My skills with 50mm and RF sucks.

[css9450]

I don't shoot people, but for me it was a revelation when I bought my first lens that was wider than a 50. Nowadays, if I'm going out with one lens, its usually a 35.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Thank you all for many good words and valuable comments. It is something I could use as reference to read many times.

I started to take pictures with Fed-2 and 50. Every time I use it, framing comes naturally, but it isn’t street.
I have SBOOI, I look into it, it is unobstructed. But wait, why it is so little in the bright frame.
Where must be something wrong with my eyes, but I see it as 21мм or 90 degree and here is 50 or less which is focus.
Something else I get from this thread is what I’m not alone with getting squished by 50 in the crowd. I like crowd, I like to be beside or walking through.

It is my second time to read how wide introduce some effect, while 50 isn’t.
Again, I like what I see wide and close, from one to four meters. Anything longer is haven’t happened with me yet.
Geometry and extra precise framing is not my thing.
So with this thread and help I’m realizing more and more why 50 is not my thing on RF.
I don’t use RF a lot, I have no worries if object isolated by dof, but by the framing. I like something spontaneously appearing near me and trying to catch it.
Every time I’m trying to spend time and frame, walk around, back and forth, it is not good 🙂
Based on comments here, I will try to get to two lens or even three.
50 for hollow streets, 35 for then it is more than one person under streetlight and 21 for juicy crowds. Or see if I could get it with small zoom.

 

[Prest_400]

I might be the odd one here as I am a 40mm person by circumstance. 19mm on m43, GW690 (90mm is 39-40mm equivalent), and Pentax MX with a 40mm (thanks ruby.monkey). It's quite an interesting not long, not wide focal that does fit many situations.


50mm feels long to me, I can get used to it quickly but "the but" relating to your discussion is that it's on SLRs I have shot it and never on RF.

While darkroom printing the GW690 negatives I often crop, making use of the large negative, but that also means I'm going for a 50mm FOV overall...



Going 40mm is totally OT, but I found an interesting article about it being a standard in cine (28mm is 40mm equivalent) and might be relevant for the discussion: https://noamkroll.com/28mm-lenses-the-secret-ingredient-for-achieving-a-film-look/

The Lumix 35-100 (70-200) lives on my EM5 and I have actually found it much more versatile for being a tele than I'd previously thought. Strangely 75mm is not that far off 50mm and feels less awkward, perhaps because of expecting it to be long and framing with that idea. And oops, I derailed discussion into SLR territory 😀

 

[Richard G]

Solved it looks like.

I used 50 for years but have progressed to 28 very often on the daily camera. Bill Pierce with a 35 on his camera swapped with a mate with a 50 so they could each take a photograph of the other that would be of themselves on their own roll of film. He found the 50mm lens he was suddenly looking through was like some compressing telephoto, in comparison to his own 'get it all in' pj's 35mm lens. The 50 is not what we often think it is. Compose and wait is often not 'street' and that is better 28, or 21.

 

[Pál_K]

With 50mm on an M3, the image in the viewfinder helps me compose better than with 50 on an M6 with a 0.72x viewfinder.

When looking through the 0.72x viewfinder, I feel I should have a 28mm lens mounted even though there are frame lines for 50. Maybe this feeling affects my composition.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I sold M3 ELC, it was not in use for long time before I purchased it (still with Midland seal) and it was not in use much by me. If I own camera I must use it.

And I find it handy to have 35mm lens in 50mm frames on... M4-2 🙂 by using of goggled Summaron. But weight dis-balance from goggles made me adding the grip, which is so nicht Leica. 🙂

 

[Archiver]

The classic combination of 28 and 50 is my bag, with 35 if I can only use one RF lens for general and up close shooting. I didn't like the 50mm focal length until I got a Summicron, then I loved 50mm. If you find you're only shooting one subject, you may be too close. Personally, I use 50 as a short tele portrait lens, although sometimes it can be a more general focal length.


These are the kinds of images I get from 50mm, on RF, SLR and mirrorless:


M9 - Valentino by Archiver, on Flickr


M9 - Inspection by Archiver, on Flickr


M9 - I Am Number Four by Archiver, on Flickr


M9 - Dry Dock by Archiver, on Flickr


M9 - Spectral Statue by Archiver, on Flickr


GX85 - In the shadow of the gates by Archiver, on Flickr


M9 - Trophy by Archiver, on Flickr


GM1 - Beats [explore 2014 07 05] by Archiver, on Flickr

 

[George Mann]

85% of what I shoot is @ 50mm. 10% wide angle, and 5% tele. Granted, the majority of my shooting is with an SLR, but...

If you use a rangefinder, and do not have the right finder for you focal-length, you won't enjoy using it.

 

[:: Mark]

My favourite SLR setup was a 5D III with a 50mm f1.2L. Paired with a 24mm wide angle it covered everything with excellent results. The problem was the size and weight, and so I migrated to Leica initially with film and subsequently digital.

I think a lot of leica users start out as 50mm shooters, only to find themselves migrating to wider angles. I suspect this is at least partly and subconsciously driven by the fact that at 50mm you can clearly see outside of the frame lines and you are constantly seeing a much wider angle through the rangefinder.

IMO, the Leica lenses are excellent, but the digital bodies are crippled relative to contemporary mirrorless because they inherit - for no good reason other than nostalgia - downsides that were intrinsic to a film rangefinder camera. In particular, the rangefinder eye relief is terrible for a modern camera and limits the use of wider lenses if you wear glasses.

For me, this means that 35mm and 50mm are the only "comfortable" focal lengths that I can use. I also use 28mm a lot, but the frame line problem makes precise framing when shooting quickly something of a lottery.

What is interesting is these limitations do not bother me much when shooting with a film body, because my M7 is just so much better than film SLRs for documentary work. But with digital, expectations for the resulting images are higher and competing contemporary digital mirrorless cameras are a valid point of comparison. At the end of the day, it is the images that count - not the tool.

 

[robert blu]

I understand what Kostya says. I do not change lenses oft, usually I keep a lens for weeks or months before deciding to change it.

And until I bought the M10 my only digital camera was the Leica x1, 35mm equivalent fixed lens.

So I'm much used to take photos with a 35mm lens. Leica x1 or M7. Even with the M10 for many months I had the 35cron on it. Later I bought the 28/5,6 summaron which became my most used lens. Until...

....a couple of months ago I decided to go back to a 50mm lens, both digital os film. I found it very difficult, always feeling to be too close to my subjects, as if there is not enough place, which is not always a point to go back a couple of steps...

I guess it's only a question of habits...but many times when I'm out with the 50 I think how easier it would be with a wider lens !

Not a first world problem anyway...just an impression !

 

[Yokosuka Mike]

Man, whatever, if your pictures suck, they suck. Don't blame the lens.

All the best,
Mike

 

[Rob-F]

35mm is, for me, the 'natural vision' focal length. It is my baseline angle of view. I go wider or tighter from there, as needed. For street, I find 50mm restrictive and frustrating. 35mm or even 28mm is better for me.

 

[Ccoppola82]

I got used to a 50 with RF rather quickly after coming from a 35L/Canon 6d combo. At times it can be a bit crunched, but for general purpose I’ve found it easy to compose. I remember when I first got it, I looked through a LOT of Bresson and other 50 shooters to try and gauge distance and aperture they best I could. I sorta “immersed myself” in the 50, and now usually pair it with a 28cron for when I can’t back up any further. It’s not probably my favorite focal length. I do still love the 35 for a small one lens kit though.

 

[Out to Lunch]

I've never been too happy with a 50 and I prefer a 28 or 35.

 

[Richard G]

Man, whatever, if your pictures suck, they suck. Don't blame the lens.

All the best,
Mike

Fortunately Ko.Fe timed this for when he was on a golden streak in the Gallery here....

 

[Ambro51]

You’re photographing a scene, not a subject, with a “normal” lens.

 

[giganova]

My frustration with 50mm lenses is: you have this big, bright & brilliant range finder, and when you use a 50mm lens, you throw away half of that gorgeous view and all you're left is a small bit in the middle! Whatsup with that? Just look at the middle image below!

If I were to design a rangefinder, I would include optics that moves into the optical path and enlarge the 50mm field of view so you get the same large native rangefinder field of view.

 

[raid]

"More" is not always "better" in photography.

 

[helen.HH]

Great set of Images Archiver !

I Love a 50, v3 Summicron and MOST
50’s for that matter and Leica’s most character , crazy atmospheric lens, the 21 super angelon
BUT
these days I am settling just on 35 FOV
35 2.8 summaron
Will see where this road takes me

35, 50, 21 all good !

So hang in there Ko
one day the 50 will come into PURRfect view

 

[Ricoh]

"More" is not always "better" in photography.

Indeed, it's very rare that 'more' is better, just increasingly confusing obscuring the subject(s) of interest.
As it's widely understood, photography is a subtractive process whereas art, eg painting, sketching and drawing, is an additive process.