My skills with 50mm and RF sucks.

Ko.Fe.

Ko.Fe.

Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Local time
9:28 AM
Joined
Jul 14, 2013
Messages
10,882
I liked Canon 5D and 50L combo. I would often switch to it instead of zoom during assignment, reportage.

For some reason I'm OK with one person in the frame with DSLR, but I don't like it at all on RF.
It sucks because most easy and less expensive lens to obtain for RF is 50mm. And I have four 50 of all kinds.
But every time I'm trying to use it for the street or reportage it just narrowing me to one person in the frame. Or one tree in the flied.

Any trade secrets for how to be happy and versatile with 50mm on RF?
 
I've never really noticed this in the photos you've posted here. In any case, maybe you're just getting too close to your subjects. With a small, unobtrusive camera it's easier to get in close to people and the 50mm focal length might be too long for your framing. Have you tried the same approach but using a 35mm instead?
 
Don't really use a 50mm with the rangefinders much. Mostly 28mm, 35mm, 85/90mm. The 50mm just seems kind of "blah". Have you tried other focal lengths with your rangefinder?

Best,
-Tim
 
Dogman said:
I've never really noticed this in the photos you've posted here. In any case, maybe you're just getting too close to your subjects. With a small, unobtrusive camera it's easier to get in close to people and the 50mm focal length might be too long for your framing. Have you tried the same approach but using a 35mm instead?
Click to expand...

My "worth to print" rate with 50mm is 1 to 7 with 35 or with 21, wider. But with 28 is more difficult, again.
Size of the kit is more handling issue than be unpropitious.
I'm OK with big wide (zoom) on small camera, but if it is on the big one, then it becomes hassle and bustle.

Timmyjoe said:
Don't really use a 50mm with the rangefinders much. Mostly 28mm, 35mm, 85/90mm. The 50mm just seems kind of "blah". Have you tried other focal lengths with your rangefinder?

Best,
-Tim
Click to expand...

I do. But I have four good 50mm and it just feels scrooge to sell them and get two slower and wider instead. :)
 
I know how you feel Kostya, same thing for me with 35mm on RF most of the time as I wear glasses.

Perhaps its because you are shooting on a 0.68 or 0.72 Leica so you are pre-composing already for 28mm or 35mm.
Have you considered using a 50mm Aux VF on your RF?

I'm currently shooting with a 35mm lens on the M3 and having tons of fun because I use a 35mm VF. I don't even bother using my 35mm goggled summaron on the M3
 
I feel similarly.
One part of it is the frame lines for a 50 are smaller than the (always full) matte screen, on most RFs. Size of the VF image makes a big difference. The Canon P with its 1:1 VF does make me want to use 50. Of course this is just due to weak imagination, the perfect photographer should be able to visualize anything, no matter the VF; I'm not.
Framing needs to be more precise in that a smaller movement of the camera has a bigger effect on the composition.
In street, documentary and environmental portrait photography, the relationships between a main subject and its context are often important. With wides, these can be next to each other. Even when the 3rd dimension plays a role, one can neatly arrange objects to be next to each other in the photo. Trying that with a 50 is hard because of limited DOF and often ends up boring and flat (because one will have to be far away) and/or with unbalanced compositions (because one often has to pick just one object beside the main subject or so). In short, one has to work the 3rd dimension in a different way. Successful (IMHO) 50mm pics often use the "looking through a peephole/some foreground object" strategy, or they depict a flattish scene that doesn't have a foreground, mid, background at all or in any case works more graphically. They may have to, because the "being there, able to step into the picture" effect is hard to get with a 50, not enough context, too far from the scene. So precise graphical or otherwise clever composition becomes more important. So its a quite different way of photographing, for me.
 
KoFe,

Perhaps I can frame things a bit differently, because I tend to shoot with two cameras when I can.

I like one camera to be rigged with a 28mm or 35mm; a second camera with a 50.

Just know that most of my shots (75%-80%) will be taken with a wide. In a way the 50 only seldomly gets used and is not the dominant camera.

I would also agree with the post about the intamacy allowed with a RF'er that allows one to get closer.

Cal
 
Like Cal, I tend to shoot with two cameras. When I was using Leicas, it was a pair of M6's, one with a 35 Summicron and one with a 50 Summicron. Now with Fujis, it's two XP2's with equivalent lenses. Those lenses cover about 85% of what I normally do--35 for in close, 50 for when a bit further back. That other 15% was usually covered with a 21 or 24.
 
Perhaps it has more to do with your own perception of the shooting experience itself. Is it possible that you've grown accustomed to working further away from your subject matter when using the DSLR and longer focal lengths? If that were the case then relatively speaking it would feel like you've moved in fairly close, or have become more intimate with your subject matter, when using a 50mm lens on the DSLR. Conversely if you are accustomed to primarily using shorter focal length lenses on the RF then switching to the 50mm is going to decrease that intimate feeling that you've grown used to.

If that is not the case and you do want to continue the use of a 50mm lens on your RF then the only other thing that I can think of is to stick with it until you've found a way to identify and use the positive qualities that this focal length brings to the mix. If it were the only lens you had available to you I trust that you would find a way to make it work. It just might require more work or a different mindset (or both) than your other lenses.

From my perspective you've shared some really wonderful photos on this site since I've been a member. I would note that your images have a rather distinctive feel to them that I for one appreciate. What camera/lens combo you are using to capture those images makes no difference to me as long as you are able to continue to share your vision with the rest of the world. I would hate to see a piece of gear get in the way of that. Go with your gut and do what makes the inner photographer happy.
 
Didn’t want to duplicate your entire post, but thank you. You have articulated what I haven’t been able to put into words. I am having difficulties with 50mm, now it makes sense why.

A M3 to accompany my M5 is on my wish list not sure it will help but the GAS needs to be fuelled :)

retinax said:
I feel similarly.
Click to expand...
 
From when I got it to when I sold it, my Leica M-D had either the 35 or the 50 mm lens on it almost all the time. Other lenses constitute perhaps less than 10% of all the photos I made with that camera, and the remaining 90% are about a 50-50 split between those two lenses. Which one I'd choose (and stick with for months at a time) seems capricious ... It just seems that when I got used to one of the two lenses, I couldn't find a reason to switch to the other for quite a long while.

The same kind of thing seems to be going on with my CL now. I tend to have either a normal (35 or 43 mm) or a wide (10 or 28mm) on it almost all the time, and only switch from one to the other after a long stretch of use. But with this camera, because of its versatility for doing copy, tabletop, and macro work, I often have other lenses on to do those things as well.

I almost never carry two cameras at once (at least without considering the iPhone as a camera... :)).

"Diff'rent Strokes", etcetera. Doesn't matter much unless you're not getting what you want. Then you have to work at it and find out what does work better for you...

G
 
I really enjoy shooting with rangefinders, I like the way they feel and the simplicity of operation, the diminutive size. I own many, they usually have a 35mm or 50mm attached.

But when I examine my keeper rate of good images from an RF , it is very low compared to my shooting with mirrorless cameras or an SLR. Maybe it's because I started with SLRs long ago, or maybe it is because of the isolation of the subject matter when viewed at maximum aperture with shallow DOF. I'm not sure, but I certainly do much, much better with a mirrorless/SLR.

If you photograph better with a dSLR, why fight it? It's the image that matters, and no one will ever be able to tell what kind of camera you used.
 
Good practice: look at a scene with your eyes. Then look through the camera. Switch back and forth repeatedly, until you can frame the scene in your mind without looking through the camera. Try this again and again with different scenes. After a few minutes of this you can generally have a pretty good idea of what you're going to be looking at when you put the camera up to your eye. It'll make you a lot more comfortable with the 50mm lens.
 
I like using 50mm lenses with RF cameras. It is the natural choice as I find 35mm lenses wide.
 
I'm a 35mm shooter; it matches best how I view the world.
I so seldom use a 50mm lens now I often leave it at home.

Chris
 
raid said:
I like using 50mm lenses with RF cameras. It is the natural choice as I find 35mm lenses wide.
Click to expand...


Me too Raid. In fact at this moment I have a 75mm lens mounted which in my book is an even better focal length for the way I shoot and see the world. But like the OP of this thread my skills with 50mm and RF sucks. And with longer lenses like my 75mm it sucks noodles. I am thinking specifically of my ability (inability) to focus quickly and accurately.
 
For every person who likes a "nifty fifty" there is one who doesn't.

I think people like them because they're fast and cheap, and also high quality. It's a "nifty" combination.

For a standard lens for street photography and reportage, I prefer 35.

One of the famous National Geographic photographers from the 80s and 90s (Steve McCurry?) had his favorite combo:

  1. 2 bodies
  2. Fast 28 on one
  3. Fast 90 on the other
  4. Same film in each body (Kodachrome 64 or 200, IIRC)

The more I think about it, the more it makes sense:

  • Fast to switch between favorite focal lengths
  • No chance of getting debris in the body or damaging the rear element of the lens
  • Retains prime lens quality and speed
  • No camera bag needed, he stuffed his pockets with film
  • He might've had a flash, too, I can't remember.

He wanted tight people shots and environmental portraits, and that was his perfect set-up. I'm sure used other lenses when he had something specific in mind.

I like his approach over trying to make a 50 do more than it wants to.

To be successful with a 50, you have to shoot enough with it that you start seeing shots that would be good for 50, rather than try to make 50 fit everything. I went out yesterday to test my "new" Olympus OM-G. I brought my three primes: 28/3.5, 50/1.8 and 135/3.5. I shot 85% with the 135, 12% with the 28 and just shot or two with the 50, mostly out of guilt.

Side Note: I find myself being caught more often without a wide angle than without enough tele. I'd probably have a 35, something in the 85-100 range, then supplement on the bottom with a 20 or 24 mm. < Those are damned useful.
 
I think it's mostly to do with the environment you shoot in. Busy streets in a major city, markets, indoors in bars etc you will always need a 28 or 35 as you'll be right up in peoples faces.
Less busy cities, small towns etc and a 50 (or longer) makes far more sense as you'll be further away from your subjects.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom