kondak
Member
50 my best lens.
Many good photos are made with 50
(Forgive my English)
Many good photos are made with 50
(Forgive my English)
R
ruben
Guest
This is a totally subjective question, depending on the photog vision and gear, without any point in establishing rules and bringing masters of photography for back up. OK Capa used the 50, but it is also true he shot with a Contax at war, making it totally reasonable as the most straightforward way to work with a Contax.
For me it is neither the 50 nor the 35 but the 40mm my most requested lens, but according to availability to the camera I use. I find the 40 more in the middle way between the tele and wide than any of the other lenses.
With my OM slrs, since I don't own the expensive for me 40mm, my standard is the 50, and in fact I jump over the 35 to the 24 or 28mm. I always carry the 35, but almost never use it.
On the other hand I am extremely happy to have 40mm lenses on my RFs from the 70's, and sorry for not having it for my Kievs.
Cheers,
Ruben
PS from the "Kinsey" moovie: Humans are born different but in their minds they (mistakenly) seek to be identical to each other.
For me it is neither the 50 nor the 35 but the 40mm my most requested lens, but according to availability to the camera I use. I find the 40 more in the middle way between the tele and wide than any of the other lenses.
With my OM slrs, since I don't own the expensive for me 40mm, my standard is the 50, and in fact I jump over the 35 to the 24 or 28mm. I always carry the 35, but almost never use it.
On the other hand I am extremely happy to have 40mm lenses on my RFs from the 70's, and sorry for not having it for my Kievs.
Cheers,
Ruben
PS from the "Kinsey" moovie: Humans are born different but in their minds they (mistakenly) seek to be identical to each other.
Last edited by a moderator:
R
Robert
Guest
I have a 50 'cron on my M6 and was using the 35mm on my Minox. The Minox is now faulty so I will get a 35mm, probably a CV for my M6.
I like the 50 but there are times I would like to have a 35 too with it's slightly wider view.
I like the 50 but there are times I would like to have a 35 too with it's slightly wider view.
3opkuu
Zorkii
Don't you just love these subjective questions? They generate the most feedback, and reading the subtleties of each individual's replies is endlessly facinating.
For what it's worth, I had my lenses 'lifted' once long ago, and the one that was left behind on my M4 was a 35 'cron. At the time I couldn't afford to buy anything to replace the stolen ones (a 50 and a portrait lens), so the 35 stayed locked on the body for years 'till desert dust killed it.
I never thought to replace it with anything else, it had become such a part of me and how I saw the world - I just went online and bought another one.
Maybe I'm limiting myself (I guess I can afford a second lens now), but that 35 makes you work - you have to walk around, get close, crouch down, lean in, you know the drill. It's not 'fast' either, so when things are 'sultry' you have to work hard at finding a way to be still. I'm thankful for what it gives and what it's given. Maybe if I had more, I might get lazy!
For what it's worth, I had my lenses 'lifted' once long ago, and the one that was left behind on my M4 was a 35 'cron. At the time I couldn't afford to buy anything to replace the stolen ones (a 50 and a portrait lens), so the 35 stayed locked on the body for years 'till desert dust killed it.
I never thought to replace it with anything else, it had become such a part of me and how I saw the world - I just went online and bought another one.
Maybe I'm limiting myself (I guess I can afford a second lens now), but that 35 makes you work - you have to walk around, get close, crouch down, lean in, you know the drill. It's not 'fast' either, so when things are 'sultry' you have to work hard at finding a way to be still. I'm thankful for what it gives and what it's given. Maybe if I had more, I might get lazy!
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Bob Helmond
Member
Robert Capa 1913-1954
If your pictures aren't good enough, you aren't close enough.
If your pictures aren't good enough, you aren't close enough.
Bob Helmond
Member
What's better? Windows or MacOS? 50 or 35? Macy's or Gimbels? Ford or GM--maybe Chrysler? Hanes or FTL? Jockey or BVD (for the affluent)?
What works for you is the very best choice, and there is no better way to find out than to personally explore the options.
What works for you is the very best choice, and there is no better way to find out than to personally explore the options.
R
ruben
Guest
Bob Helmond said:
Hi Bob,
Sometimes many people, including myself, want just to chat, about unimportant issues. For me it is legitimate, desirable and perfectly ok, given that at RFF there are trascendental issues. When I have one I rise it. When I am in no mood for plain chats, I avoid the specific thread. When I have, from my subective viewpoint, no signigicant thread to address, I wait.
Cheers,
Peter Pommes
Member
To me the answer which lens to take depends on the amount of weight I wanna schleppe. If I just want 1 lens: I take the 50; 2 lenses: 35 + 90; being on "safari": tripod + 24 + 35+ 50 + 90 + 135.
This rule made the decision easy for me
Peter
This rule made the decision easy for me
Peter
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Nachkebia
Well-known
For me
1. One lens: 25 (If I know where and what I am going to get);
1. One lens: 35 (If I don`t know where when and what going to happen (wish I had 35mm lux asph);
2. Two lenses: 25 + 50;
3. Three lenses: 25 + 35 + 50
4. Four lenses: 25 + 21 + 35 + 50
For Magus, I think most people think 28mm is clinical because of its architecture, it is so easy to optimize I think they are sharpest in the whole bunch of lenses, also wider you are bigger depth of field you have, alot of focus in the frame with alot of sharpness is what people call clinical anyhow one thing I like in my 28 asph elmarit is the size of it
1. One lens: 25 (If I know where and what I am going to get);
1. One lens: 35 (If I don`t know where when and what going to happen (wish I had 35mm lux asph);
2. Two lenses: 25 + 50;
3. Three lenses: 25 + 35 + 50
4. Four lenses: 25 + 21 + 35 + 50
For Magus, I think most people think 28mm is clinical because of its architecture, it is so easy to optimize I think they are sharpest in the whole bunch of lenses, also wider you are bigger depth of field you have, alot of focus in the frame with alot of sharpness is what people call clinical
anyhow one thing I like in my 28 asph elmarit is the size of it
Last edited:
KM-25
Well-known
When I started out with Leica, I had a 35 cron Asph. I loved it. In fact, I loved it so much, I decided I needed a 50 asph and 28 asph instead. I still miss it sometimes, but I find it was not wide enough for some things and not tight enough for other things like portraits.
At one time, I had both the 50 Lux asph and the 35 cron asph at the same time. I did not like how close they were in focal length, so I replaced the 35 with the 28 cron.
I think because the 35 is so common and popular, I had to change it up to be different, so I have. Since I will never go wider than 28mm or tighter than 50 on a range finder, I have achieved my own nirvana.
Maybe I will get a 35 again one day, but it will most likely be an older one like my 50 collapsible, for a definite period look.
At one time, I had both the 50 Lux asph and the 35 cron asph at the same time. I did not like how close they were in focal length, so I replaced the 35 with the 28 cron.
I think because the 35 is so common and popular, I had to change it up to be different, so I have. Since I will never go wider than 28mm or tighter than 50 on a range finder, I have achieved my own nirvana.
Maybe I will get a 35 again one day, but it will most likely be an older one like my 50 collapsible, for a definite period look.
S
Simon Larbalestier
Guest
For a long time i worked with a 50mm because it was the closest to the 80mm fixed lens on my Plaubel Makina (approx 40mm FOV on a 35mm) and i wanted the simplicity of one lens on one camera. First the Noctilux then the 50/1.4 pre ASPH alongside the Nikon 50/1.4 Olypmpic and the Elmar 50/2.8. Depending on the space around the subjects sometimes i needed to go wider as my immediate environment became too cramped and i required other information in the picture. I worked with a 35/2.5 on the Nikon S3 before i got a lens for the Lecia simply because the etched framline of the Nikon was so easy to work with. I then got a 35/1.4 pre ASPH to match the 50 lux in its feel at 1.4 (sharp in the centre, soft towards the edges). Recently new projects have dictated some subtle changes. I changed the 50/1.4 lux for the 50/1.4 ASPH as a lot of the work i was doing was at 0.7-9 and at required 1.4 so i ended up using my Elmar and pushing the film. I also changed my 35's and settled for the V4 35/4 (which i'd used in the mid 90's and stupidly sold when i only worked in 120 and 5 x4" ) and the Nokton 35/1.2. Both to be used at different apertures.
If i had only to use one lens it would be the 50mm, but for me, it's become like a short telephoto so a 35 frame often creeps in when i'm making the images. When i need something that has to tell a story in context (maybe an opening image) then i bring out an old 28/2.8 v2 which has a very nice rendition.
I've also somewhat confused things a little by adding two Xpans to the kit and i really like both the FOV offered by the 45mm lens (24mm in Pano mode).
These days and maybe it's just me, but i'm finding harder to tell an important story in just one FOV. So much happens when i visit my subjects and i guess i want to capture it all and put a more complete story together. Some of my subject's live in very poor and dark environments so fast glass is essential. Outside it's always so bright and contrasty (no soft overcast Northern light) so i need a different look often calling for a different lens or FOV.
I'm not sure if much of this makes any sense but they are my reasons for using 35 and 50mm lenses.
If i had only to use one lens it would be the 50mm, but for me, it's become like a short telephoto so a 35 frame often creeps in when i'm making the images. When i need something that has to tell a story in context (maybe an opening image) then i bring out an old 28/2.8 v2 which has a very nice rendition.
I've also somewhat confused things a little by adding two Xpans to the kit and i really like both the FOV offered by the 45mm lens (24mm in Pano mode).
These days and maybe it's just me, but i'm finding harder to tell an important story in just one FOV. So much happens when i visit my subjects and i guess i want to capture it all and put a more complete story together. Some of my subject's live in very poor and dark environments so fast glass is essential. Outside it's always so bright and contrasty (no soft overcast Northern light) so i need a different look often calling for a different lens or FOV.
I'm not sure if much of this makes any sense but they are my reasons for using 35 and 50mm lenses.
Abbazz
6x9 and be there!
Many interesting thoughts here.
My .02:
Regarding the focal length of the eye, I think it is only important in relation with the size of the retina because both factors determine the field of vision, of which only a tiny central zone is sharp. As the retina is much smaller than a 35mm film, the actual angle of sharp vision is the same as a telephoto lens on a 135 camera, although the focal length of the eye is only 22mm.
As for the "ideal portrait focal length," there is none. There is only the 1.5m rule: if one wants to shoot any subject without the exaggerated perspective effect improperly called "distortion," then the distance between the subject and the film needs to be at least 1.5m. If the subject is 1.5m or more from the camera, it will look OK on the picture, even with a wide angle. If the camera is only 0.7m from the subject, the perspective will not look right, even with a tele lens. If you enlarge the image of a person's head shot at 1.5m with a 21mm lens and compare it with an image of the same subject taken with a 90mm at the same distance, you will find out both pictures to be identical, except for the grain and lack of sharpness due to the bigger amount of enlarging of the one taken with the wide angle.
So, in theory, if you like your portraits tight, use a 50mm; if you prefer environmental portraits, use a 35mm. But of course nobody forbids you from using a 21mm to shoot people at 0.5m
Cheers,
Abbazz
My .02:
Regarding the focal length of the eye, I think it is only important in relation with the size of the retina because both factors determine the field of vision, of which only a tiny central zone is sharp. As the retina is much smaller than a 35mm film, the actual angle of sharp vision is the same as a telephoto lens on a 135 camera, although the focal length of the eye is only 22mm.
As for the "ideal portrait focal length," there is none. There is only the 1.5m rule: if one wants to shoot any subject without the exaggerated perspective effect improperly called "distortion," then the distance between the subject and the film needs to be at least 1.5m. If the subject is 1.5m or more from the camera, it will look OK on the picture, even with a wide angle. If the camera is only 0.7m from the subject, the perspective will not look right, even with a tele lens. If you enlarge the image of a person's head shot at 1.5m with a 21mm lens and compare it with an image of the same subject taken with a 90mm at the same distance, you will find out both pictures to be identical, except for the grain and lack of sharpness due to the bigger amount of enlarging of the one taken with the wide angle.
So, in theory, if you like your portraits tight, use a 50mm; if you prefer environmental portraits, use a 35mm. But of course nobody forbids you from using a 21mm to shoot people at 0.5m
Cheers,
Abbazz