Who shoots mainly with a 50 or a 35?

Sonnar Brian said:
I quit a Flickr 50mm group as anything but "50mm" was rejected. Someone posted a picture with a Helios-103, and was rejected as it was 52mm.
Some new Admin had taken over and was clueless that 50mm lenses are typically 51.6mm, 52mm, 52.5mm, etc. Probably best to specify a range.

The Pop Photo test of 32 "normal" lenses done in 1976 listed actual focal length. None of them were 50mm.
Click to expand...
Yea, membership should’ve been based on the manufacturer’s nominal focal length rating as indicated by the lens markings, not the individual sample lens focal length. Otherwise you could argue that focusing any closer than infinity disqualifies the picture from the Flickr group!
 
JoeV said:
It makes more sense to me to use the horizontal angle of view when comparing various lens angles of view, rather than the format’s diagonal, because when I look at a scene I’m aware of the horizontal angle of the scene as an artifact of my vision, independent of the format aspect ratio. Also, the horizontal angle is format-agnostic, meaning it’s easier to compare focal lengths between various formats in terms of their angles of view (e.g. a 25mm lens on a micro4/3 camera at a 4:3 aspect ratio versus a 50mm lens on “full-frame” at a 3:2 aspect ratio), otherwise, you’d have to account for the fact that their “diagonal” angles of view are at differing diagonal ”tilt angles” from each other, adding another confusing variable into the mix.
Click to expand...

Indeed - I've often wondered why some photographic metrics assume that we walk around with our head tilted to one side.

Quite painful in micro four thirds LOL.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A fast normal lens has been the most versatile and useful lens in my camera kits since the beginning of my involvement with photography. That can be either a 35/1.4 or a 50/2 on my Leica M cameras, depending on my mood. On my Hasselblad 907x, it's a 65/2.8; on my Hasselblad 500CM, it's an 80/2.8. On my Olympus E-M1, it's a 25/1.4.

I bet that I'd have an almost infinite variety of photo opportunities even if I just had a fast normal lens.

G
 
p.giannakis said:
That's exactly the same with me.
Most of the times I shoot 50mm lenses, I just know what distance to leave between myself and others.

View attachment 4826959

More recently I started using the 35mm more, I do this to include one more element in the picture or show the town architecture.
View attachment 4826960

I sometimes use a 28mm but this is only for busy city shots when I can get close to people.

View attachment 4826962

I have somewhere a 24mm but I rarely use it. I also got with the idea of a 21mm but I know these are difficult lenses to work with.

Good luck with the the site @MP Guy . I will be visiting to check for updates 👍
Click to expand...
Beautiful vertical 35mm image Pan. I default to the 35mm as my normal. My eye just doesn't see things w the 50mm...I always feel I have to back up to get context. I used 24mm when I shot w SLRs, but I love the 21mm on my M camera....especially in EuropeIMG_1209 2.JPGIMG_0897 2.JPG
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Deardorff38 said:
but I love the 21mm on my M camera....especially in Europe
Click to expand...
If you have been used to shooting a 21mm then you know what to do and the results are amazing. I find that with the 24mm I am always a little bit too far , the main subject is too small on the picture. I can only assume that with the 21mm it will be only worse.
 
FWIW, I used an M2 with a 35mm Summicron as my only lens from the mid 1980's until about 2001. At that time I purchased two M4-P bodies, a 50mm Summicron and a 28mm Elmarit. I used the 28 and the 35 for a good 80% of the images I made---using the 50mm for the remaining 20%.

During this time, I worked almost exclusively in urban areas.

I moved (retired) to SW Florida in 2018. The kinds of things I photograph here are at a greater distance and favor a different kind of framing--hence, I find myself using the 50mm and the 35mm daily. I only use the 28mm in rare instances; that said, however, I wouldn't consider selling any of these lenses. I think of these lenses and different kinds of paintbrushes.
 
My home focal range is 35-50mm and equivalents. My 6x6 Autocord has a 75mm, my 645 GA645 has a 60mm lens, I have a 75mm and 105mm for my Bronica ETRS, my Minolta SLR I mostly use a 50mm and 55mm, my Pentax SLR I mostly used a 50mm, my Fuji X-Pro3 and X-Pro1 I mostly use 23mm and 35mm, my Canonet G-III QL17 has a 40mm, my Olympus 35RC has a 42mm and my Canon AF35M has a 38mm.

I sometimes shoot with something wider or something longer, but I can usually bag something good with a 35, 40 or 50. I like 50 the most. If I'm going somewhere new and I don't know what to expect, that's what I take. If I'm going somewhere I've never been and I suspect I'll be in busy streets or a crowd, I'll take a 35.
 
If...."I suspect I'll be in busy streets or a crowd, I'll take a 35." Judge makes a very good point. Pan, most of your E European photos are pretty spare...no crowds...a nice distance for a 50mm image. Last september my photographer friend Alberto & I had just come out of the HCB Foundation Museum in Paris and were walking along the busy Rue Des Archives, looking for a café. Alberto remarked that the Paris streets are no doubt much more crowded than when Cartier Bresson and Willy Ronis walked them.
 
I like the idea of the 50 - 58mm "normal" lens, but I don't tend to use it (though I do like the 75 - 80mm normal for 6 x 6).

For travel and residence abroad, I always had a fixed-lens RF with a focal length in the area of 40mm. This I really liked, finding 35mm too wide and 50mm too restricting.

Even so, when shooting film SLRs, my normal has been 85mm, complemented by a 28mm wide. I probably shot 90% of my 35mm film in SLRs with these two lenses.

- Murray
 
Deardorff38 said:
If...."I suspect I'll be in busy streets or a crowd, I'll take a 35." Judge makes a very good point. Pan, most of your E European photos are pretty spare...no crowds...a nice distance for a 50mm image. Last september my photographer friend Alberto & I had just come out of the HCB Foundation Museum in Paris and were walking along the busy Rue Des Archives, looking for a café. Alberto remarked that the Paris streets are no doubt much more crowded than when Cartier Bresson and Willy Ronis walked them.
Click to expand...
Yes that is true, I agree.
I also try to take pics early in the morning when streets are not busy using the 50mm. That is why I carry two cameras (see pic). With a 35mm I will have to take 2-3 steps forward towards the subject. Sometimes it can feel a bit intimidating in an empty street.
IMG_20230920_092531_(900_x_633_pixel).jpg
 
Earlier on in this thread, I made a somewhat flippant remark about what normal meant, but all in all, it's reassuring to see that more people are struggling with the choice between 35 and 50mm. Having shot for a while with the 50 exclusively on an M4, and feeling the field of view a bit restraining, I got a 35 a short while back. And despite the 35 not being an ultra-wide, its difference with the 50 is remarkable and requires adjustment in how to approach a subject.

Actually strange, considering I've no qualms going 24mm or even 20mm on digital, but there it's more shooting from the hip.

Maybe it's because of the differences in how much you can see outside the frame lines in the viewfinder.
 
When it comes to focusing with a rangefinder, specifically the patch and viewing subjects outside of the VF frame that are about to enter it, then it's mainly a 50mm lens, that focal length seems made for that. Hyperfocal focusing, that's another matter.
 
Deardorff38 said:
Alberto remarked that the Paris streets are no doubt much more crowded than when Cartier Bresson and Willy Ronis walked them.
Click to expand...

Not just more crowded - more noisy.

I have a lovely book on photography in Paris from the mid-1800s through to the student riots of '68. It's beautiful - it includes the work of Atget, Doisneau, Brassai, Kertész, and Cartier-Bresson, amongst others. One thing that has always struck me about it is how little visual noise there is; fewer adverts, street signs, street furniture, and most importantly, fewer cars.

Walking through any city nowadays, it's impossible to get photos like Cartier-Bresson's because there's too much chaff. The streets are a jumble of loud typography and sign posts - and that's if you can see any of it for the amount of parked cars and traffic! - so it's rare I even try anything that passes as "street photography" now. On occasions that I have a day to wander around London, I prefer to do it with a 50mm because it's easier to isolate things and/or get tighter framing, but I can still end up walking for an entire day and only shoot half a roll of film because of how cluttered everywhere is.

For instance, I'd have liked this photo a lot more if it wasn't for the damned parked car clogging up the back of the shot:

Leica IIIf - Roll 84 - Rollei Retro 400 - LC29 (10)_filtered.jpg

In the countryside or at the coast, I have no qualms about using a 28mm or 21mm and fitting as much in as possible. Not so much in cities now.
 
Ray Vonn 2023 said:
When it comes to focusing with a rangefinder, specifically the patch and viewing subjects outside of the VF frame that are about to enter it, then it's mainly a 50mm lens, that focal length seems made for that. Hyperfocal focusing, that's another matter.
Click to expand...

This "viewing outside the VF frame" that I hear talked about so much is mostly hopeless for me since I wear glasses ... it makes the viewfinder frames for 28mm nearly impossible to see, and those for 35 to 50 mm are too close to the optically visible edges for me to see much in either.

As I said before, normal to me is 35 to 60 mm and I've got four lenses in that range to work with. Technically, the normal lens is a lens such that the focal length is equal to the diagonal of the format, which for a 24x36 mm format means 43.3 mm. And indeed, my SMC-Pentax-L 43mm f/1.9 Special is one of the very best all around lenses I've got. It's too bad that there is no lens profile for it, so that I could find it in my archives using EXIF data easily, and the closest I've found for an optical viewfinder for it is a Voigtländer 40mm bright line. (Happily, the Visoflex 020 on M10-R, M10-M give perfect framing...) Usually, I just estimate framing so that's not much of a problem.

G
 
Godfrey said:
This "viewing outside the VF frame" that I hear talked about so much is mostly hopeless for me since I wear glasses ... it makes the viewfinder frames for 28mm nearly impossible to see, and those for 35 to 50 mm are too close to the optically visible edges for me to see much in either.

As I said before, normal to me is 35 to 60 mm and I've got four lenses in that range to work with. Technically, the normal lens is a lens such that the focal length is equal to the diagonal of the format, which for a 24x36 mm format means 43.3 mm. And indeed, my SMC-Pentax-L 43mm f/1.9 Special is one of the very best all around lenses I've got. It's too bad that there is no lens profile for it, so that I could find it in my archives using EXIF data easily, and the closest I've found for an optical viewfinder for it is a Voigtländer 40mm bright line. (Happily, the Visoflex 020 on M10-R, M10-M give perfect framing...) Usually, I just estimate framing so that's not much of a problem.

G
Click to expand...
Yes, 28mm and arguably 35mm are not much use at all for viewing outside the frame but I've never had an issue with this with a 50mm lens, as a fellow glasses wearer I guess I must be lucky.
 
I was about to sell off my Voigtlander 28/2 Ultron until I started using it again on my Fuji X-Pro bodies. On APS-C, 28mm equates to a 43mm (+/-). On the Fuji the 28mm frame lines leave plenty of space for viewing what's outside the frame. I just wish the electronic rangefinder feature was brighter and not in the lower right hand corner. For me, it's still better than going whole-hog EVF and having no frame lines.
 
Ray Vonn 2023 said:
Yes, 28mm and arguably 35mm are not much use at all for viewing outside the frame but I've never had an issue with this with a 50mm lens, as a fellow glasses wearer I guess I must be lucky.
Click to expand...
That's good! The shape of the nose, forehead, eye socket, and the shape and standoff of glasses for your prescription, all together determine how well you can see through the M viewfinder. You are lucky.

it's always been a question mark to me why Leica doesn't engineer a little more eye relief into the viewfinder optics, albeit that that would tend to make the frame lines a little smaller ... negative impact for 90-135mm.

G
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom