The Wonderful 50mm Lenses

there is an old arabic saying "the tool does the job, the hand gets the credit". I think lenses are like hammers. There are tack hammers, framing hammers, sledge hammers you have a lot of other types as I'm sure we all know. The point is all these lenses do certain things very well , 35 gives a lot of frame, the 50 less. So what do you want when you're shooting what is the point of view, what is the story. Carry both of them. I know you can work with only one but sometimes great shots are done with 35mm and sometimes 50mm.

You'll know.

have a good weekend everyone

Jan
 
I think what aizan means is that with 50mm, you are required to frame the image a certain way, making concious choices of what to leave in or out of the scene.

With 35mm, I find it very much to be point in a direction and shoot. This might also be due to the fact that with my viewfinder, 35 is the widest i can go.
 
aizan said:
i think 50mm lends itself to more complex compositions, while 35mm is best for keeping it simple.
Click to expand...


I am thinking about this one too. If by complex you are saying that you have to choose your subject and be careful to include it in your photograph so that your audience sees it then I guess this is true. Though, the battle with the 35 for me is excluding what I don't want in the image, which is also complex.
 
it's just a sense i get from looking at photographers who work in similar veins and are known to have used a certain focal length in some of their work. daido moriyama, luc delahaye, ray billingham (35mm), compared to lee friedlander, david douglas duncan, and henri cartier-bresson (50mm). roughly speaking, cuz nobody uses only one focal length. it might just be the photographer's sense of composition, but 50mm photos tend to look more graphic, abstract. maybe it has something to do with cropping. a cropped object looks more abstract than seeing the whole thing. you typically have to back up to get enough in the 50's frame, just don't fall off the cliff and all that. so you develop a taste for cropping. i guess that's why people are always saying, "get closer when you use wide angles", because a whole object is more obvious and isolated than part of it. art teachers are always telling you to fill up the page, trim off the padding, right? the perspective will be different, though. if the subject is the same size in the foreground, objects in the background will be smaller with a 35mm. maybe that reduces it's presence or something, more easily giving priority to the foreground. on the other hand, a 50mm won't enclose as many objects in the background, which can sometimes make it simpler. no hard and fast rules, i guess.
 
I'm with you now, Axian. By "complex" you meant: strong graphic design, for the 50mm lens. I was equating complex to lots of image elements which is more likely with a 35mm lens and its larger angle of view. I find an image with strong graphic design peaceful, and the typical 35 and wider shots, to frequently be chaotic.
 
i'm not sure i yet understand or maybe i just dissagree.

with a 50, i tend to shoot tighter, almost like a short telephoto lens.
with a 35, i'm moore loose and will crop later on after the shot has been taken.

i'm trying to follow capa's words and move in closer when i shoot with any lens but especially, these days i'm trying to get closeer with the 35.

i need coffee. i'll be back.

joe

maybe it's the word 'complex' that's throwing me.
 
Joe that was my point about the 50mm for me. If I want to shoot tighter I will use a short 90mm telephoto. I generally use the 35mm for enviromental type shots, meaning , to me anyway, the subject in it's enviroment or the enviroment is the subject. OTH maybe I need to do two things a) get closer and b) get some more coffee . I think you can get a strong graphic design with any type of lens

Bob
 
Bob, I agree that you can acheive a strong graphic design with any lens. To me, strong graphic design means the exclusion of any image elements that distract from, and do not add to, the desired image. With wider lenses and their greater angle of view, this usually becomes more of a challenge in a typical outdoor picture taking situation. (In a studio where everything can be controlled, this is not so much an issue.) :)
 
I love them both :) It's just a question of whether I walk forward a few steps to get the framing I want or backward a couple. At this point, I would be comfortable with either one as a primary lens, although on a rangefinder I would choose 35mm and on an SLR I would choose 50mm.
 
I see what Frank is trying to say. He kind of threw me when using the phrase "graphic design".

My favorite shooting is with medium format, particularly 6x9 using a 105mm focal length. 6x9 provides a normal field of few, but has a tighter depth of field than let's say the 50mm focal length with 35mm film. The tighter depth of field is useful in drawing the veiwer's eye to the central part of the subject. Yes, there are still other elements in the frame, but they aren't what immediately catches the eye.

I wish I could post an example, but nfortunately I do not particularly enjoy scanning 6x9. It's very time consuming and about as exciting as watching paint dry. This is one reason why I still prefer to make a wet print with an optical enlarger.

So here is a scan of a print taken with my 6x6 Super Isolette, or my case Ansco Super Speedex.
 
Frank

I will have to agree with you to a point but if that point were continued on then a 1000mm lens would be even better for creating a strong graphic design because it isolates even more. It is probably more a combination things that allow a strong graphic image rather than solely a particular focal length. Use what you like to get the effect you want.

Bob
 
Now with regards to use of the 35mm focal length with 35mm film, it does provide some advantages. First, it's easier for me to layer a bit in a group shot or a profile that captures two subjects side by side. This is where the extra depth of field is appreciated. Second, I find that I can wiggle a slower shutter speed, if need be.

That said, I do like to fill the frame with the subject and that requires getting even closer for that tight shot, which tends to make some people self-conscious.

(Post Script): Objects closest to the lens to appear larger than they really are with a wide focal length. Some folks object to big ears or big noses. Both of mine are pretty large already.
 
Last edited:
For me it's mostly a matter of perspective. By perspective, I mean visual perspective, as in field of view....
In my early photo days, I was a big fan of wides - there was an influential group of young photographers in the early Eighties, who were mostly using wides (24-28mm, I guess) in their mostly social/journalistic photography. I liked that kind of photography a lot, and my first real camera kit included 50mm and 28mm lenses.
Later on, I went to Nikon and zooms :(, and basically had no feeling for any kind of vision....

I wanted to do a therapy of a kind, a photo project - you know, the one everyone tells you to do in order to cure the "zoom blues" - shoot only with 50mm lens for at least a month! But, I never got around to it.

It was only when I went into rangefinders and their 50mm lenses that I really understood and got a "feel" for 50mm lenses, which I still prefer. I mean, now I have a small kit for my RF cameras (35, 50, 90, 135), but 50mm lens is still the one most likely to be on any camera.

As some previous posters said, with 35mm you need to get closer. OK, but the photo will not be the same as the one taken with 50mm with the same framing! What is different is the perspective.

You know how they say that if you want a pleasing portrait, you should use focal length above 50mm - preferably 85-90mm or even longer - otherwise you'll have distorted faces, prominent noses, etc. - not very pleasing for the subject, unless you're after caricatural portraits.

Since most of my photos include people, I prefer 50mm length. I've tried 90mm, but it's not the same...

It's all subjective... and mostly depends on the subject. When I'm traveling, and want to take shots of the places I've seen, I'll most definitely take my Nikkor 24mm lens with me. Nothing beats 24mm for nice scenics (at least for me). Combine that with a polarizer, and you can get some really stunning shots!

But, if it's general or "street" photography, it will probably be 50mm. I like its field of view, and perhaps it's also because I like HCB's work :)

I've also used 35mm, but for more "environmental" shots, or when I want more "dynamics" or stronger perspective in the photo.
35mm lens can be a good tool, but you have to master it - one person here who immediately comes to mind is Peter - I've always admired his shots with 35mm lenses. I've never been able to come to grips with my 35mm as much as I did with my 50mm lens.

Another thing is the "atmosphere" a lens creates. Well, it's mostly a matter of having the right light, but also of the lens "signature".

After shooting with my RF cameras and various lenses, I now understand those guys who have several lenses of the same focal length. I have two 50mm lenses which I use regularly - a Summicron and a Summitar. There are also Jupiters in various incarnations (8 on Zorki, 8M on Kiev), and also a Helios. Since I usually shoot wide open, I can usually tell a Summicron or Summitar from a Jupiter 8M... Each has its own "signature" in the way it renders OOF areas, etc...

Some lenses produce that "old-time" look, some are surgically sharp, some vignette, some flare quite a bit. etc..... You get my point... Since I like that "old" look, I tend to shoot with older lenses - or at least with lenses manufactured under old formulas....
Most of my Nikon shots with modern glass leave me emotionally indifferent.
Nice colors, sharp, etc... - but no "character".... So, Nikon SLR gets used either for scenics while travelling (24mm) or for telephoto shots (70-300 zoom :().

Finally, as for cropping, I'm trying to avoid it as much as I can. I usually scan/print full frame, or the closest to full frame I can get. So, a crop from 35mm shot for me is not the same as full frame 50mm shot. I feel it would be "cheating"...

Naturally, take all of the above with a grain of salt. If all you have at hand is one camera and one lens, and you stumble upon a great shot, you shoot with what you have!

Sorry for the long post.... :) You can tell the weather is lousy and cold, otherwise I'd be out shooting and posting to the gallery :D

Denis
 
Last edited:
But Bob, there is a practicality issue. For example and I'm thinking hand-held here, what shutter speeds will you be shooting a long focal length lens? Also, as you stand further from the subject, the perspective of the foreground to the background changes.
 
Denis, you beat me to the punch line. Right now, I need to turn off the computer and go outside for a better perspective.
 
Andrew

Yep, outside shoveling snow is where I am heading for a new perspective and I think I understand what Dennis means about the weather.

Bob
 
has anybody ever put a 35mm lens on their bessa, but shot using the 50mm framelines, or vice versa? that might be interesting!
 
Nikon Bob said:
. Then that is the way of most good versatile utilitarian items, sort of jack of all trades and master of none.

Bob
Click to expand...
Funny how different the personal point of view can be. I'd taken exactly these words for the 35mm. Too wide to be selective enufff but not wide enuff if you can't step back and need some more angle..
I'd accept it only if I can take only one single lens with me, but as the jack you mentioned above.

bertram
 
FrankS said:
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?
Click to expand...

If you are talking about people/street shooting you are absolutely right IMO.
here IS a relation of shooting distance and character indeed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom