Bosk
Make photos, not war.
I think I've finally started to "get it", why everyone loves the 50mm focal length so much.
Lately I've been walking around with just my Leica, handleld meter and a 50 lens and have hardly felt like anything is missing.
But to begin at the beginning, when I first started out in photography (with DSLRs, regrettably) everyone told me 'you should get a fast 50mm lens'. I quickly worked out why, with even the worst 50 primes destroying most zooms in speed and optics - not to mention size which to me is just as important.
Of course 50 on a DSLR is 75, not 50. It's a nice focal length I found, good for most walk-around stuff but of course a touch too telephoto for serious landscape stuff.
Then I discovered rangefinders and bought my first 50 Summicron before I even owned a camera to put it on. This was the black version without the 50 on the barrel, 1970s model I think.
For some reason it and I never managed to 'hit it off', maybe because the jump from an all-auto digicam to a meterless Leica was too big a shock to the system and manually focusing any lens at the time was going to be a challenge.
So... I sold it. :bang:
Then I 'discovered' the 35mm focal length by snapping up a used Voigtlander 35/2.5 which I later traded for a 35 Summicron, but ended up trading back and still own today. (awesome lens, tiny - sharp - cheap)
For a long time I thought the 35 focal length was 'the answer' and I still do when it comes to some subjects.
Ages later on a whim I bought a cheapy Russian Industar 50 2.8 from eBay.
Suffice to say, you don't want to know how flimsy it feels! But I was amazed at the images this "throw away" lens (a Tessar I later found out) was able to produce. Tons of character, great bokeh, and little if any distortion. If only the handling was better I could probably live with it very happily.
Naturally after using the Industar 50 so often and being surprised with the results I realised a more 'serious' 50 was needed, so I snapped up a Canon 50 1.4 screw mount. This was maybe the sharpest lens I've owned, aside from the DSLR Sigma 30 1.4 (though that had woefull corner sharpness) and was built like a little tank. I say was because I've now sold it. The problem? Too big, too heavy, not sexy enough!
And now I've been contemplating what to replace it with. Initially I was thinking over the early 50 2.8 Elmar but now I'm leaning towards an early Summicron of some sort.
Results aside what really does it for me most about 50 lenses is those framelines. I think they're just about perfect with tons of room outside to watch your subjects walk in and out of the shot but still a good area of coverage, enough to make really good compositions.
It really doesn't hurt that 50 lenses are optically the finest.
I've also begun wondering if 50 is such a great focal length because it allows just the right amount of visual information that a 35mm negative can supply.
Shots taken with a 28 or 35 on the other hand can sometimes get a little 'lost' because there isn't physically enough room on the neg to lend detail to each subject in the frame, particularly on landscape shots with lots of distant houses for example.
And finally, something I love about the 50 focal length is that it just gets out of the way and lets the subject speak for itself in a way other focal lengths don't.
On the flip side wide-angles can be great because they help generate interest themselves by virtue of the exaggerated perspective, but I don't think it works for all subjects or types of photography.
So anyway, that's my little story about why I think 50mm lenses are (as members of the younger generation might put it) the shiznit.
Thanks for reading!
Lately I've been walking around with just my Leica, handleld meter and a 50 lens and have hardly felt like anything is missing.
But to begin at the beginning, when I first started out in photography (with DSLRs, regrettably) everyone told me 'you should get a fast 50mm lens'. I quickly worked out why, with even the worst 50 primes destroying most zooms in speed and optics - not to mention size which to me is just as important.
Of course 50 on a DSLR is 75, not 50. It's a nice focal length I found, good for most walk-around stuff but of course a touch too telephoto for serious landscape stuff.
Then I discovered rangefinders and bought my first 50 Summicron before I even owned a camera to put it on. This was the black version without the 50 on the barrel, 1970s model I think.
For some reason it and I never managed to 'hit it off', maybe because the jump from an all-auto digicam to a meterless Leica was too big a shock to the system and manually focusing any lens at the time was going to be a challenge.
So... I sold it. :bang:
Then I 'discovered' the 35mm focal length by snapping up a used Voigtlander 35/2.5 which I later traded for a 35 Summicron, but ended up trading back and still own today. (awesome lens, tiny - sharp - cheap)
For a long time I thought the 35 focal length was 'the answer' and I still do when it comes to some subjects.
Ages later on a whim I bought a cheapy Russian Industar 50 2.8 from eBay.
Suffice to say, you don't want to know how flimsy it feels! But I was amazed at the images this "throw away" lens (a Tessar I later found out) was able to produce. Tons of character, great bokeh, and little if any distortion. If only the handling was better I could probably live with it very happily.
Naturally after using the Industar 50 so often and being surprised with the results I realised a more 'serious' 50 was needed, so I snapped up a Canon 50 1.4 screw mount. This was maybe the sharpest lens I've owned, aside from the DSLR Sigma 30 1.4 (though that had woefull corner sharpness) and was built like a little tank. I say was because I've now sold it. The problem? Too big, too heavy, not sexy enough!
And now I've been contemplating what to replace it with. Initially I was thinking over the early 50 2.8 Elmar but now I'm leaning towards an early Summicron of some sort.
Results aside what really does it for me most about 50 lenses is those framelines. I think they're just about perfect with tons of room outside to watch your subjects walk in and out of the shot but still a good area of coverage, enough to make really good compositions.
It really doesn't hurt that 50 lenses are optically the finest.
I've also begun wondering if 50 is such a great focal length because it allows just the right amount of visual information that a 35mm negative can supply.
Shots taken with a 28 or 35 on the other hand can sometimes get a little 'lost' because there isn't physically enough room on the neg to lend detail to each subject in the frame, particularly on landscape shots with lots of distant houses for example.
And finally, something I love about the 50 focal length is that it just gets out of the way and lets the subject speak for itself in a way other focal lengths don't.
On the flip side wide-angles can be great because they help generate interest themselves by virtue of the exaggerated perspective, but I don't think it works for all subjects or types of photography.
So anyway, that's my little story about why I think 50mm lenses are (as members of the younger generation might put it) the shiznit.
Thanks for reading!
Krosya
Konicaze
50mm lenses are great!. There are so many of them, most are very good to outstanding and each has it's own character. I have several and still consider more. I used to use SLRs only - digital and film, with zooms, but soon learned that whenever I zoom - I prefer to frame at about 50mm mark. So, got a 50mm lens. And after I got into RFs, I too chose 50mm as a starting point. Since then I got other FLs, but still most used remains 50mm lens. Different ones, depending on what look I want to go after - be that Summicron Rigid - a great lens, or Planar ZM, also a supreb one or some other ones I have.
So your attraction to 50mm lens is making perfect sence to me.
hers is a Planar ZM photo (poor flatbed scan, but still...)
So your attraction to 50mm lens is making perfect sence to me.
hers is a Planar ZM photo (poor flatbed scan, but still...)
V
varjag
Guest
Yup, 50mm is sweet focal, and quality of most lenses is excellent..
kshapero
South Florida Man
Shot with C Sonnar 50mm f1.5 at probably f8
The Sonnar soft look shot at f1.5
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Right on! I like the 50mm's and its variants, here's one from a Helios 53/1.8 on a Kiev 4AM.
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
alexz
Well-known
I just recently pursuaded street photography (and turns to be something I learnt to like) and figured, IMO, 50mm works best for street. I'm also considering 35mm lens to widen my horizons, but find it too short for street ofetn requiring nearly sticking the camera into the faces, while 50mm allows some reasonable distance.
However, I find 35mm to be more effecient for indoors or other space-constraiend situations (or walk-around shooting, say, architecture aside of street life).
However, I find 35mm to be more effecient for indoors or other space-constraiend situations (or walk-around shooting, say, architecture aside of street life).
ferider
Veteran
For me, often, there is just a little missing with the 50, and I prefer 40.
But I don't shoot street.
Roland.
But I don't shoot street.
Roland.
oscroft
Veteran
Hi Bosk,
That's a great post. I too have come to love the 50 after really not liking it at all, but it's taken me more than 35 years to get there!
I started back in 1969 with a Spotmatic, and the 55mm standard was all I had for a few years while I dreamed about other lenses. After a while, I had a 135 and a 28 and rarely used the 50. Later, when travelling a lot, I started using zooms and rarely used them around 50 - 50 was just too dull and boring.
After years, various 35mm SLR camers, and medium format SLR, I finally gave a rangefinder a go (I'd always lusted after Leica M rangefinders but could never afford one - the one time I could have done I bought a Bronica ETRSi instead).
That first rangefinder was a FED, and I almost instantly took a liking to the 50mm focal length - the Industar 26 that came with it made some great images on B&W film. Since then I've acquired more RF gear (various FSU cameras and lenses, a Leica M6, a Bessa R4A, and a handful of fixed-lens RFs), and I really like the 50. In fact, it's quite ironic that a lens I really like now, the rigid Industar I-50, is one that I turned my nose up at in its SLR form all those years ago - it's almost a fixture on my Zorki-6 now and produces lovely images.
I've now got a bunch of 50s - a CV 50/2.5 (really sharp, high contrast, beautiful colour rendition), a J-8 (less contrast, but lovely B&W look), the I-50, I-26, an I-61 L/D and a FED-50/3.5.
And coming full circle, probably my favourite SLR lens is now my Zuiko 50/1.4 silvernose - I really can't understand how I could have been so wrong all those years ago!
That's a great post. I too have come to love the 50 after really not liking it at all, but it's taken me more than 35 years to get there!
I started back in 1969 with a Spotmatic, and the 55mm standard was all I had for a few years while I dreamed about other lenses. After a while, I had a 135 and a 28 and rarely used the 50. Later, when travelling a lot, I started using zooms and rarely used them around 50 - 50 was just too dull and boring.
After years, various 35mm SLR camers, and medium format SLR, I finally gave a rangefinder a go (I'd always lusted after Leica M rangefinders but could never afford one - the one time I could have done I bought a Bronica ETRSi instead).
That first rangefinder was a FED, and I almost instantly took a liking to the 50mm focal length - the Industar 26 that came with it made some great images on B&W film. Since then I've acquired more RF gear (various FSU cameras and lenses, a Leica M6, a Bessa R4A, and a handful of fixed-lens RFs), and I really like the 50. In fact, it's quite ironic that a lens I really like now, the rigid Industar I-50, is one that I turned my nose up at in its SLR form all those years ago - it's almost a fixture on my Zorki-6 now and produces lovely images.
I've now got a bunch of 50s - a CV 50/2.5 (really sharp, high contrast, beautiful colour rendition), a J-8 (less contrast, but lovely B&W look), the I-50, I-26, an I-61 L/D and a FED-50/3.5.
And coming full circle, probably my favourite SLR lens is now my Zuiko 50/1.4 silvernose - I really can't understand how I could have been so wrong all those years ago!
oscroft
Veteran
Hi Magus,
Yeah, I really like using a 28 or 35 on my R4A (which is 0.52x, I think) for that reason - just the right amount of space outside the frame (but not so much that the frame is too small)
M
Magus
Guest
Thumbs Up, Oscroft!
Thumbs Up, Oscroft!
Post deleted by posters request
Thumbs Up, Oscroft!
Post deleted by posters request
Vics
Veteran
"And finally, something I love about the 50 focal length is that it just gets out of the way and lets the subject speak for itself in a way other focal lengths don't."
Hear, hear!
Hear, hear!
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
I assume he means that it's a natural perspective -- not obviously wide or tele. I think the same could be said for 35mm.
But I actually think 40-43mm is better for this.
But I actually think 40-43mm is better for this.
principe azul
Ian
Oscroft and Magus,
Absolutely, too! I much prefer the 35mm frames on the 0.6 Hexar RF to the 35mm frames on the 0.72 M4. And I've been thinking 25mm would be ideal on an R4A/M - again, one frameline down.
I respect the 50mm greatly, though I'm getting wider as I get older.
I got into photography when used Nikon film gear was still way expensive, especially here in the UK. So I replaced my kit zoom with a 50/1.8 and made do with it for six months. Amazing how versatile you can make it be if you have nothing else.
Wonderful essay by Gary Voth on the 50mm: http://vothphoto.com/spotlight/articles/forgotten_lens/forgotten-lens.htm
Absolutely, too! I much prefer the 35mm frames on the 0.6 Hexar RF to the 35mm frames on the 0.72 M4. And I've been thinking 25mm would be ideal on an R4A/M - again, one frameline down.
I respect the 50mm greatly, though I'm getting wider as I get older.
I got into photography when used Nikon film gear was still way expensive, especially here in the UK. So I replaced my kit zoom with a 50/1.8 and made do with it for six months. Amazing how versatile you can make it be if you have nothing else.
Wonderful essay by Gary Voth on the 50mm: http://vothphoto.com/spotlight/articles/forgotten_lens/forgotten-lens.htm
principe azul
Ian
Ha! I think Magus is asking what "Hear, hear!" means. Brit expression, shouted by Members of Parliament when agreeing with someone speaker in the House of Commons.
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Letien
Established
Thanks for the great post. 50mm is the only focal length that fit my taste though I have some other FL just for fun. Exageration is the exact word for wide angle. I find 50 simple, sincere, intimate. It also interesting to collect just 50mm lens. I next wish is a elmar 2.8.
oscroft
Veteran
Very kind of you, sir
nico
Well-known
Thanks for the good read Oscroft, I'm a 50 mm addicted .
Even though in some circumstances I like to use wider lenses, as Letien wrote above "I find 50 simple, sincere, intimate".
I'd add, for my experience, that the 50mm is a good "storyteller".
Ciao
. Even though in some circumstances I like to use wider lenses, as Letien wrote above "I find 50 simple, sincere, intimate".
I'd add, for my experience, that the 50mm is a good "storyteller".
Ciao