50mm vs. 35mm for street photography

i carry a 35mm Canon f2 in my pocket - it's so small, it doesn't make a difference - and have a Jupiter-3 on the camera (or i have a mju:II in my pocket instead). Both are small enough to keep with me and swap between.

but to answer your question, i think 35mm is easier to use in the street as long as you're brave enough to get in and get the photo.

rather than buying the Zeiss why not get an adaptor for the J3 and spend the money on a 35mm lens. I've never used the Zeiss but if you have a decent copy of the J3 it's a wonderful lens and I'm not sure how much you'll gain from the upgrade.
i highly recommend the Canon as a cheaper option for a mid-period Cron. mine was just over £300 including shipping.
 
sorry, just noticed that some of the information above has been stated. but it sounds like you have all the gear you need to make up your own mind :)
i'm a big fan of the russian lenses. don't write them off as unreliable. they may just need shimmying.
 
thejameskendall said:
sorry, just noticed that some of the information above has been stated. but it sounds like you have all the gear you need to make up your own mind :)
i'm a big fan of the russian lenses. don't write them off as unreliable. they may just need shimmying.
Click to expand...

I guess I was more confused about where and how different focal lengths get used than anything else. I got very interesting comments on that.

I like the Russian lenses, and their classic way of rendering the image. But they are old tech. and introduce lots of distortion (barrel distortion, light fall off, coma, etc...). These are more or less OK as long as we scan and edit, but I am also practicing wet-printing, and these distortions are rather bothering in wet print.

I am trying to shim the J-3 - I have ordered some copper tape to make shims. My copy has the issue of not driving the cam to infinity as well, so, I guess a complete CLA will be in order. What bothers me more about J-3 is the flare, even with the better-coated red-𝚷 version.
 
Rangefinderfreak said:
Do a test: take your both hands and rise the index fingers on both. Adjust the angle of view ( without a camera) you see most comfortably with your fingers up. Then compare this to the leica finder. That`s your normal view. For me it is between 28mm and 35mm. Then just zoom with your feet...
Click to expand...

:)) Interesting technique. True that my peripheral vision covers much more than the "normal" 50mm.
 
I am a 50mm shooter along with 28mm lens. But again my street is a bit relaxed compare to your, you action shooters ;) I don't owe a 35mm lens but honestly, sometimes I think is all I really need. Must try sometime
 
My preference is wider for street photography, 28mm or sometimes 21mm as in the two pictures below. However, the following is an interesting posting on the 50mm by Mike Johnston on LUG in 1999:
...I had a long discussion of this with John Kennerdell, an American who has lived in Asia for many years and works as a travel writer and photojournalist. Kennerdell's insight is that the 35mm and 28mm are easier to SHOOT with, more satisfying for the photographer, and that the 50mm is less pleasing to use because it's more demanding of the photographer and returns fewer "good" shots. But he maintains that of the REAL hits...that .1% of the pictures you take that you really live for...the 50mm produces more. In other words, he thinks the average is lower but the high points are higher.

It took me about three years of shooting, thinking, examining other photographers' work, and studying my own contact sheets, but I think he may have a point.

At any rate, I think the 50mm focal length is more difficult to use really well. And a bit less satisfying...it makes more demands of the photographer if the shots are not to be "boring" (the standard rap against the f.l.).

Another of Kennerdell's many interesting points (he is a zen master in my book) is that the 50mm is the only f.l. that can be both "moderate wide-angle" and also "short telephoto" depending on how you structure the picture. With a single centered subject and an open aperture, the picture might look as if were taken with a 60-75mm or so. With a broad view and small aperture, it can look as if it's a slightly wider lens, say 35-45mm. (What I mean here is if you were to look at the pictures without knowing the focal length of the lens it was shot with, and try to guess it.) I have perfect examples of this. The odd thing about this is that it is a sort of chameleon...it changes along with your mental approach. No other lens can do this because no other lens is so "in the middle." I never took a picture with a 40mm lens (one of my favorite focal lengths) that could be mistaken for a short tele shot. I've taken LOTS of 50mm shots that could be so mistaken. It is very interesting to look through many 50mm pictures with this thought in mind. Eye-opening.

For instance, is there anyone here who carries 3 or 4 lenses, including a 50mm, who uses the 50 the most? I'd bet this kind of person is rare. I'll bet the average photographer who carries a 50mm as one of three to six lenses uses the 50mm the least. You can master the 50mm only if you commit to it...if it is the only, or, say, one of only two, lenses you typically shoot with. One of the shooters I most admire carried only a 50mm and a 135mm.

I don't LIKE the 50mm so much, but I am really fascinated by it. I think it is the maestro focal length; one only really good photographers can master well enough to depend on. Note that I didn't say all really good photographers CARE TO master it; you can be great and never shoot a 50. But I think you have to be good if you want to shoot a 50 well. I'm not all that good with it myself--still better with 35mm, which I think is easier...
Click to expand...




M-Monochrom | Summicron-28 | ISO 320

Bangkok




M-Monochrom | Elmarit-21 ASPH | ISO 320

Colombo



—Mitch/Bangkok
Bangkok Hysteria (download link for book project)
 
really nice thread, if you search in the internet most of article tell you 35mm :) well I havd use 28mm, 35mm and 50mm in difference camera system and for me 50mm is the winner for Street Photography well works very well for me. :) generally 35mm or 50mm is good.
 
That bit a couple of messages above about the skill level required to master the 50, and the different ways it can be used, is interesting reading.

The main reason I'm chiming in, though, is to add my recommendation to a couple of voices preceding regarding the M-Rokkor 40. That is one sweet, tiny, sharp, and well-built lens, and probably currently my favourite.

Some people may not like it as it's neither fish nor fowl, I suppose--it is a bit awkward to use, as it best suits the 35 framelines on the most recent Ms, but brings up the 50 framelines (I use a little kludge to wedge the frame selector lever in the 35 position)--but to me it sort of combines the best bits of both fish and fowl. It's wider than the 50, so really more accurately fits my own "normal" field of view, but it's not quite as expansive as the 35, so there's a little less risk of occasional wasted space around the edge of the frame.

Plus, you can find them quite easily for $500 or less (they run about £350-£400 here in the UK), so they're one of the best bargains in Leicadom.
 
malland said:
However, the following is an interesting posting on the 50mm by Mike Johnston on LUG in 1999
Click to expand...

Thanks for the thoughtful comment and interesting quote. That duly describes the ambiguity I feel about 50s and I have a hard time putting in words. Glad to know I am not the only one.

And this is the kind of discussion I subscribe to and I enjoys the most on this excellent RFF forum.

Very touching your Bangkok album, by the way. You are one lucky guy with that M-Monochrom... Enjoy it! ;)
 
Richard G said:
I do use the 50 C Sonnar a lot and have gone weeks with just that lens on my camera. It's fine for street at f4 and smaller, and sure, I love it wider and am a sucker for its lovely shallow depth of field...
Click to expand...

Have you experienced the (in)famous Sonnar focus shift with your 50? Did you have to have Zeiss optimize it for focusing wide open?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom