50mm vs. 35mm for street photography

[mszargar]

Hi forummates,

I grew up on DSLRs and zoom lenses, and I grew to hate them. I always had a hard time learning how to frame. Recently moved to RF, and, I think I have found my type of camera - I am convinced the RF viewfinders give me a better chance to get creative with framing.

Now, I want to bring up this classical question: If I want to pick a normal lens to get trained with and used to for street photography, what should it be? A 35mm or a 50mm? I know each one has its own proponents, but I rarely hear the arguments of these proponents.

Personally, I find 35s easier to use, as they offer a better depth of field at the same aperture, and are less demanding in terms of framing in the sense that they cover enough not to force the photographer to make hard decisions on the spot about what to crop. On the other hand, I know many people consider 50s better practice lenses, and I agree that the restrictions of a 50 may make one think more creatively. But after all, maybe all that suffering in not really needed!

Last but not least, decent fast 50s are cheaper than decent fast 35s. One can get a Zeiss Sonnar 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). This is a very sharp but also fast lens with excellent build quality, minimal weight and fair price, not to forget the dream-like bokeh. There is no equivalent for that in the world of 35s, unless if one accepts to step down to Voigtlander (Nokton Classic f/1.4, f/1.2) or to forget the speed (Summicron, C Biogon 2.8, Biogon 2).

So, what is your opinion? What is your experience with your 35 vs. 50 lenses. Which one do you keep handy when going out for street shots? What do you recommend for RF enthusiasts?

 

[brainwood]

Hi

If you're most happy with a 35 then go for a 35 . I think it's more important to do what works for you and it sounds like you have a plan with a 35.

There are some cheaper 35's out there. I have 35/1.7 Ultron which is a superb lens and can be picked fairly cheaply secondhand.

Personally I'm a fan of a 50 for street shooting but that is my preference . I suspect yours is for a 35 but ultimately you should probably try both !!

 

[bfffer]

I would say go for 35mm.

35/1.7 Ultron is a good lens in my minimal experience.

 

[kdemas]

It's totally a personal thing. I prefer a 50 for most of my street, for others that can be too tight a view. A 28 is kind of interesting as well but we won't widen the confusion.

 

[kxl]

As you said, the 35mm will be easier to shoot quickly. I go back and forth between the 35 and 50, but when I travel, I usually bring the 50.

 

[jsrockit]

Well, it depends on how close you want to get to your subject, if the lens is manual focus or not, and what look you want.

If you have a manual focus lens, you have to consider focus throw. Older 50 lenses have a longer focus throw (i.e. slower to focus) and 50s are harder to zone focus in general (depth of field). Sometimes you may want thin DOF and other times, you don't.

I like them both and just decide on that day what I want to use. However, I'm using mostly AF lenses these days so I'm not zone focusing and 35mm and 50mm lenses both work fine. When I want to zone focus, I use a 35mm lens.

 

[5:00 PM]

35 for friends, 50 for street subjects. That's just how it has worked out for me.

 

[macfiend]

I use both equally so I'm probably no help :bang:

 

[edge100]

They're quite distinct focal lengths, but I'll shoot them both depending on how I feel on a given day. If I'm in more of an environmental photography mode, then I'll choose the 35. If I'm focusing more on specific people or objects, then the 50.

I've started to shoot with a 28 as well (well, an 18 on my X-Pro1), and that's a whole other story.

 

[achman]

35mm F2.8 Summaron for me on my Canon VI-L. Always have used this setup. The DOF is great at F8, it is sharp as hell, and I can get a full body shot at 5 ft.

I love my 50mm but too tight for street for me.

www.BrianAch.com

 

[MikeDimit]

Take a look at your photos so far and figure it out what is your average distance of shooting. The answer to your question is there.

 

[hepcat]

Hi forummates,
I am convinced the RF viewfinders give me a better chance to get creative with framing.

Personally, I find 35s easier to use, as they offer a better depth of field at the same aperture, and are less demanding in terms of framing in the sense that they cover enough not to force the photographer to make hard decisions on the spot about what to crop.

... unless if one accepts to step down to Voigtlander (Nokton Classic f/1.4, f/1.2) or to forget the speed (Summicron, C Biogon 2.8, Biogon 2).

Wow... interesting strong opinions you have here. Let me jump in and address them from my perspective.

Framing... framing is framing. What a bright-line viewfinder gives you is a wider perspective outside the tunnel view that an SLR or EVF give. It gives you an opportunity to see framing possiblilties that you might have missed looking through the lens; that said, with a DSLR and a zoom, you do essentially the same thing by starting wide and then framing closer with the zoom where you want. The method may vary a little, but I don't think you'll be any more creative in framing. That comes from your eye and your imagination, not the equipment. That said, I prefer the process of framing in the bright line viewfinder myself.

Next... jyou like 35s for the "better" depth of field? I presume that you mean for their inherently greater depth of field? Frankly, "better" is subjective. I really like a 50mm wide open... and a 90mm wide open even more for street use. They give much more shallow depth of field, which for me, is "better" for isolating subjects. You can never get too close to a subject in a frame to suit me. It all depends on your shooting style and what you're trying to say in the image.

Last, "accepts to step down?" I think you're giving way too much credit to expensive lenses. Yes, the less expensive lenses render differently, but not necessarily, IMHO, worse. There are many reasons to buy specific lenses, and not all of them are because a lens is the sharpest and most contrasty on the market. In portraiture, for example, a softer lens with less contrast is preferable to lenses that not only show the pores in a face, but the details of the pores too. Don't discount a specific brand as "lesser" or "greater" based on relative cost alone. There is some amazing glass to be had at 1/10 to 1/4 the cost of a comparable Leica lens of the same specifications that you may actually really LIKE the attributes of.

And last, some days the 35mm does the job, some days it's the 50. I usually leave the 50 on my camera though, unless I'm headed to somewhere with close quarters where the 50 is just going to be too long.

 

[jsrockit]

The method may vary a little, but I don't think you'll be any more creative in framing. That comes from your eye and your imagination, not the equipment.

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.

 

[nemo2]

And what about 40 mm?

 

[Phil_F_NM]

Like others have said, it's your framing, how close you get to people and if you like shallow or deep focus.

Another thing to consider is what streets are you shooting on? Are you in NYC, Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston or Baltimore? These are older cities with narrower streets and higher buildings. The shadows tend to be a bit deeper (especially in Philly) and if you're wanting to show some sense of how crowded it can be, definitely go for the wide angle. (Personally I love a 21mm but this is about 35 v 50.)

If you're in a "brighter" city that isn't as cramped and probably doesn't have as many people on the sidewalk, other options are open too. And really, a 50mm could work almost anywhere.

Think about your actual method of shooting. Do you prefocus and only compose for a quick shot or do you actually focus, taking a little more time before the shutter opens? I ask this because the way the lens works is a big factor. I tried to use a Canon 50mm f/1.2 for a street lens for well over a year but never could focus quickly enough because the focus throw is a full 180 degrees and that lens is a tank. If you're the type to zone focus, this isn't as big of a deal but if you like to be as precise as possible in that moment, you're going to want a lens with a shorter focus throw.

I digress, like I usually do.
I'd go with a 35mm that was kind of new. The 35mm Konica Hexanon M or even the UC-Hexanon if you could find one are both great. The UC is one of the best lenses I've ever used, period. One of my very favorites.

If you can find one, the Nikon 3.5cm f/1.8 is amazing. :::sigh:::

The Canon 35s are very good but usually have a longer focus throw. They can be had for cheap though.

The new Zeiss lenses are all fantastic and I think the worst thing about them is the focus barrel bump instead of a scalloped tab like on the Leica lenses. Personal preference.

Then there's Leica. You could do a lot with any generation 35mm Summicron. Good focus throw. Amazing. Yadda yadda. Or a V2 Summilux. That 'Lux is quite a lens and shows the very nature of "Leica glow" wide open which all but disappears before f/2 when it becomes a tack driver.

Enjoy shooting is probably the biggest deal.

Phil Forrest

 

[mszargar]

Wow, many great comments!

Among all the great comments I learned the most from these three "know thyself" comments:

35 for friends, 50 for street subjects. That's just how it has worked out for me.

and

They're quite distinct focal lengths, but I'll shoot them both depending on how I feel on a given day. If I'm in more of an environmental photography mode, then I'll choose the 35. If I'm focusing more on specific people or objects, then the 50.

and

Take a look at your photos so far and figure it out what is your average distance of shooting. The answer to your question is there.

I will certainly think about my habits and prior experiences to see what suits best.

@jsrockit and hepcat:

Yes, I find managing the parallax of the viewfinder a bit tricky (have missed a couple of very good shots up to know), but I still love the bright lines for framing. They simulate so much (at least for me) the process of cropping in the darkroom (or Lightroom for that matter), that I suddenly find myself applying the same techniques. 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!

@hepcat:

By better I meant greater. My typo. I like isolating subjects as well, but I guess I am not fast enough to focus accurately on the spot yet, so, for now I enjoy greater dofs. Also I like the fact that with a 35 and in the dark I can shoot at 1.4 using available light and still have two or three juxtaposing faces in focus (not the case with a 50).

And I am not snubbing Voigtlanders. I just haven't had a good experience with them yet. It may sound weird but I like my Jupiter 12 more than my Nokton Classic. I love fiddling with the VC, I like very much its cool color rendering (as opposed to warm, no value judgement!), I like its balanced contrast at f/2+, but it drives me crazy with its eventual focus shifts and its pronounced barrel distortion. I am aware these can be ignored in most situations, but I tend to shoot in a way that such imperfections ruin the photo! Maybe I have to try the Ultron instead, as suggested above.

@phil: I just saw your amazing comment. I will look for those lenses. Sincerely, one motivation behind launching this thread was the fact that I couldn't find 35mms to my liking. Many great suggestions here.

 

[Sylvester]

35 for scenes, 50 for details... That's how I shoot. I look for different things when I have my nokton on my camera or my jupiter-3... Different moods. I prefer to have both, as they are very different focal lengths to my eye so I prefer the "cheaper" (what? 600$ for a prime is cheap?) voigtlander and gomz combo...

 

[SlappyPeterson]

You should get the 42.5mm f/2 Zeiss Biogon.

 

[Sylvester]

You should get the 42.5mm f/2 Zeiss Biogon.

The M-Rokkor 40mm f/2 is also a fine lens, don't know if it's a cheaper alternative.

 

[mfogiel]

A 35mm lens is good if you want to zone focus and take the pictures instantly, not fearing to be noticed, with a 50 you stand a chance to frame and focus and be more stealthy. I would not fret too much about which lens at the beginning - a CV 35/2.5 or 35/1.7 are both great, and in 50mm about any lens will work, except the C Sonnar 50/1.5 which you have mentioned, because of the focus shift.

This photo has been taken with an M7 and a 50mm lens - it took me about 1 second to point, frame, focus and shoot ( no time to check the exposure, this is why I use an AE camera, contrary to the tribe of followers of previous Leica models )


201211112 by mfogiel, on Flickr

This photo instead, was zone focused with a 35mm:


VOLANTINO by mfogiel, on Flickr