Focal Length and 'Drawing'

mfogiel said:
I think it makes sense to have a fast lens and a "walk about lens" in the fl where you do most of your shooting. For example, I use a Zeiss Ikon with the 35/1.2 Nokton in the evening, and a M7 with the 35/2 Summicron or 35/2.8 Summaron during the day. Same could apply to 50 mm, where one could use a compact collapsible lens for daylight and one of the fast lenses for the night and interiors.
Click to expand...

I think it is all a function of your style. I could be shooting in the bright noon day sun and find myself shooting inside a dimly lit home 60 seconds later. And with no time to change lenses in between. Much less the issue of carrying extra equipment all day. Others have all the time in the world to shoot and not bothered with carrying loads of equipment all day.

So I am a bit of the extreme in usually choosing a lens in the morning before I walk out the door and making the best of my choice all day. My choices are based on focal length as I own very few duplicate lenses in similar focal lengths. But everyone is different and needs to do what works for them.
 
If you can see a noticable difference from one to the next and can perceive a purpose for each one then why not.

My 50mm C Sonnar is vastly different to my f1.2 Canon and in SLR the Zuiko 50mm f3.5 macro I got recently looks very different to the f1.4 I usually choose ... I think it's the sharpest 50mm I've used to date!

The Lens I seem to like the look of best is my 50mm f1.4 ZF Planar ... whether it be on my D700 or my FM3A that lens blows me away!
 
Depends if they come as lens caps with USSR cameras !

Seriously , I would love a modern Leitz 50mm f2.5 to complement my Fed collapsible / ugly rigid I 22 / Elmar and Summitar , but I love the feel of these ancient lenses , just as I love the results from my 50mm Rokkors on 4/3rds , so I am in no rush , and have no professional need to indulge further .
I am not sure that my snapshooting would be substancially improved anyway .
50 on my M8 [ 67 ] is just perfect for me though .

dee
 
I have most focal lengths covered between 20mm and 1000mm for 35mm cameras. And I did buy lenses of different focal lengths before buying "more of each". By the time I was 16, had a 25, 35, 50, 135, 200, and 400. That was a lot of lawn mowing and newspapers delivered.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Most professionals I've known would take the same view, with the sole exception of REALLY different lenses (macro, soft focus).

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

You might extend that to that crazy concept of bokeh, slight vignetting, wide open weirdness, something that I notice which is curvature of the focus plane, color rendition, flare that is +or-, and the beauty of Thorium lenses (again+or-).
 
Interesting thoughts. I would have said I was much more a 35mm man than 50mm, but a quick audit of "the cupboard" says otherwise.

I actually have11 50mm lenses, vs. 2 at 35mm Ok, some came on bodies (Elmar, Fed and Canon), but most have been bought in search of something different. Whether that is drawing, I'm not sure. One or two have been in search of bokeh (3 Sonnars) or speed (Summilux, Canon and Nikkor), while two have definitely been for that "period look" (Summar and Summarit) - is that "drawing"?

My use tends to fall for 3 of these, depending on film and subject so maybe I need to have a yard sale?
 
As a corollary to this, what was the first additional focal length people acquired? Way back when I bought my first interchangeable lens SLR camera (when I was 14) it came with a 50mm f1.8. The first lens I bought after that was a 200mm f4 (after about another year of saving!). The reason was I wanted to take pictures of school drama performances/rehearsals and sports matches. What was it that you guys wanted?
 
Ade-oh said:
As a corollary to this, what was the first additional focal length people acquired? Way back when I bought my first interchangeable lens SLR camera (when I was 14) it came with a 50mm f1.8. The first lens I bought after that was a 200mm f4 (after about another year of saving!). The reason was I wanted to take pictures of school drama performances/rehearsals and sports matches. What was it that you guys wanted?
Click to expand...

Good question! 55/1.8 Super Takumar (1966) followed by a 90-190 f/5.8 Yashinon, one of the worst zooms I hae ever tried. I wish I had kept it for portraiture. Couldn't afford a wide-angle until years later.

First Leica (1969) came with a 50/3.5, soon supplemented by a 90/4 'fat barrel', then a 135 Hektor. Again, couldn't afford a WA (Summaron) until later.

Cheers,

R.
 
I will be buying a lot of 50ies before I try another focal length. Part of the reason is that my "wide angle" needs are covered by the excellent Contax T3. I have no criticism to make on this camera except that...well...It's not a 50mm. The other side is that I have a specific list of wants from a 50 that I don't seem to find in one lens (close .7m focus, short throw, M-mount, character without softness, f2 or smaller).

Right now I have a Sonnar and a Planar. I'm considering trying/getting an old Summicron and/or Summilux at some point.

The C-Sonnar is great in size, handling, and rendition, but when you're sitting at a table with someone, you can't take their picture without leaning waaaay back...The Planar is technically masterpiece, but I'd like it to be a little bit more characterful (maybe its character is "detachment" instead of the Sonnar "nostalgia"?). Actually I also have a J8 but the focus throw is so long, I fall asleep before achieving focus...

I don't feel the need for other focal lengths...Maybe that's the main reason...I feel I can achieve what I want from a 50 and carrying more than that with me would just be distraction. So now I'm looking for one I can synch with fully.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom