Ljós
Well-known
Another +1 for the "dinner table test"!
Also, even many trams, trains, buses where you sit and face each other are spaced such that you may not be able to take a picture of someone you are talking to if the lens does not focus closer than 1m. I can live with the 1m-limit on my collapsible Summicron 50mm, but on a 35mm it is a dealbreaker for me. (I use the 2.8 Summaron which focuses to 70cm).
Of course we can agree that 70cm to 1m is not the preferred "classic" portrait range because the nose etc. can be exaggerated at this distance - but if the choice is between having a picture like this, or no picture at all...
And one more thing: with 70cm I am able to photograph stuff I am holding at arm's length. Useful for many things, for example taking a picture of flyers at a demonstration etc. you are photographing.
Greetings, Ljós
Also, even many trams, trains, buses where you sit and face each other are spaced such that you may not be able to take a picture of someone you are talking to if the lens does not focus closer than 1m. I can live with the 1m-limit on my collapsible Summicron 50mm, but on a 35mm it is a dealbreaker for me. (I use the 2.8 Summaron which focuses to 70cm).
Of course we can agree that 70cm to 1m is not the preferred "classic" portrait range because the nose etc. can be exaggerated at this distance - but if the choice is between having a picture like this, or no picture at all...
And one more thing: with 70cm I am able to photograph stuff I am holding at arm's length. Useful for many things, for example taking a picture of flyers at a demonstration etc. you are photographing.
Greetings, Ljós
Last edited:
Steve M.
Veteran
This is a good question, especially since you're probably referring to 50mm lenses. Has anyone bothered to look at closeups taken w/ a 50? Distortion city. It's a no brainer that if you shoot people you use at least a 90. But if you like those looming noses and peaked heads, by all means, use a 50.
Robin Harrison
aka Harrison Cronbi
Doesn't bother me... if it only focuses to 1 meter, I'll make it work. I mean, .7 meters is arbitrary too... why don't those who need .7 meters complain and say that the lens should have .6 meters?
Well my goggled Summaron 35/2.8 focusses (RF-coupled) to 0.65m, and I would never go back to those creativity-limiting 0.7m lenses out there.
Paul Jenkin
Well-known
To get everything from my toes to infinity into sharp focus - especially from a low viewpoint. I love my Mamiya 7 / 65mm combo but the close focus on that lens is not great for this purpose. As a result, I often have to revert to an SLR or my Hasselblad.
Ljós
Well-known
jsrockit, leaving Capa aside for the moment:
the point is you cannot crop the picture (in a meaningful way) after the fact when your picture is badly out of focus because your lens could not focus close enough!
Greetings, Ljós
the point is you cannot crop the picture (in a meaningful way) after the fact when your picture is badly out of focus because your lens could not focus close enough!
Greetings, Ljós
Right, but the poster of that thread seemed to be saying (not the OP) that the extra 30cm was needed to get the better photo, which I don't necessarily think is true.
furcafe
Veteran
Exactly, having a closer minimum focus is just another feature, important to some, not so important to others. Not a dealbreaker to me, but if I'm looking at 2 versions of the same lens, & 1 focuses closer, I'll prefer that version for the extra functionality.
Sparrow
Veteran
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I seldom shoot below one meter ... but like the ability of my D700 to produce decent results at 6400 ISO ... it's nice to know it's there when its needed!
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
I don't think anybody (or at least I) is disputing whether the knowledge of a photograph being taken when seen is somehow different when using an SLR or not.
That some people are less intimidated, otherwise, is. And this is why, to answer the OP's question, is important to those who think it is.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Ah, drinking game!
Sparrow
Veteran
Sparrow
Veteran
ferider
Veteran
When I walk around with a kit including a Tele (75-90), I don't care how close my 50 focuses.
When I only carry a Leica and a 50, I use 0.7m min. focus quite a bit.
(taken with M2 + 50/1.4 Takumar)
That being said, I always thought the pre-asph 50 Summilux was a lousy performer closer than 1m - unless you like veiling flare. Better and cheaper lenses out there.
Roland.
When I only carry a Leica and a 50, I use 0.7m min. focus quite a bit.
(taken with M2 + 50/1.4 Takumar)
That being said, I always thought the pre-asph 50 Summilux was a lousy performer closer than 1m - unless you like veiling flare. Better and cheaper lenses out there.
Roland.
dof
Fiat Lux
I think Roland hit on the head for me with this. While I own lenses in a variety of focal lengths, my drug of choice is an M6 with a 50mm Summilux. I use the closer range frequently enough to not dismiss it as an extravagance.
SteveM
Established
Some of my older lenses only focus to 1m but I've never found this limiting. On the other hand, the Olympus 50/2 macro (4/3 system) is one of my favourites because of the close focus. If a camera/lens can't do something, I don't look for photos that need those capabilities. There are always limitations of one type or another (a good source of GAS...).
Steve
Steve
Sparrow
Veteran
ruby.monkey
Veteran
Often that's the difference between me getting the photo and me falling out of my chair.