I have lost interest in 50mm primes for 135 film.

[nobbylon]

I've actually just got back into the so called standard focal lengths. I've always had prefered lenses and the 50 i've always prefered for slr is the pentax K 1.4. so I have an old KM to use it with. I actually loaded it up today with some tri-x so it's in my day pack for the next week or so. My usual film camera is an F6 with a 28 ais. When I was using Leica M regularly my favorite FL was always 35 and indeed I still have a zeiss C. It's nice to swap around once in a while.

 

[ferider]

For me somehow it is only interesting to get made in Canada 28mm with made in Canada M4-P and nothing else, ...

I have exactly that combo (v3 Elmarit) and it rocks !

If that's what you want in the end, I suggest cutting to the chase. Your Elmar-M, Color Skopar and M4-2 should get you close in price.

Roland.

 

[hlockwood]

OK! I'll try to switch from plastic to black metal VF first.

And if I'll continue to keep Elmar-M 50 on the self, I'll let it go and use money from it for some fancy 35mm lens, which I'm more likely to use.

I have the Elmar-M 50mm and I have trouble shooting with anything else; excellent contrast and sharpness. Sometimes when I mount the 35mm Asph. Summicron, I take along the Elmar just in case I get separation anxiety.

HFL

 

[hepcat]

...(Please let's skip the distance / pespective topic)...

Dave, I'm not sure you can when you're discussing the "best" lens. The reason there are so many varied focal lengths is exactly the "distance/perspective topic."

I'm sorry, but I've never understood the "I like the 25mm lens, 50 is too limiting" kind of topics. No one focal length "does it all" and it's really necessary to have several focal lengths in your arsenal of primes so you can get the "right" look for the image you want to make. Conventional portraiture with a 28mm or wider looks caricature-ish. Shooting architecture with a 90, unless you're looking at specific detail doesn't include nearly enough. Each focal length has its place in the photographer's arsenal at different times and places. That's why the "35-50-90" became the standard journalist's bag. Each produces a different perspective at distance... and a photographer needs to be able to capitalize on those strengths... or weaknesses if you will, to make the image he/she "sees."

 

[daveleo]

@hepcat

Roger, I agree with all you say there, and I use different focal lengths for different special purposes (I have 11 lenses for my X-E1).
But, like I said, I like getting physically close to my subject and at the same time keep the surroundings in the frame. Most often, 50mm (in 135 film format) is the outer limit for doing that, while 24mm-35mm generally works best for me.
Definitely, if I am doing a just head shot, I would not stick a 24mm lens in someone's face. But then, I can't remember the last headshot I made.

If there was one "best" lens, we would certainly all own it !!

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Well, I'm not journalist, nor I'm architecture pictures taker. I believe, from what I have seen, what GW used mostly 28 mm lens for everything. I see another great photog with film M who are currently using only 35mm and it works great. And I'm going to have one 50 mm on FSU RF and one one DSLR.

 

[kdemas]

I'm a junkie for 45-50mm lenses. That said I've been shooting mainly with 28mm on the street lately. Nice to change it up a little now and then.

Kent

 

[hepcat]

Well, I'm not journalist, nor I'm architecture pictures taker. I believe, from what I have seen, what GW used mostly 28 mm lens for everything. I see another great photogs wint film M who are currently using only 35mm and it works great. And I'm going to have one 50 mm on FSU rf and one one DSLR.

I know this is a thread about wide angles... and single lens use, but I have to speak up here.

I hate to speak ill of the dead, but I'm sorry to hear you've hitched your star to GW's wagon. Regardless of his legions of devout followers, his work is, to me, haphazard at best and at worst, random and without discipline or meaning. I don't even see it as reportage. I've not yet seen any of his work that I've given a second look to, although I keep looking from time to time. He was prolific, I'll give him that... but being prolific in and of itself is not synonymous with "great." Perhaps it's partly his reliance on the 28mm for everything that I find objectionable and that make his images unremarkable.

There's an old adage that says you can either have twenty years' experience or one year of experience twenty times. I've not been able to find any growth in GW's work over his career.

On the other hand, he became famous and I am not... so there you go.

I realize I may be treading this path alone and that my comments may spark the ire of those committed to the "school of GW;" but to each, I suppose, his own.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

You ain't the one who is bashing GW for what you can't feel and see.

 

[Richard G]

1. If you get an RF digital you might not need the finder at all. I will often take the 25 without a finder, and the 21 too. And the 18. I find the Leica RF patch invaluable for levelling those lenses for architectural shots. Having said that, on the street up close, if you want to frame at all, there is nothing quicker than an external VF.

2. For a bitter experience, sell the Elmar M. So don't do that. You'll be back to 50 one day.

 

[lukitas]

I like the 28 mm angle of view. I like that i can get full standing portraits from a friendly distance, and I like the exaggerated perspective. They say it distorts faces too much, but I got some nice head-and-shoulders shots out of it, and yes, you can hold hands with your subject while shooting.
On the m2, I have the ultron 28 f2. No need for an extra viewfinder. And a bit of tape on the illumination window makes the frames go away.
On the XE-2, I fixed an 18 mm F2.
And now that I have trouble at work, (they feel menaced by the XE-2, it's too big), I'm planning to buy a ricoh GR II.
For now, 28 is my size.

cheers

 

[phatnev]

I know this is a thread about wide angles... and single lens use, but I have to speak up here.

I hate to speak ill of the dead, but I'm sorry to hear you've hitched your star to GW's wagon. Regardless of his legions of devout followers, his work is, to me, haphazard at best and at worst, random and without discipline or meaning. I don't even see it as reportage. I've not yet seen any of his work that I've given a second look to, although I keep looking from time to time. He was prolific, I'll give him that... but being prolific in and of itself is not synonymous with "great." Perhaps it's partly his reliance on the 28mm for everything that I find objectionable and that make his images unremarkable.

There's an old adage that says you can either have twenty years' experience or one year of experience twenty times. I've not been able to find any growth in GW's work over his career.

On the other hand, he became famous and I am not... so there you go.

I realize I may be treading this path alone and that my comments may spark the ire of those committed to the "school of GW;" but to each, I suppose, his own.

How about Mary Ellen Mark? Was her work "haphazard at best" as well?

 

[02Pilot]

I'm in the "there is no perfect focal length" camp on this. That said, I've gone through the same sort of "focal length X isn't working for me, so obviously the answer is focal length Y" experience. It's part of the learning experience for me.

I started with 50mm and I've left it and come back to it several times. In the intervals, I've acquired lenses in other focal lengths (21, 25, 35, 90, 100, 135), as well as fixed-lens cameras (28, 32, 40, 42). What I've taken away from all of this is that what gets in the way of taking photos more than anything else is too many choices. I also now have a better understanding of what focal lengths I like for given circumstances.

But if it came down to being stuck with only one? 50.

 

[hepcat]

How about Mary Ellen Mark? Was her work "haphazard at best" as well?

Actually, no. I appreciate her work, Eggleston's and Frank's. It's all documentary of period, and of both historic and art value. I don't have an issue with the genre, and some of it is fascinating.

Just not Winogrand's, for a variety of reasons.

 

[BillBingham2]

And now for something completely different.....

Go find a good Leica 1 or Black Bessa L and glue the 25 to it. You'll find either works very well for that lens.

After becoming addicted to the snap-shot on a black L I found that I liked the 50 the same way I did a 85 on my Nikkormat.

The 25/4 just ruined me, small, sharp, very low distortion, I love that little lens.

Accept the 25 as your new normal and move on from there. Perhaps a 15 for wide shots and 50 for portraits.

B2 (;->

 

[pvdhaar]

Couple of weeks ago I took my DSLR with 50mm lens on it and went to take picture from charity, fun event for our local community message board. And... I wasn't able to frame with it. I was stubborn to use 50mm lens after I spend few weeks with 25mm lens. 😱, it became so narrow..

Very recognizable experience! It's difficult to go back to a 50 from a 25.. it's either too narrow, or you've got to step so far back that it looses its intimacy. And not withstanding common wisdom, you can make excellent portraits with a wide (28 is my personal favorite focal length)..

To be fair though, it does take time to get used to a very different focal length, and it probably also cost weeks to get the best out of the 25 coming from the 50.. Maybe it shouldn't be a surprise that it'd take weeks to work the 50 to its max again..

 

[Hsg]

One benefit of using a zoom lens (with digital) is that you learn through exif data what focal length most of your successful shots were taken. Then you can purchase a prime lens for the focal lenght.

 

[Kent]

I have always loved the 50mm (on format 135). Lenses are mostly excellent and still affordable, perspective is pleasant and versatile.

With rangefinder cams I have hardly ever shot with one, though, but only because I did not have a really exciting one. Now, that I own a Summicron 50, I remember why I have always loved it.

Be patient, your "feeling" for it might come back...

 

[JChrome]

Wide angle seems to be the order of the day in photography. That is part of the reason I like longer lenses.


www.stillthrill.com

 

[Ko.Fe.]

One benefit of using a zoom lens (with digital) is that you learn through exif data what focal length most of your successful shots were taken. Then you can purchase a prime lens for the focal lenght.

My normal zoom is most used at 28 (wide end). My tele zoom is at the drawer for years now.