The Wonderful 50mm Lenses

Nikon Bob said:
... Maybe the biggest thing against the 50mm is that it will do most things asked of it , just like the family sedan, but with no real panache. Then that is the way of most good versatile utilitarian items, sort of jack of all trades and master of none.
Click to expand...

For me the panache of the 50mm normal lens is its speed and performance in available light photography. When I started photography back in the late 1950s
fast normal lenses were hot. I was really excited when I got a new camera with a f/2.0 lens in 1960. I had been using an Argus C3 with a Cintar f/3.5 lens before that.
 
Appears that I may have ruffled a few feathers with the "Jack of all trades" comment. There is NO denying that the 50mm FL had, does and will continue to produce fine photos. It should recieve more respect than it usually gets just as the family sedan should for doing yeoman service. Lens choice , camera choice, digital or film choice are all personal and what is right for one may not be for others. There are also famous photographers who were known for using focal lengths other than the 50mm. It is actually a great situation because nowhere do you get more bang for your buck than in a used 50mm and that is not too hard to take.

Bob
 
I just wish that SLRs these days actually came with a nice 50mm (or 35mm) instead of the slower zooms. It seems a shame somehow.
 
Experiments can be fun and useful, and the "stick with one lens" is one I do from time to time, especially just after buying it!

I've been wondering if it's just GAS telling me I "need" a fast 28mm for the RF. So as an experiment I stuck my 28mm f/2 SMC on the Pentax SLR and shot a roll with it wide open or as wide as the light allowed. Just got the film back, and now I'll have fun poring over the results for justification! While I was at it I ran another roll with the 24mm f/2.8 Pentax lens AWAP (As Wide As Possible) too.

In decades of photography I've always tried not to get within one stop of wide open, and went for the lens's optiimum aperture. I now think that was misguided, narrow-minded.

One thing I noticed was difficulty in focusing the SLR. My eyes can't be that bad, and I have no trouble with an RF spot. I used to like the all-microprism center of the old Pentax screens, decrying the 80's? addition of the diagonal split image. I'd just wiggle the camera a bit to see if the prisms rippled, and if not the subject at that point was in focus. In this recent experience, my eye kept seeking out the split image looking for correct focus, but it was never as definitive as with an RF. Corrupted by RF cameras, or what? :)
 
I've always loved my Canon EF 50/1.4. It has stayed on my SLR most of the time with the 24, the 100macro and the 80-200 in the bag. It was not until I got interested in RF photography that I "discovered" they joy of 35mm (even though I've had focal lengths close to it on my compacts (contax tvs iii: 30-60, leica minilux zoom: 35-70, olympus µ: 35, leica cm: 40).

Anyway, I just think getting nice results with a fast 50 in avalaible/low light is easier than with most other focal lengths. Here are some examples of when I used it in low/available light:

http://wiechel.se/20041226/
http://wiechel.se/petsounds/

It will be nive to see how that Ultron 35/1.7 will service me, when I get it (still only have the CS75/2.5 for my R2)...
 
dkirchge said:
I just wish that SLRs these days actually came with a nice 50mm (or 35mm) instead of the slower zooms. It seems a shame somehow.
Click to expand...

Yep.
I just recently bought my first new SLR in Years. Ever since I was given my first camera (my dads od Minolta XD11) I'd used that system. First lens I had was a 50mm. I couldn't bellieve it when I went to get an Autofocus SLR that the Kit lens was always some terrible slow zoom. Thankfully the 50mm being out of favour makes it pretty cheap so I picked up a nice one for a song. I still think I could live just fine with only a 135 and a 50mm for any of my 35mm bodies.
 
I shot a year-long project last year with a 75mm on a Mamiya 6 so somewere between a 40-50mm equivalent in the 35mm format - roughly 1,200 frames over the full year. I got a pretty good feel for the lens even though I had been most fond of wider lenses before the project (loved my 35mm Summilux).

I think the best part of the 35/50 decision and the worst part of zooms is that extended shooting with the same lens body creates a level of familiarity which allows to the gear to 'disappear' and the photographer to come through creating an identifiable style. You start seeing the shots before you ever lift the camera.

Nothing against zooms, I've got a bunch of very fine pro-line zooms but I think you'd have to shoot much more than most people are able to get to same level of proficiency when swapping out zooms all the time.

T.
 
I have a half-baked theory that I should test out in a poll but I'm too lazy. I'm thinking that <maybe> more outgoing/aggressive/in-your-face (but not in a negative sense) kind of people would generally prefer a 35mm lens, while a more contemplative/stand-offish/introverted kind of person would generally prefer the 50mm viewpoint. This theory is supported in my case, how about all you guys (and gals) out there?
 
FrankS said:
I'm thinking that <maybe> more outgoing/aggressive/in-your-face (but not in a negative sense) kind of people would generally prefer a 35mm lens, while a more contemplative/stand-offish/introverted kind of person would generally prefer the 50mm viewpoint.
Click to expand...

Nah, I think you'd have to go out to 100mm not 50mm. I noticed that when using a wide lens, if you follow the general rule of thirds you are never pointing the camera at your subject which tends to make you less in-your-face.
 
Just for the mental exercise, I was trying to relate personality type to standard-lens choice (35/50). In-your-face-ness is also about proximity, not just direction.
 
I think I'm running counter to your premise, Frank! I tend to be a little on the shy/reserved side but I love lenses between 25 and 40mm.
 
That's okay Doug. I'm just interested in collecting data to support or refute this hypothesis.
 
I will go along with you Frank on this one, though when I am chasing my son around I normally have my 35 stuck to my camera. I don't think that counts though, I just need to keep close to him, you know, the parenting thing. Other than that, I tend to be more comfortable with my subject at the 50mm range.
 
I like 35mm as an all-purpose lens, but I'm fairly strongly introverted according to all the personality tests I've taken. Hope I didn't blow your hypothesis out the window, Frank :)
 
David Alan Harvey likes to be a participant, sitting at the same table with the people he's photographing. He uses mostly 35mm, sometimes 28mm.

Henri Cartier-Bresson used mostly 50mm, I believe. (Please, someone correct me if I'm mistaken.) DAH describes HCB as a "stand-back, fly-on-the-wall photographer."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom