Roger Hicks
Veteran
If you already had a 50mm lens, and only a 50mm lens, would you get another 50mm before getting another focal length?
Barring a wild excess of 'character' in the original 50 - and 'character' I didn't like, at that - I'd far rather go for another focal length: again, almost any lens, provided it was in good order and didn't have too much unwelcome 'character'.
But exactly this advice (to buy a second 50 before any other focal length) was given, and seconded, elsewhere in the forum. I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm just saying it would never have ocurred to me. What do others think?
Cheers,
R.
Barring a wild excess of 'character' in the original 50 - and 'character' I didn't like, at that - I'd far rather go for another focal length: again, almost any lens, provided it was in good order and didn't have too much unwelcome 'character'.
But exactly this advice (to buy a second 50 before any other focal length) was given, and seconded, elsewhere in the forum. I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm just saying it would never have ocurred to me. What do others think?
Cheers,
R.
merciless49
I'm scared of clowns
I would not get another 50mm lens, even if it "draws differently". This is purely because I'm not a professional, so money is a huge motivation in getting any lens/gear. Thus no need to duplicate any focal lengths, unless I plan on only shooting 50mm lenses.
t.s.k.
Hooked on philm
If you're really tied to the 50mm FL then sure, why not?
I'm sure there are shooters who arm two bodies with the same FL (even the same model/version although that would be pushing it for me).
Truth be told I've shot with two 35's before.
I'm sure there are shooters who arm two bodies with the same FL (even the same model/version although that would be pushing it for me).
Truth be told I've shot with two 35's before.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Most professionals I've known would take the same view, with the sole exception of REALLY different lenses (macro, soft focus).
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Tony,
Now you mention it, so have I. But eventually I sold the Summicron and kept the Summilux: I must only have used 2x 35mm together a couple of times in a decade. Maybe I should have limted it to if you have only one body, as well.
The question for me is versatility versus... what? I'm not sure. The differences between focal lengths, and the versatility you get from having extra focal lengths, seem far more important than (usually relatively minor) differences between different lenses of the same focal length.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
merciless49
I'm scared of clowns
Hi Roger, I do agree if it's a different lens functionally, even if the FL is the same. I've been tempted lately to get a 55mm Macro (or Micro, as Nikon calls it) to use as a "normal" lens for the SLR. But I've not acted upon it, yet. I think it definitely comes down to, if you're a professional, then it's an investment. Whereas, for me, this is a hobby. However serious I am about it, photography gives me pleasure but no money gained, so I still end up having to consider lots regarding my finances. Though all the gears acquired so far are essentially impulse buys :bang:
david.elliott
Well-known
I might duplicate focal lengths if one lens was huge and the other was compact. For example, if I had the cv 35/1.2 and it was just getting to be a nuisance to lug around, I might be tempted to pick up the 35/2.5.
Apart from that, unless they serve different purposes (e.g. macro as mentioned above), I probably wouldn't duplicate.
Apart from that, unless they serve different purposes (e.g. macro as mentioned above), I probably wouldn't duplicate.
t.s.k.
Hooked on philm
Now there's the rub. Versatility VS consistency. I'm no pro but have done "projects" (some during my college years) that required the use of one FL. For me it was a learning process similar to the one lens one body concepts. In whatever versatility I lost, I gained in latitude...stretching the boundaries of what one 35 could offer (ie speeds, more frames, and character..). I realize you noted that wildly different character should be left out of the equation but every lens is different, isn't it? My hunch is if Winogrand ever shot with multiple bodies in his prime, he'd pick another Canon 28. I guess it all depends on what your goal is and how you see the world.
Last edited:
alexnotalex
Well-known
yes, i love both my summar and the nikkor-HC, they draw very differently, and 50mm looks like my memories.
Sparrow
Veteran
I don't understand the term "drawing", well I do but can't relate my understanding to lenses, but I do double-up at both 50 and 35mm. One pair for monochrome and the other higher contrast pair for colour
ferider
Veteran
If I remember right, Winogrand sometimes used two M4s with two Canon 28/2.8 lenses.
To the OP's question: I wouldn't carry around two lenses of the same length. Having them at home is a different question though. And no, if your only lens is a 50mm, I wouldn't advise to buy another 50mm as second lens.
t.s.k.
Hooked on philm
You're right. I edited my dumb mistake.
I think he had one M4 loaded with color and the other in BW.
aizan
Veteran
they're separate issues, so it may be that the focal length was fine but the 'drawing' was not.
corot
Member
It also might depend on what opportunities arise. For example, I started with just one lens, a 50/3.5 Elmar, after which came a 21 and 28, and more recently a 50/1.4 for $100. However, I am certain that had I come across the 50/1.4 at that price before getting the wides then I would have bought it even if it meant living with just the two lenses for a while.
Would I normally advise someone to get, as their second lens, another of the same focal length? No.
Would I normally advise someone to get, as their second lens, another of the same focal length? No.
Last edited:
Turtle
Veteran
For the average person, another FL would be much more useful; however, if you are a 50mm only shooter I can see the wisdom of another 50mm... but that means shooting only 50mm very productively! Many shooters who are fixated with lens nuances and go after lots of lenses with the same FL 'for different applications' and who have a particular affinity for bokeh etc tend to produce (to my eyes) dull photography (emphasis being on nuances at the expense of doing something interesting with the overall image) so the advice would once again be the same - another FL... you know, something wild and adventurous like a 28/25/90
If your only lens was a 50mm Noctilux, as Roger says, a 50 cron/planar/elmar might make some sense first though!
If your only lens was a 50mm Noctilux, as Roger says, a 50 cron/planar/elmar might make some sense first though!
oftheherd
Veteran
My first interchageable cameras were SLR. I went for different focal lengths first. The only other 50mm I got was a 50mm f/1.4 which was sold with the Fujica when I bought it, versus the f/1.7 that was on my Yashica. Then after 4 other lenses of different FLs, I got a 50mm f/3.5 Fujinon macro. But back then I did forensic photography. As time and opportunity presented, I copied the 28mm and 135mm Yashikors with Fujinon glass as well. But that isn't the same as Mr. Hicks is asking IMO.
So I agree(ed) that the difference in focal length was more important to me. I have a lot of 50mm lenses, but I can't think of but one that didn't just come with a camera I wanted. It just wouldn't make sense to me to buy multiple copies of the same FL. Others obviously think differently.
EDIT: To the poster above or any others that are considering a macro lens. I suggest thinking twice. You need to be doing a lot and for a specific reason to spend the money. For most photography, close up filters, extension tubes, or reversing the lens will give you quite acceptable photos and you can put the money saved into film or more useful gear. Most people (me included) just don't really do a lot of macro in my experience.
So I agree(ed) that the difference in focal length was more important to me. I have a lot of 50mm lenses, but I can't think of but one that didn't just come with a camera I wanted. It just wouldn't make sense to me to buy multiple copies of the same FL. Others obviously think differently.
EDIT: To the poster above or any others that are considering a macro lens. I suggest thinking twice. You need to be doing a lot and for a specific reason to spend the money. For most photography, close up filters, extension tubes, or reversing the lens will give you quite acceptable photos and you can put the money saved into film or more useful gear. Most people (me included) just don't really do a lot of macro in my experience.
Last edited:
mfogiel
Veteran
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.
thomasw_
Well-known
Marek knows the truth of it.
As well, there is the notion I have of lenses in the same FL with different characteristics, not just different functionality.
As you know very well Roger, the Noctilux 50mm which I love (and I think you appreciate it yourself?) is a great, honking lens and affords a certain look and function I am sometimes wanting in a 50 -- but not always; therefore I do use the Elmar-M or Summilux ASPH, too. (The latter two are a bit of a duplication, I admit, in terms of 'look' somewhat, and I may part with one of them someday, but it is the compactness/look package of the f2,8/50 that makes me love it too much to sell it.
What I write here could easily transfer to another common FL.
Respectfully, Thomas
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Stewart,
Nor do I, which may be why I chose the word...
Yes, I understand having two lenses when you've tried lots of others (and sometimes lenses are duplicated by 'historical accident') but for a beginner I'd have though that FL was the important thing to explore first.
When I had only a 5cm Elmar, I thought a 3,5cm Summaron was a much more important choice than (another, different) 5cm lens.
Today, I'd rather buy a focal length I don't own (probaby 12mm) than duplicate anything I do own -- except, conceivably, a Noctilux, and even then, I like my Sonnar so much I'm no longer sure.
Between us, Frances and I actually have 1x 15 (Voigtländer), 1x18 (Zeiss), 2x 21 (Kobalux and Voigtländer - the Leica was stolen), 1x 28 (Voigtländer), 2x 35 (Leica and Voigtländer), several x 50 (Leica, Zeiss, Voigtländer), 1x 75 (Leica), 3x 90 (Leitz Thambar, Leica and Voigtländer), 1x 135 (Leitz).
If we could afford it we'd buy a Tri-Elmar 16/16/21 and a 24/1,4 Summilux as well. Alas we can't.
But there are two of us...
Cheers,
R.
tyrone.s
Well-known
One other variable comes to mind: Close focus. Having recently run a roll through a Spotmatic with a Takumar 55/2 (versus using my current 'regular' R2a with Heliar 50/2) I see that for regular shots at around f5.6 - 8 and between 2 to 5 meters the results are unsurprisingly much the same with regard to field of view and 'drawing' of the shot. However the field of view with people and flowers shot at 45cm's close focus are obviously quite different to those shot at 1m with the rangefinder. Whilst the Takumar is the same FL as the (now on-sold) Heliar, it offers substantially different picture taking opportunities based on close focus and the effects of depth of field at close versus longer focus points.