping off the feet and the not-quite-sharp focus or for the background than praised for the humanity of the image. Maybe I'm just burnt out but I'm beginning to think photography is losing its heart and soul.