Strange attraction of rangefinders and 50s ?

With SLR I never liked the 50mm FOV too much, I prefered 35 or 85 or anything else, but not a "plain old 50".
Since I got into RFs, I seem to like the 50 much more.
Are there any more of us who feel similar about 50mm FOV ?
Click to expand...
I'm exactly the same. I haven't tried to understand the reason - I just never liked a 50 on my SLRs but really like it on a rangefinder.
 
I started out with a Zenit-E and a 58mm Helios 44-2. That SLR and a ca. 50mm was what I used for 20 years. I learned to make the 50 do what a wide angle does, and what a tele does. It was a matter of moving closer, further, and most important of all, getting away from eye level shooting!

This day, I've got lenses ranging from 17 to 300 mm, but if I'd only have a 50 on the Bessa-T, I'd still be as happy as I was with that Zenit for 20 years.
 

Having said that, I'd be miserable without a 50. 35 + 50 is all you really need! (I've never really understood the 35 + 90 proposition.)
Portraits.
 
I like the "normal" lens, and probably if I had to choose only one, it would be that or a wide angle. For wide, 28mm or wider, I've never been able to "see" 35mm. All that in 35mm SLR as I don't have an interchagable 35mm camera. I have used 50mm for the majority of my photos in 35mm. The 100mm has been my most used lens with the Super Press 23. I don't know, it just seems right most of the time.

I am not against other lenses, and use them when I see the need. But if I don't see a particular need, I feel the normal lens it the one to use. It seems to "see" better. as Frank said, YMMV.
 
50 is too tight for me most of the time... When I shoot with a 50, I wind up with a head that fills the frame. 40 is pretty good, allowing a little neck and shoulder, but 28 - 35mm is really my favorite range... I like to be able to see the context around my subjects.
 
It's a one year connection with RFF that "opened up" my seeing to the 50.
As a working PJ carrying Nikon SLR's, it was the 35 and 105. In RF I have two J8's, a Fed-50 Elmar type collapsible and I-61. This way of seeing led to enjoying the Zuiko 50/1.8, a superb lens on my OM-1's. The 50 is great for the street... as is the 35, and sometimes the 75/2.5 and the 25/4 are as well.
 
One more thing: with an SLR you are blind for an instance after you press the shutter. I don't see how this makes you miss anything critical photographs that you could have taken otherwise. It's just not a rational argument.

It's fine to have a dislike for shutter slap, but that's a matter of taste and entirely subjective.

Philipp
 
With a 50mm lens I find I'm always moving back a bit, seeing so much on the edges that I'm leaving out. But that's the way I see things regardless of the camera. I'm trying to get the big picture, and perhaps consequently I'm rather distractable. I've never understood the argument that a 50mm lens has a field of view corresponding to what we see. For me that's probably truer of a 12mm lens!

I was very comfortable switching between the 40mm Rokkor and a C-V 21mm on my CL while traveling. Occasionally I'd use a 90 for an architectural detail, but even with my little digicam (38-114mm equivalent) I find I'm rarely changing the wide setting with which it starts up. So I think there is a psychological aspect to what "normal" one prefers, but perhaps it's as much the psychology of perception as it is the psychology of personality.
 
I agree with the "prefer 50's on a RF" dunno why. M42 SLR it's usually the 2/85 J9 for portraits, love that lens. Or it's the Zeiss Jena 2.4/35. The ZJ 50/1.8 Pancolar sees little action for whatever reason, though there's nothing wrong with that lens.

Actually, actually I really like the 45mm lenses, a somewhat odd focal length in SLR-land that's a smidgen wider than a 50 but still in the standard focal-length territory. This is why I'm in the fixed lens "Yashica camp". The Lynx 14e gives you a very good fast 7element/5 group 45mm 1.4 lens, full manual control, and a reasonably accurate built-in light meter, and parrallax-corrected viewfinder whose framelines are designed around a single focal length. As good a lens as the 1.4's found on interchangeable lens cameras? Dunno. To me a double gauss 7/5 lens is a double gauss 7/5 lens. Same optical formula, so the interchangeable lens "system" cameras tout more esoteric stuff like "superduperyduper multi-coated", "superiour quantum contrast", "Sigma 6010 quality standards"... My fully CLA'd Lynx 14e sample cost $42.39 not including shipping. What's any 50/1.4 Leica, CV, ZI, 'tax G1-2 running these days? Are these lenses really that much better than the ones found on the yard sale cameras that have basically the same optical formula?

Similary a GSN gives you a great 1.8/45mm plus some cool/useful low-light features and aperture priority.

It's not that I'm cheap (well, actually I am pretty cheap) but to my way of thinking, why spring for a pricey "system" camera with interchangeable lenses when I know that 90% of the time I'm going to use a standard 50? Also, I prefer leaf shutters to cloth or "venetian blind" shutters for their quiteness and (overlooked and underrated) fill flash capabilities.
 
Last edited:
pvdhaar said:
I started out with a Zenit-E and a 58mm Helios 44-2.
Click to expand...

Me too. The Zenit-E had a great viewfinder, showing 78% (!!) of the picture you got on the film - it was always a nice surprise to see the finished slides - like getting something free at no cost :D

Later in my Olympus days I had a 28-85 Zoom - I once made an evaluation of the focal length I was using most, it was around 40mm. Maybe that's why now on my RF's I like my Rokkor-M 40 so much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom