The 50mm lens.

[gavinlg]

I treat a 35mm lens as a normal, 50mm lens as a short tele, and a 28mm as a wide-normal. I think I see best in 28mm focal length, but I can use 50mm quite well too.

I use an 85mm every now and then, and in some situations it's a fantastic length. I never use anything over 85mm

 

[amateriat]

I treat a 35mm lens as a normal, 50mm lens as a short tele, and a 28mm as a wide-normal. I think I see best in 28mm focal length, but I can use 50mm quite well too.

I use an 85mm every now and then, and in some situations it's a fantastic length. I never use anything over 85mm

This comes about as close to my visual gestalt as any description here. My "normal" focal length seems to come in between 28 and 35mm, and has been that way even before moving from SLRs to RFs. (It might also explain why I love my relatively-new-to-me Contax Tvs: its zoom runs from 28mm to 56mm, with virtually no distortion at either extreme.)

My Hexar system has 28, 50 and 90 lenses, with the frequency of use pretty much in that order. As seldom as I use the 90, however, I'll never get rid of it: on those occasions when I do use it, nothing else will do.

Edit: Since getting hold of a Leica M2 and early 35 f/2 Summicron toward the middle of last year–roughly the same time as the Contax–I'm re-assessing the 35mm focal length, as I haven't used a 35 in a long time:

Mobile Devices, Brooklyn, NY, June 2009

(Technical: Leica M2, 1st-gen 35mm f/2 Summicron. Kodak BW400CN)

All of this really comes back to how you see, not the way I see or someone else sees. This is where time, experience and contemplation come in. If a particular focal length "speaks" to you, it won't mean diddly what speaks to me. Which is as it should be.

But a 50 can be mighty good.


- Barrett

 

[Roger Hicks]

Why force yourself?

A 50 isn't 'standard' anyway, in terms of the classic equal to the negative diagonal'. That would be 43mm. For decades, 35mm has been my 'standard'.

Conversely I've never seen the appeal of 28. I'd much rather have a 21, or possibly a 15. Frances doesn't like 21s or the 15 but prefers an 18. And so forth.

You may change. Really fast 50s (f/1.5 or faster) have their own charm, which I appreciate more as I get older. For that matter, in my 20s, I really liked the 58/1.4 Nikkor and I rather like the 58/2 on my Exakta.

But basically, why worry?

Cheers,

R.

 

[aeolist]

I agree with Bingley. I find the 50mm is responsible for the "clinical look" often associated with HCB and probably others. I find myself using the 28 all the time, it probably is as wide as one can go without deviation from a "natural" perspective

 

[Damaso]

I would suggest just use it for about a week. In reality it may not be the lens for you (right now). For years I used the 24 as my main lens, then started using the 35 and now use the 50 about 80% of the time.

 

[monochromejrnl]

I read this somewhere before and it's pretty accurate for me:

50 emphasizes composition
28/35 emphasizes content

I use a 50 for (80%) of my images, 35 for 15% and 28 (and occassionally an 85 on SLR) for the remaining 5%.

 

[aeolist]

I would suggest just use it for about a week. In reality it may not be the lens for you (right now). For years I used the 24 as my main lens, then started using the 35 and now use the 50 about 80% of the time.

as I said, the 50mm creates a clinical image on anything it touches.


i'm sure you were dressed in civilian clothing for that shot, and then BAM

 

[clachnacuddin]

The 50mm is my second favourite focal length, 28mm is No.1 for me as I love the distortion....and I can always photoshop it out if I change my mind!

 

[Jamie Pillers]

50 and 25 duo

50 and 25 duo

I find that I enjoy carrying 50mm and 25mm lenses when I go out for a walk on the streets. The CV 25 Snapshot Skopar lens is sharp, great with color film, and is great as a zone-focusing lens. Here are some pics from this little lens:

 

[Frontman]

I spent a large part of yesterday at a new year celebration with my OM-1 and 85mm Zuiko ... looking at the scans today reminds me of what a great focal length 85mm can be in some situations.

I have a similar setup (OM and 90/2), and I've found this to be an excellent kit. It allows "personal" shots at a more polite distance.

As for rangefinders, I have 2 Leicas with 3 different 50mm lenses, and have found them to be sufficient. Then I picked up a Yashica CC rangefinder with a 35/1.8 lens, and fell in love with it. A 35 is on the wish-list for my Leicas.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

The only way to learn to use it is to use it. Be disciplined. Bolt the lens to your camera for a month and commit to getting good results out of it. From your OP it seems that your "natural" vision is on the wide end of things. Well, a 50 can be wide (take three steps back) or its images can be stitched for a wide pano. Alternatively it can be, as Bill says, more intimate than your 28 -- you can isolate elements more effectively. Personally, my own sense of vision has gotten wider as time has progressed. I think that you only really expand your capabilities by testing your limits and getting out of your comfort zone. Sometimes this has a "Ulysses at the mast" quality -- you bind yourself to keep from making certain choices. I happen to love 50's and have more of them than any other lens. good luck.

Ben Marks

 

[oftheherd]

When I started using my father's Welta Welti, it had a 50mm lens. I used it and other cameras with "normal" lenses for many years, including my first SLR, a Yashica TL Super with a 50mm f/1.7. I got used to it.

Later I got the 135mm/28mm combination and realized if it wasn't going to be 50mm, then I preferred wider most of the time. I have used a lot of different focal length lenses, including zooms. I still find it intrigueing to walk around to change composition over using zooms or different FL primes. As I said, I just got used to it.

I understand it doesn't work for everyone.

 

[Nikkor AIS]

Some good points have been made in this thread so far. I really like the comment about the 50 mm being more about composition and the 28/35 being more about content. Over the years I have found that while the 50 mm is touted as the normal lens, it's not the easiest lens to use well. Personally, I'm ecstatic when I manage to create a photograph with the 50 mm which for lack of a better term doesn't suck. Again, I proclaim that the 50 mm is not an easy lens to use but that's part of the challenge and the mystique of the 50 mm. I reject the notion that one should force oneself to use it. Rather, when the perfect moment reveals itself for the 50 mm to be utilized, then the photographer lets it happen. More and more I've discovered since using the Leica M system that the perfect lens is the mind's eye. And in many cases in the 24-36 format, the 50 mm is that eye. For me it's about keeping a few steps back from the way I approach the subject with a 35-mm lens. It's as though I'm more detatched and removed.

This shot was taken Boxing Day while I was waiting for my daughter in a clothing store (Garage). Taken with the Leica M3 and 50 mm 1.0 Noctilux at 1/30 second at F 1.0 EKtar 100. Developed and scanned at Superstore. Hope you guys like this picture. Special thanks to Kat for helping me post this image.



gregory

 

[Tim Gray]

28 for everything but portraits, and the 50 for the rest makes very much sense to me.

Pretty much what I do. And depending on the portrait, I use the 28 anyway.

But bmattock's advice is spot on about the 50. Just use it. Use it for a month/3 months/year without using anything else. Force yourself to use it. You might start seeing things that you used to not see.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Pretty much what I do. And depending on the portrait, I use the 28 anyway.

But bmattock's advice is spot on about the 50. Just use it. Use it for a month/3 months/year without using anything else. Force yourself to use it. You might start seeing things that you used to not see.

Dear Tim,

But this is true of ANY lens. Why not 'force yourself' to use a 135 or a 15? Because to do so for (say) 3 months would clearly be eccentric to the point of foolishness. A 50mm lens has no special inherent magic.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

Roger: I think your point, while true, overstates things. For what I do, a 50 ismore versatile (and therefore more magic) than either a 135 or a 15.

Moreover, if someone had asked the question, "what's all the fuss about these 15mm lenses?" I would have given them similar advice: bolt one to the front of your camera (preferably over the hole where the light enters), live with it for a while, and discover how to use it. I think that there is a value to forcing yourself outside your creative comfort zone every once in a while. At least, I have always found it so.

Ben

Dear Tim,

But this is true of ANY lens. Why not 'force yourself' to use a 135 or a 15? Because to do so for (say) 3 months would clearly be eccentric to the point of foolishness. A 50mm lens has no special inherent magic.

Cheers,

R.

 

[degruyl]

While I do not see much difference between 35-75mm, I can honestly say that 15-25 and 90+ are different from the "normal" range. They exhibit more distortion (for wides) in either perspective distortion or fisheye. For longer lenses, you get flattening, but it is less apparent.

Other than that, you are correct that there is nothing magical about 50.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger: I think your point, while true, overstates things. For what I do, a 50 ismore versatile (and therefore more magic) than either a 135 or a 15.

Moreover, if someone had asked the question, "what's all the fuss about these 15mm lenses?" I would have given them similar advice: bolt one to the front of your camera (preferably over the hole where the light enters), live with it for a while, and discover how to use it. I think that there is a value to forcing yourself outside your creative comfort zone every once in a while. At least, I have always found it so.

Ben

Dear Ben,

You are of course absolutely right. It's just that advising anyone to live with any lens until they are heartily sick of it -- or indeed to persist with the damn' thing after[/I they are heartily sick of it -- is curious.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Tim Gray]

Dear Tim,

But this is true of ANY lens. Why not 'force yourself' to use a 135 or a 15? Because to do so for (say) 3 months would clearly be eccentric to the point of foolishness. A 50mm lens has no special inherent magic.

Cheers,

R.

Indeed. It can be an instructional thing to do with any lens. However, the poster asked about the 50, so I responded about that 😀

Also, I said 1/3/12 months. 1 month for some of us isn't actually all that much shooting - a couple days worth of actual picture taking?

Also, I don't think you have to live with it until you are sick of it, but live with it until you learn something about it. And that thing might be that you hate the focal length 🙂 It could also be that you tended to ignore certain kinds of shots because you didn't quite grok the focal length yet, and now that you've forced yourself to use the lens for a bit, you see new things.

 

[aizan]

the thing i don't get is how using a 50mm can be hard. it's the easiest lens out there. it helps you make great pictures, even. what i have to force myself to use is 35mm!