Nachkebia
Well-known
back alley echo to that!
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Nachkebia
Well-known
der meister was bresson and he indeed mastered it 
anyhow the concept that 50mm has view of human eye is total surealism
anyhow the concept that 50mm has view of human eye is total surealism 
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
Nachkebia said:anyhow the concept that 50mm has view of human eye is total surealism
I'd have to agree w/ this thesis. They also say that the 35mm is what one sees and the 50mm is what one will remember. Interesting proposition.
All I know is that I shot w/ a 50mm for a long time because that was all I knew at first and, later, all I could afford. I still like it for portraits and street. Indoors I need something a tad wider and faster, and the 35mm/1.4 fits that bill.
I recently bought a late model 50mm/1.4 (so-called pre-aspheric) and it just blew me away. Nothing at all like my old Yashica 50mm nor resembling any 50mm Summicron I'd ever used. I found it sharp, yet not clinical, and the color rendition was dead on. That is what ignited my thinking about the 35mm vs. 50mm polemic. As the thread has shown, its not "either or" proposition. Each has its strengths.
raid
Dad Photographer
Yes, the 50mm lens can be viewed as being limiting in its use, but it can also be a Master's lens, as Magus is hinting at. You have to work harder at composing interesting looking images with a 50mm lens. This is purely my opinion and how I feel about its use. Still, it is my most important lens to me.
I also find 85mm~90mm lenses very useful fo rmost types of photography, and not just for portraits. They help me isolate small things.
Maybe it is for me like this: 25mm-35mm-50mm-90mm
The 50mm lens would be the fastest lens while the 90mm is the heaviest that I hate carrying for its weight. Both the 25mm and 35mm lenses are so small that you can "lose" them inside the camera bag.
Joe: Your approach to keep equipment choices to a minimum is great. I wish I had such a foresight years ago. Now it is too late.
Nachkebia: I know what you mean by "mastering" a specific focal length. It requires you to force yourself to go out with just that lens and use it and use it again.
Raid
I also find 85mm~90mm lenses very useful fo rmost types of photography, and not just for portraits. They help me isolate small things.
Maybe it is for me like this: 25mm-35mm-50mm-90mm
The 50mm lens would be the fastest lens while the 90mm is the heaviest that I hate carrying for its weight. Both the 25mm and 35mm lenses are so small that you can "lose" them inside the camera bag.
Joe: Your approach to keep equipment choices to a minimum is great. I wish I had such a foresight years ago. Now it is too late.
Nachkebia: I know what you mean by "mastering" a specific focal length. It requires you to force yourself to go out with just that lens and use it and use it again.
Raid
eon
Established
I have read that the actual focal lenth of the human eye is about 135mm. And knowing how our sight functions it could very well be correct.
We are extremely fast in scanning what we look at. Our angle of view is narrow, but we move focus around from side to side, up and down as well as back and forth in the depth. During this phase our brain assemble the final image in a wide three dimensional fashion. Add to that our own picture manipulation in real time, deleting ugly things in order to pronounce the ineresting things in the image.
So how to translate that long focal scanning image thats been manipulated into somthing that is possible to actually capture on film with a camera?
It's the manipulation done by our brain that is the key to which focal length that suits each and everyone. It's down to personal taste how we see with our eyes. Wide angles suits some, normal suits some and tele suits others.
As long as we only take photgraphs to enjoy ourselfs it's not a problem. But if we have to sell our pictures, there will be problem having to make them attract all those different types of persons.
/Erik
We are extremely fast in scanning what we look at. Our angle of view is narrow, but we move focus around from side to side, up and down as well as back and forth in the depth. During this phase our brain assemble the final image in a wide three dimensional fashion. Add to that our own picture manipulation in real time, deleting ugly things in order to pronounce the ineresting things in the image.
So how to translate that long focal scanning image thats been manipulated into somthing that is possible to actually capture on film with a camera?
It's the manipulation done by our brain that is the key to which focal length that suits each and everyone. It's down to personal taste how we see with our eyes. Wide angles suits some, normal suits some and tele suits others.
As long as we only take photgraphs to enjoy ourselfs it's not a problem. But if we have to sell our pictures, there will be problem having to make them attract all those different types of persons.
/Erik
Last edited:
Peter Klein
Well-known
I'm definitely a 50mm guy. I find that when I use a 35 too much, I have to crop a lot of pictures to the 50mm frame anyway.
Part of it is that I'm a lifelong glasses wearer, and could never see the entire Leica 35mm frame. I use the 35 a bit more now that I wear contacts some of the time. Another issue is that I'm very tall (6 ft. 3 in, 190.5 cm). I tend to tower over people, so if I'm too close I have to kneel or back up lest I get that "child from a grownup's perspective downward slant on people pictures.
When I travel, I carry the classic Leica trio of 35-50-90, to which I've added a VC 21/4 in recent years. I use the 50 the most, the 35 a reasonably close second, the 90 third, and the 21 rarely (but well worth carrying for those times when I truly need it). If I could have only one lens, it would be a 50, though.
--Peter
Part of it is that I'm a lifelong glasses wearer, and could never see the entire Leica 35mm frame. I use the 35 a bit more now that I wear contacts some of the time. Another issue is that I'm very tall (6 ft. 3 in, 190.5 cm). I tend to tower over people, so if I'm too close I have to kneel or back up lest I get that "child from a grownup's perspective downward slant on people pictures.
When I travel, I carry the classic Leica trio of 35-50-90, to which I've added a VC 21/4 in recent years. I use the 50 the most, the 35 a reasonably close second, the 90 third, and the 21 rarely (but well worth carrying for those times when I truly need it). If I could have only one lens, it would be a 50, though.
--Peter
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Last edited:
trph_2000
Established
Well , yes and no. The eye may have the equivalent of a 22mm focal length
but our foveal dominance would be the same as adding very severe vignetting,thus bringing the effective field of view down to more the equivalent of 35 or 40 mm I think.
but our foveal dominance would be the same as adding very severe vignetting,thus bringing the effective field of view down to more the equivalent of 35 or 40 mm I think.
Nachkebia
Well-known
22mm sounds great! I love my 25mm lens
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Harry Lime
Practitioner
I think that if I could own only one lens for my Leicas, it would probably end up being a 35. My 1.4/35 Lux ASPH to be exact.
Here is my reasoning.
- I find the 35 to be more flexible when shooting indoors or in cramped spaces. More often than not I can't back up far enough to get everything or everyone into frame.
- It works better in narrow streets (think Europe).
- You get more DOF at the same stop than a 50, which really helps when shooting on the street or in anything but f16 weather
- I find the 35 better for street shooting in cities. More DOF for scale focusing, wider FOV.
- I can handhold a 35 more reliably one shutter speed slower than a 50.
- The 35 focuses closer than any 50, except a Summicron-DR
- My 4th gen Summicron is tiny. The Lux is a tad big, but that's the price you pay for the speed.
- The 35mm framelines in modern M cameras are more accurate than those for the 50.
In many ways a 35 is a more flexible 50. It doesn't distort like a 28 or wider. Because it is a moderate wide, there is a little less 'slop'. You still need to work to get a good composition; just like you do with a 50.
That said, I still prefer a 50 for portrait work. The 50 also seems to find it's stride in open spaces. It's better for 'cropping'.
So, if you put a gun to my head, I would probably pick the 35.
If I could only use two lenses for the rest of my life it would be a 35 AND the 50.
Which is exactly how I shoot.
My two cents.
HL
Here is my reasoning.
- I find the 35 to be more flexible when shooting indoors or in cramped spaces. More often than not I can't back up far enough to get everything or everyone into frame.
- It works better in narrow streets (think Europe).
- You get more DOF at the same stop than a 50, which really helps when shooting on the street or in anything but f16 weather
- I find the 35 better for street shooting in cities. More DOF for scale focusing, wider FOV.
- I can handhold a 35 more reliably one shutter speed slower than a 50.
- The 35 focuses closer than any 50, except a Summicron-DR
- My 4th gen Summicron is tiny. The Lux is a tad big, but that's the price you pay for the speed.
- The 35mm framelines in modern M cameras are more accurate than those for the 50.
In many ways a 35 is a more flexible 50. It doesn't distort like a 28 or wider. Because it is a moderate wide, there is a little less 'slop'. You still need to work to get a good composition; just like you do with a 50.
That said, I still prefer a 50 for portrait work. The 50 also seems to find it's stride in open spaces. It's better for 'cropping'.
So, if you put a gun to my head, I would probably pick the 35.
If I could only use two lenses for the rest of my life it would be a 35 AND the 50.
Which is exactly how I shoot.
My two cents.
HL
rodneyAB
Established
Harry Lime said:
i am convinced...i am convinced...
ghost
Well-known
it's interesting how one's opinion of a focal length depends on what one thinks of other focal lengths.
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
rodneyAB
Established
ghost said:
...and what one reads in the forum..
Harry Lime
Practitioner
raid said:
I agree. The 50 is a difficult lenses to master. It's not really a long lens and not quite wide either. But when you got it figured out, you will be a better shooter for it.
I started out with a 50 and shot it for many years until I picked up a 35 and I believe I benefitted from that.
telenous
Well-known
Good points
Personally, I find he 35 and 50 focal lengths suitable for most applications save for portraits, properly so-called. The Summicron 75 allows for a close portrait, from the forehead to the chin, and if I am not terribly wrong, only the Macro Elmarit 90 and the Summicron 50 DR can give you a closer crop than that (although the latter of the two suffers from the usual close range distortions which are the reason why one leaps from the 50 to the 75 FL). I often think I do not really need the Summicron 75, but it is a darned fine portrait lens and I 'd hate to part with it.
I agree, in a kind of roundabout way, with the above. The Summicron seems to have a higher contrast than the Lux - this is what makes it harder to handle in daylight - and what produces velvety blacks and pure, sparkling whites into the night, in high contrast situations. I am not sure about the next, but I think the apperture advantage of the Lux allows it to dig for some extra shadow detail than the Cron. If that is the case the Lux 35 Asph. is trully a universal application rf lens, be it for flexibility of application or for its various advantages in daylight and nightime shooting.
Having both will result in you going through an endless gamut of testing (a very unenviable situation) but I am very curious to see what your conclusions, perhaps even decisions, will be.
All the very best for the New Year, lightwise, lenswise and otherwise
Personally, I find he 35 and 50 focal lengths suitable for most applications save for portraits, properly so-called. The Summicron 75 allows for a close portrait, from the forehead to the chin, and if I am not terribly wrong, only the Macro Elmarit 90 and the Summicron 50 DR can give you a closer crop than that (although the latter of the two suffers from the usual close range distortions which are the reason why one leaps from the 50 to the 75 FL). I often think I do not really need the Summicron 75, but it is a darned fine portrait lens and I 'd hate to part with it.
The 35mm is the only lens of which I'm going to end up owning two: the 35mm ASPH Summicron and the 35mm ASPH Summilux. And get this: the 'lux will be for daylight shooting, the 'cron for... available darkness!!!
Ironic but true. The 'lux handles daylight highlits better, the 'cron is stunning at night!!!
Super oxymoron, courtesy of Herr Kölsch!
I agree, in a kind of roundabout way, with the above. The Summicron seems to have a higher contrast than the Lux - this is what makes it harder to handle in daylight - and what produces velvety blacks and pure, sparkling whites into the night, in high contrast situations. I am not sure about the next, but I think the apperture advantage of the Lux allows it to dig for some extra shadow detail than the Cron. If that is the case the Lux 35 Asph. is trully a universal application rf lens, be it for flexibility of application or for its various advantages in daylight and nightime shooting.
Having both will result in you going through an endless gamut of testing (a very unenviable situation) but I am very curious to see what your conclusions, perhaps even decisions, will be.
All the very best for the New Year, lightwise, lenswise and otherwise
K
krnt
Guest
I bougth a M6TTL with a 50mm summicron f. 2,0 about two years ago.
In september this year I layed my hands on a Voigtländer 35mm f: 2,5
I didn`t have the mony to buy a Summicron (God forgive me)
The 35mm is not bad in any way exept in sharpnes compared to the summicron. But I wear glases and as usual it is difficult to se the framelines on the 35mm.
But my heart and brain beats for the 50mm
Regarts. Thomas in Sweden..
In september this year I layed my hands on a Voigtländer 35mm f: 2,5
I didn`t have the mony to buy a Summicron (God forgive me)
The 35mm is not bad in any way exept in sharpnes compared to the summicron. But I wear glases and as usual it is difficult to se the framelines on the 35mm.
But my heart and brain beats for the 50mm
Regarts. Thomas in Sweden..
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request