My skills with 50mm and RF sucks.

[raid]

I bounce between 35mm and 50mm and I feel best having two cameras with me with these two lenses. I don't really need often a 75mm lens and I love using the 21mm lens for the beach and the ocean. A sweeping view makes sense there.

 

[Richard G]

Choice delays or erodes skill with any particular focal length. I take one lens and camera out nearly always. After keeping my 21 on the M5 all the time I mastered that focal length. I presumed I would forever skip the intermediate 28mm focal length. But I bought one for compactness; and then a second, ridiculously compact and that pretty much stays on my M9. So that’s decades with a 50 travelling, two decades with children with a 35 and a couple of years now with the unexpected 28. And I wear glasses.

 

[Ronald M]

Had a RF+ 50 in college and read Modern Photography every month. Lust for more lenses was sever.

Went through multiple systems and now, 60 years later, enjoy my Leica with one lens, two in my pockets sometimes. Liberating.

 

[GulfCoastPhotog]

If could only have one lens it would be 50mm. But have many more, really to many.

David

 

[Ko.Fe.]

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

Thank you, Helen. 50 you gave me has unusual rendering. Can't let it go!

 

[Rob-F]

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.

Part of the reason for this is that the 50mm framelines in Leicas from the M6 and later are significantly undersized. They reduced the size of all the framelines in the M6, M7, and MP (for example) to avoid getting less in the picture than was seen in the finder at the closest focusing distance of 0.7M, when the newer lenses were capable of a 0.7M focus. That wasn't quite so bad; but they chopped the heck out of the 50mm frame. I found that at a distance of perhaps 12 or 15 feet, the 50mm frame in an M6 covers the same angle of view as a 60mm lens in an SLR. And so I agree, the 50mm frame in an M6/M7/MP or similar is disappointing. Switching to an SLR, my reaction is, "Oh wow, you really can get enough in a 50mm frame!" (At least some of the time. The 45mm Nikkor-P is even better.)

I think it's odd that Leica never corrected this in the film cameras. The M8.2 is much better: its 50mm frame is calculated for a 2M distance. The M9, with its 1M frame, is at least a little better.

It is this that prompted some of us to try using a 40mm lens and framing the pictures with the 35mm framelines. It's a good match on the M6 and later film models.

 

[Rob-F]

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.

giganova, do you think you would like a Contax G1 or G2? The viewfinder works exactly as you have described! It is technically not a rangefinder, but it's not an SLR, either: it's auto focus. And the lenses for it are 28, 45, and 85. So the 45mm lens would not be so restrictive as a 50; and the finder (I should think) is more accurate.

 

[raid]

The lenses are 16-28-35-45-90. I do not have the 35mm lens.

 

[Rob-F]

Forgot there was a 35. I wonder how many people bother with it, since it's close to 45. Maybe better to skip to the 28?

 

[raid]

I bought at RFF a G1 with 28-45-90. No need for the 35mm lens.

 

[DwF]

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 !

I've come late to using a 50 regularly, and I really like it on my MM. Robert, commenting on your saying that you felt too close to your subjects with the 50, I went and picked up a 75 f 1.8 (the CV) and between getting used to constraining to the 75 framelines, and also stepping back, it makes the 50 my new 35. I won't say the 50 feels wide, but very nice/normal/nice 😛

Ko-fe, it sounds like the rush of a nice fast 50 on a DSLR is just the ticket for you...nothing wrong with that. I just picked up a 50 f1 .4 G lens for my son to use on his D800; it's his first prime, and ouch! -not the price but the look through that finder! And his results have been sweet!

D 800 50mm f1.4G

David

 

[Archiver]

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

Thank you, Helen!

My travel kit is usually 21, 35 and 50. The 21 is the Zeiss 21mm f2.8 Biogon which is very sharp. The Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 Nokton is very compact and fast, and has nice character. And the 50 is either the current Summicron, or the Zeiss C Sonnar f1.5, which I love for the character.

28 and 50 are my everyday lenses, and on occasions I carry a 28mm compact like the Ricoh GR or Sigma DP1, and the M9 with 50 Summicron, so I don't have to change lenses. The compact handles the wides and the M9 does 50/short tele. Because I tend to favour wides like 21, 25 and 28, a focal length like 50 feels like a portrait lens. Maybe this is what Ko Fe is experiencing, trying to shoot a 50 like a 35 but being a bit too close.

 

[Godfrey]

I am heading up to San Francisco for an evening/overnight dalliance (dancing tonight at the club, stay overnight, brunch and shopping tomorrow morning... 🙂). I plan to carry a minimal camera kit for a bit of city/street/etc snapper and originally just assumed I'd take the CL with Summilux 35/1.4 (normal) and 10/5.6 (ultra-wide squares).

But, reading this thread, it occurred to me that I still haven't shot any of my Ferrania P30 film and I haven't taken the M4-2 out for a walk in a very long time. So perhaps I'll take the M4-2 along with the same lenses, or maybe switch to the Summilux 35/1.4 and Summicron 50/2 instead...

... and if I do the latter and consume one or two of my precious five rolls of P30, I'll see which of the lenses I tended to use most. And then whether I achieved any photographs worth posting...!

😀

G

 

[LCSmith]

I mostly use a 50 and sometimes a 35 with my M4. The M3 gets the 90.

Many prefer the M3 for 50mm lenses. I do not. One of the advantages of the RF, for me, is the ability to see beyond the frame lines in the VF.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Cartier-Bresson used a 50mm 95% of the time. The remaining 5% is for a 35mm.


Erik.

 

[Gregm61]

21 (SEM)-35 (f1.4 FLE)-75 (f2 APO)-135mm (f3.4 APO).

This is what I continually gravitate back to every time I try going with a 50/90mm set.

 

[raid]

Forgot there was a 35. I wonder how many people bother with it, since it's close to 45. Maybe better to skip to the 28?

I forgot there exists also a 21mm lens for G1/G2.

 

[olifaunt]

I find 40 mm closest to what I see and am almost always happy with my results. It is such a great compromise, I don't know why manufacturers let 40 mm fall by the wayside.

 

[RObert Budding]

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.

Perhaps you'd be happier with an SLR. Or with an external finder.

 

[Bill Clark]

I found that taking workshop classes on various aspects of photography really helped me. More so than equipment.

Thought I would share with you my experiences.