Do I need a 50mm?

<p>When I had only one lens, a 50/2 Summicron, I took my best pictures. I agree that the 50mm length is one of the best for the style of photography for which the Leica M really shines. That, and the 35mm length. Get a 50.</p>

I use an M3, and that camera combined with a 50mm Cosina Zeiss Planar is pure magic. I wish I could use a 35 with it too, but the finder conks out at that range. The RF works fine, but no framelines. I am trying to use a 40 with the M3 and will report on the results later.

 

Yes, by all means get a 50mm summicron. That and the 35 make a great combo on the M6. The 50 becomes your portrait lens.

Hell's bells -- go ahead and treat yourself! I don't use the 50mm all that much but I certainly wouldn't want to be without it. I

find the 35mm and the 50mm to be a great working combination with a sometimes surprising difference in FOV between

them.

<p>Great thread. I like Nozar Kishi's minimalism just earlier and agree with Tony Rowlett. For years I had only a 50mm Summilux and when it was stolen, for even more years only a 50 Summicron. I would now get the Summarit as it is so small, 15mm shorter than the 50 f2. I use a 35 a lot now, and am learning its characteristics, but it makes me appreciate the 50 all the more and with glasses and the M2 finder, the 50 is the most easy focal length. On Rangefinder Forum at the weekend, clicking on Bill Pierce, where a number of his threads are collected, I found a great plug for the 50. (Bill wrote wonderful chapters in the last of the Leica Manuals and is a renowned PJ and Leica user.) Under the heading of THE lens, he describes always using the 35 (the 'get it all in' lens) until he and a colleague swapped cameras so as to have photos of themselves on their own film. He marvelled at the moderate telephoto lens on the other camera and from that day was a 50 user.</p>

<p>Bart S. wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>That's a great picture. Did you process it digitally/ scan? Or enlarged the neg in a darkroom? If it is the latter could you please indicate the paper, developer and toning used?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It shot it while in a workshop with Eugene Richards last year, it was scanned at 1 hour lab then quickly toned before it went to the show at Look3. <br>

Back on topic.....I confess, I just caved and bought a clean Tele Elmarit 90 2.8 (thin) for travel / compressed landscapes...Doh!</p>

<p>I think you are only limited by your imagination. I've seen incredible portraits and sports images done with 35, 50, 90, 200, and 300mm.</p>

<p>Note that the framelines are not accurate. The actual photo takes in more than indicated by the frameline. I think the M3 has the most accurate frameline for a 50, but please search photo.net for a more definitive answer.</p>

Yes, my impression is that the M3 does a phenomenal job of close up framing. That is why I am reluctant to use the 40. I have a CLE with 40mm framelines, but it is nowhere as nice to use as the M3.

<p>First point this is a good question ! My view is that 35 and 50 do complement well 35 is useful for city type work with much deeper depth of field and abiliy to frame indoors etc. However 50 is much better in landscape and for people in general. OK it's not a portrait lens but it can do fine images of people with a better close up impresison than the 35 where the background tends to be a bit too intrusive. Surprisingly I often find 50 a better lens for landscape exactly for the same reason. I recently went on a trip to Japan without my 50 (having lent it to my daughter) and missed it every day. I now feel that I need cropping many images!<br>

In terms of which Leica 50:</p>

<ol>

<li> If money is no object the new summilux asph is really sharp (but with nit so nice out of focus rendition) , </li>

<li>I was very happy with the pre asph summilux (warning lenses before sn 1 854 000 are the first version which is not so good) wich was sharp in center when open and sharp all the field from 5.6 (I stupidly sold it). </li>

<li>Summicrons are all good the most recents are more constrasty at full aperture.</li>

<li>Noctilux, hum well , lets say it's a bit heavy (the tag is also heavy..).</li>

<li>Zeiss the 1.5 ZM is supposed to bebased on the old 1.5 for contax, I used the latter and loved it (as someone mentionned above as well). Not as sharp as the summilux but super super out of focus rendition and gradation: Try it !. The Zeiis ZM @ F2 has a some devoted fanatics (see above) so I take that it's pretty good. </li>

</ol>

<p>Conclusion: buy a not too well looking summicron on ebay and you will be able to sell it if you realise you do not like 50's.</p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Daniel Bayer wrote:</p>

<blockquote >

<p >Back on topic.....</p>

</blockquote>

<p >Actually the only lens I use is a 50mm. The Medium Format equivalent that is: fixed lens on Rollei TLR. I certainly enjoy it for sole focal length; versatile and gets me more or less any picture I want to get.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Shot this about an hour after I got the lens today, 90mm 2.8 Tele-Elmarit, thin. What a great little lens!</p><div></div>

Couldn't you just walk around, maybe with no film in the cmera , and just pull up the 50mm frme lines in the viewfinder to see how often you would prefer the 50?

<p>When I got my first good 35mm camera many years ago it came with a 57mm lens. That was my only lens for about the first 10 months. My next lens was a 28 and the following year I added a 135. I was in High School. The 57 was an f/1.4. I did a lot of available light photography so I mostly used the 57mm focal legth just because of the speed. When I got a 35/1.9 that became the lens I used most. It was fast enough for anything I needed to shoot and fit nicely between the 28 and the 57. I have normal lenses in the 45-58 range now for various cameras and I also have fast wide angles and telephotos. If I use a lens in the 50mm range it's because the focal length is right for the shot and not because it's my only fast lens. If you don't do a lot of low light shooting then using a 50mm lens on an RF camera will not make the finder any less bright. RF and SLR shooters often used a pair of lenses like 35 and 90 or 28 and 105 while skipping the 50. For SLR shooting if I take a 35 and a 90 I will also take along a 50 or 55 macro. This isn't something you would consider with an RF camera. </p>

<p>I wasnt crazy at first about the 50/1.4 pre-asph until I started shooting with one. I shot some "hail marys" at full aperture in a darkened church in Costa Rica and the shots came out like nobody's business. Wow. 100 ISO @ 1/8 & 1/15 barced against a column.</p>

<p>I dont shoot alot with my 50/1.4 pre-asph, but when its portrait time out comes the 50mm black paint lens. What can I say!</p>

The answer depends on what you want to shoot.  I do a lot of street photography. I use a 35mm summicron on a Leica M10R.  I did find that the 35mm was a little short for some scenes in Miami and I had to crop the frames a lot.  I also have a Leica 90mm, which I found is a little difficult to use in the  street due to the tight image and small frame lines in the viewfinder. I recently bought a 50mm Voightlander f2 APO Lanthar, which is a fantastic lens and costs 10x less than a Leica 50mm AP0. I switch off between the 35 and 50 but, candidly, to my surprise, I am enjoying  the 50mm focal length. There is no correct answer.  If I had to pick only one lens for street photography it would be the 35mm lens.  If you want to shoot tighter images or some head and shoulders portraits then a 50mm is great.  BTW, you can pick up a used 50mm Voightlander Lanthar for under $900.  Another choice that you might consider is a 75mm lens.  A 35, 75 combination might be what you would like.  Again, if you want the 75, my choice would be either the Voightlander Nocton f1.5 or the newer Voightlander Ultron f1.9.. For now I am sticking to the 35, 50 and 90 combination that I own.  Best of luck in your choices but you can’t go wrong. 

On 3/29/2009 at 10:44 PM, trex1 said:

I use an M3, and that camera combined with a 50mm Cosina Zeiss Planar is pure magic. I wish I could use a 35 with it too, but the finder conks out at that range. The RF works fine, but no framelines. I am trying to use a 40 with the M3 and will report on the results later.

 

Yes, by all means get a 50mm summicron. That and the 35 make a great combo on the M6. The 50 becomes your portrait lens.

Actually the whole rangefinder window is very close to 35mm