mike goldberg
The Peaceful Pacific
Hi all,
Over many months, I've learned to "see" again via the 50mm lens. In the SLR work I did in the '90's and earlier, the 50 was considered "boring." Often, going out with one Nikon, the 35/2 and 105/2.5 went with me and that was it.
Of course, the RF camera is a different kind of tool, ballgame, way of life... or whatever you want to call it. So, I'm wondering if others would like to share stories, anecdotes, info, and of course images in a kind of 50 sub-forum, right here? See photo:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=72343&ppuser=5480
Ciao, Mike
Over many months, I've learned to "see" again via the 50mm lens. In the SLR work I did in the '90's and earlier, the 50 was considered "boring." Often, going out with one Nikon, the 35/2 and 105/2.5 went with me and that was it.
Of course, the RF camera is a different kind of tool, ballgame, way of life... or whatever you want to call it. So, I'm wondering if others would like to share stories, anecdotes, info, and of course images in a kind of 50 sub-forum, right here? See photo:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=72343&ppuser=5480
Ciao, Mike
jmi
Established
Welcome back to the world of the 50mm Mike! I started off here (well, approximately - Yashica MG-1 which has a 45/2.8 was my first "real" camera) and have not left it yet save for brief excursions 
My theory is that 50 was considered boring back then because it came with every SLR - by the same token 35 or 38 is now arguably the boring focal length instead, since it's the wide end of all the P&S cameras. Given that a lot of people don't know how to use their zoom, there must be more photographs taken at 35/38 than any other length these days.
It's interesting you mention the SLR - I find 50 "feels longer" on an RF than it does on an SLR. Not really sure why, but it may be related to being able to see outside the frame when composing. As such I use it a bit differently on the RF to how I used to on SLR.
I did try 35 and 85 in my case for a time, but just couldn't get on with it - always wanted the field-of-view in the middle, or at any rate, it necessitated switching lenses almost continuously!
Sometimes I wonder why I bother with other focal lengths - chances are if I leave the door with the 50 on the camera and something else in my pocket, it'll still be on there when I get back at the end of the day... also nearly all of my own photographs that I actually like were done with the 50! (or 80 on the Hasselblad)
Long live 50mm!
My theory is that 50 was considered boring back then because it came with every SLR - by the same token 35 or 38 is now arguably the boring focal length instead, since it's the wide end of all the P&S cameras. Given that a lot of people don't know how to use their zoom, there must be more photographs taken at 35/38 than any other length these days.
It's interesting you mention the SLR - I find 50 "feels longer" on an RF than it does on an SLR. Not really sure why, but it may be related to being able to see outside the frame when composing. As such I use it a bit differently on the RF to how I used to on SLR.
I did try 35 and 85 in my case for a time, but just couldn't get on with it - always wanted the field-of-view in the middle, or at any rate, it necessitated switching lenses almost continuously!
Sometimes I wonder why I bother with other focal lengths - chances are if I leave the door with the 50 on the camera and something else in my pocket, it'll still be on there when I get back at the end of the day... also nearly all of my own photographs that I actually like were done with the 50! (or 80 on the Hasselblad)
Long live 50mm!
FrankS
Registered User
MikeG, you know that there are many fans of the 50s here on RFF.
Rafael
Mandlerian
I'm one of them!
pvdhaar
Peter
Now that's funny; I've the same experience. The 50mm on the SLR always felt a bit short. I was always trying to get in closer to fill the frame for a portrait, and that of course always spoils the perspective.. With an RF, I use the 50mm more environmental, stepping back a bit to tell the whole story as it were. And that stepping back immediately gives a more flattering perspective..jmi said:
Nowadays if I do take out the dSLR, I use a 35-70 almost exclusively at the long end.. But still I prefer the RF with a 50..
I couldn't agree more!jmi said:
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Yep ... 'nother 50 fan here!
I have eleven of the little devils!
I have eleven of the little devils!
jbf
||||||
Quite a big 50 fan here myself... however quite often i do feel like i need a wider lens (28 say?)
but yeah i love the 50.
but yeah i love the 50.
mr_phillip
Well-known
My walk-around kit tends to include 35mm, 50mm and 90mm – but when limited to one it's always the 50mm. I've had people tell me in the past that 50mm is a 'boring' length, but hell, how many of the greatest images of the 20th century were taken through 50mm optics?
alexz
Well-known
Once converting to RF I figured 50mm to be my piece of cake as well, in particular when coupled to M3. Albeit recently tend to shoot 35mm on my M6 (M3 was at Youxin for minor adjustment after CLA), still feel 50mm to be more versitle overall...
Recalling my SLR days, I used to have 28-70/2.8L on my EOS-3 nearly 90% of time shooting mostly somethere in the middle of range and a bit longer, so still 50mm or thereabouts used to be very useful then also...
Recalling my SLR days, I used to have 28-70/2.8L on my EOS-3 nearly 90% of time shooting mostly somethere in the middle of range and a bit longer, so still 50mm or thereabouts used to be very useful then also...
Spyderman
Well-known
Count me too.
I have 50/1.5, 50/2, 50/2.8, 50/3.5 (all FSU LTM), so now I don't have only the problem to choose which focal length to take with me, but also the dilemma which 50 to take with me
I have 50/1.5, 50/2, 50/2.8, 50/3.5 (all FSU LTM), so now I don't have only the problem to choose which focal length to take with me, but also the dilemma which 50 to take with me
Igor.Burshteyn
Well-known
let's see...
I 50mm for every camera mount I have, in om mount I have 4 different 50mm: 50mm f1.8, 50mm f1.4, 50mm f3.5 macro, 50mm f2 macro.
Conclusion? I lack 50mm f1.2...
Yes, I do like 50mm focal length.
I 50mm for every camera mount I have, in om mount I have 4 different 50mm: 50mm f1.8, 50mm f1.4, 50mm f3.5 macro, 50mm f2 macro.
Conclusion? I lack 50mm f1.2...
Yes, I do like 50mm focal length.
peterm1
Veteran
I have just been trying out a late Nikon manual focus 50mm f1.4 on my Panasonic L1 via an adapter. Boy that lens sure does produce sweet images and wide open its bokeh is smooo.....ooooth!
Last edited:
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
I can't help but think that people who regard the 50mm focal length as "boring" seem to think that their own boring photos might be made "interesting" if they used some other focal length. If the only interesting things in my photos were the technical characteristics of my chosen focal length and film size then I doubt I'd ever take a photo at all.
One of the wonders of the 50 (for 35mm film) is that there are no tricks to be played in the (IMO, way too common) sense of "look at me, I have a wide_angle|telephto lens". A good photo taken with a 50 (or its equivalent for other film/sensor sizes) has to stand on its own merits, rather than "wow, aren't games with perspective such fun!" (or so cliched?)
...Mike
One of the wonders of the 50 (for 35mm film) is that there are no tricks to be played in the (IMO, way too common) sense of "look at me, I have a wide_angle|telephto lens". A good photo taken with a 50 (or its equivalent for other film/sensor sizes) has to stand on its own merits, rather than "wow, aren't games with perspective such fun!" (or so cliched?)
...Mike
photobizzz
Speak of the Devil
I have gained a new respect for the 50mm focal length since I started with RF's and although I only have 2, a Summarit and a Nokton, I know I will probably get one or two more in the future for their different signatures.
wilt
Well-known
Great focal length! Been using Summicron, Jupiter 8, Jupiter 3, F Zuiko/1.8 for most of my pictures.
Dogman
Veteran
I'm another 50-fan. When I started shooting many years ago, all 35mm cameras usually came with a "normal" lens in the 50mm range. Being a contrary type, I rebelled and started using 24mm, 35mm and 85mm lenses on my Nikon F to the exclusion of the 50/1.4 that came with the camera. When I bought my Leica M6, the only lens I had available for several months was the Summicron 50mm so I was forced to use the 50mm focal length for all my shooting with that camera. Even as I added focal lengths for the Leica, I still found myself using the 50mm the most. I currently have 15 50mm lenses in the house for four different brands of 35mm cameras.
We sometimes are seduced by lens effects. The wide angle's expansion of space and the telephoto's flattening of perspective are valid tools under the right circumstances but they cause visual fatigue when you see and use these effects day after day.
We sometimes are seduced by lens effects. The wide angle's expansion of space and the telephoto's flattening of perspective are valid tools under the right circumstances but they cause visual fatigue when you see and use these effects day after day.
P
polaski
Guest
No matter what I may say, the 50mm lens is the one most typically on my camera.
palec
Well-known
Dogman said:
That's a collection!
I'm 50mm fan, too. I have 5 of them, but one will have to go.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Igor: Do you realize that in addition to the Zuiko 50/1.2, you also are lacking:Igor.Burshteyn said:
55/1.2 and, depending on which 50/1.8 you have...
F.Zuiko 50/1.8 (silvernose)
F.Zuiko 50/1.8 (black)
50/1.8 MC
50/1.4 early version
50/1.4 late (>600xxx)
I found the 50 to be "pedestrian" on the SLR ... not exactly boring, but a bit uninspiring. Perhaps that stemmed from my first 35mm camera, the Konica C35V, which had a (tremendous) 38/2.8 and formed my vision a bit. So the 50 seemed a bit long and constricting when I got the OM and F.Zuiko/1.8 silvernose. When I acquired a 35/2.8 for the OM, I got back to the way I saw. Now the 42/1.7 on the SP gives me what I like, sort of a happy medium. BUT ...
Over the last several months, I have shot a lot with the 50/1.4, partly to exploit the more limited DOF, partly for its low light capabilities. This week I have been shooting a lot with the 50/1.8 (miJ) --- nearly as fast as the 1.4, but more compact. In tight quarters it allows me to isolate little kids (great niece/nephews), etc.
So after a long acquaintance, I am starting to fall in love with the 50, whether on SLR or RF. Which reminds me I should get out my Tower 51 again, with its super-sharp Steinheil Cassar 50/2.8.
Mike: The portrait is lovely! Now I'm jacked up to try the new T-Max 2 in HC-110 ... aaargh, too many developer choices!
Last edited:
literiter
Well-known
Back about 1960 or so I bought a fixed lens, 35mm job, called a "Supra". I think it may have had a 45 or 50 mm lens. Life was a little simpler then, no reaching for the zoom collar, no digging around in the bag for another lens.
Now, I seldom travel anywhere without my whole kit.
There must be a special Heaven for those few of us who just have one camera, one lens, one film and Cartier Bresson's motivation.
Now, I seldom travel anywhere without my whole kit.
There must be a special Heaven for those few of us who just have one camera, one lens, one film and Cartier Bresson's motivation.