Popular Focal lengths

<p>Some years ago our members analysed the most used focal lengths on their Leicas. Over 70% used the 50mm lens, 20% used 90mm, 4% used 35mmm and 200mm. Do you think this is still the case? If so why are there so many shorter focal lengths being offerd ? The zooms have a very large range but my son hasn't a clue as to what he is using but I think it is probably middle of the range about 50-75mm. Wide angle seems to be the province of mobile phones. I should be interested in any more recent figures.</p>

I can't give you figures Anthony, but at RFF (Rangefinder Forum) there are endless polls that cover this sort of thing. A

recent poll showed the 35 was considered the most versatile (43%) then the 50 (30%) then the 40 (20%) and the 28

was considered the most versatile by more than 4%. There seems to be a heavy emphasis on 'street' in the forums,

but that makes sense because if you are going to be shooting a lot what else would you shoot? Some have 28 as their

standard for street photography. My impression is that the 35 is more often put forward as the standard in forum polls

and I cannot believe that the 35 is the most used of only 4% in any forum poll. It may very well be that in the real

world the 50 is dominant, and many of us love 50s. The interest in wides is that they are the province of rangefinders,

especially full frame, and good ones are available and going wider than 25 no longer requires the hideous expense of

a Super-Angulon. There are new and interesting wides from the three main M lens makers because there is a demand.

The other thing about the wide angle lenses for rangefinder is the compactness, especially the 35s. I suspect you

might be posting in the wrong forum if you are talking about zooms - there aren't any for rangefinders.

<p>You mean for the M series or the R series?</p>

<p>Hi Anthony! Are you a clueless newbie in a marketing dept. – or just bored and trying to pull our legs?<br>

If neither: why on earth do you care what others use for their photos you'll never see?<br>

Wouldn't it be much more to the point to find out what sort of lens(es) *you* need to take photos *you* would care about?<br>

Pete</p>

 

I didn't think about R Leicas. Over on the wedding forum there are pros who reckon that if they had to do a wedding

with one fast prime it would be a 35 f1.4 and 28 is a very popular focal length for film Nikons and Olympus. I suppose

Leica R users might have a bias to longer lenses in the bag if they also own RF gear.

<p>35mm is a very popular focal length for Leica rangefinders. And not just a few Leica shooters like the 50. The 40mm lenses, by Leitz, Minolta, and CV have a following because they are an excellent match for the area shown by the M6/M7/MP finder frames.</p>

<p>The poll Anthony cites appears suspect, for several reasons. First, 35mm and 200mm should not be in the same group. Almost nobody uses a 200mm on a rangefinder, for one thing. A few may use one with a Visoflex, of course. Most folks who use a 200 will use it on an SLR, but it's not clear if the poll included SLR's or not. For another thing, I don't care for the statistical design. I'd rather have a histogram either showing each focal length separately, or else grouping some contiguous ones together, like maybe 35/40, or 24/25, for instance.</p>

<p>Two problems with polls in forums are that you never know if the person who constructed the design knew what they were doing; and the results are meaningless unless you can know that the respondents were drawn from a representative sample.</p>

<p>I would suspect that the popularity of the 50mm is largely based on the fact that it is the least expensive Leica lens.</p>

<p>4% for 35mm sounds wrong</p>

<p>4% for 35mm sounds wrong</p>

<p>"I would suspect that the popularity of the 50mm is largely based on the fact that it is the least expensive Leica lens.</p>

<p>This may be cause and effect reversed.</p>

<p>It does seem from the responses that the "normal" lens has moved wider slightly from 50mm to perhaps 45mm on average . Of course zooms are generally slrs but the point is still valid. When the survey was carried out none of us used slrs. I only once used a 200mm on my Leica III but frequently used a 90mm. Rarely if ever did I use a 35mm because anything under 50mm gives ever increasing distortion to the human eye. I accept there are many situations where a 35mm is helpful as there is a tendency to think that if you pack the frame with detail it looks better. One only has to look at Kertesz, HCB, Eisenstaedt etc. to see that there is no need to use less than 50mm. I am thinking of changing my camera and going back to film as there is no small handy 50mm rangefinder that I can afford. I have been checking what I use on my Digilux 2 and it is around 50mm, generally slightly above 50mm, but occasionally lower - probably laziness. Maybe its the way I look at pictures. Anyone suggest a digital rangefinder with 50mm ? - at a reasonable price.</p>

 

Anthony, yesterday a beautiful photo of yours popped up below, a woman working at a window. Apropos 50 v 35, Bill

Pierce, photojournalist, over on RFF had a great story of how years ago he gave his camera with a 35 to his pal and

he handed to Bill his camera and they photographed each other so each would have a photo of themselves on their

current roll of film. When he looked through his pal's viewfinder he was struck by the wonderful medium telephoto

perspective and he checked the focal length: 50. He fell in love with the 50 there and then. He described the 35 as the

get-it-all-in focal length. I think it was here on photo.net that one of the thoughtful contributors to a similar discussion

agreed that the 35 was great on holidays when there was so much to include in the shot, but around home he felt

better with a 50. I think that those with any extras at one focal length are most likely to have a second 50 before

anything else. My current love is the ZM C Sonnar 50 1.5. The modern wides can come with no barrel distortion,

however, and many feel that the 35 is closer to the human eye perspective. Even out to 25, with the ZM Biogon for

instance, if the human subject is near the centre there is nothing unnatural about the result, and for architecture

everything is straight. Sorry, no idea on a digital. Maybe you'll like the new Fuji that's coming (X100?)

<p>Richard G - thanks for your kind comment and you have hit the nail on the head. I have looked at the advance pictures and spec of the Fuji Finepix X100 and everything is perfect except that it is a 35mm eqivalent. Maybe Fuji have got it right and I'm the oddball, but I hope not. I do so wish it were 50mm equivalent as the lens design looks excellent.</p>

<p>One thing we do know: The "restless photographer", never seems to have the right lens.</p>

Many of the old Japanese RF fixed lens cameras were 40mm, and some were 35. A boatload of photojournalists

and street photographers have used 35 or 28 as their standard lens.

<p>For me it's the 90mm, but I can't use it all the time because of my hand-shake.<br>

Over the years, reading many forums, I was struck by the consistent popularity of the "normal" focal length, as being the most popular. The most useful posts are ones that were on an un-related topic and someone, somehow, mentioned that strangely most of his successes were with the normal lens.<br>

I well remember one poster over at the medium format forum who said that after 30 years, one day he suddenly realised that all the pictures he ever blew up and hanged on his walls were made with the 80mm lens (equivalent to 40mm on 135 format).<br>

However, maybe I should throw in a complication here: the normal lens is usually also the highest performing lens, of any manufacturer. Could it be due to image quality, rather than perspective?</p>

<p>I may be wrong but I always understood that a 50mm lens on 35mm film represented a normal eye perspective being 45 degrees. I have seen it written down somewhere but perhaps the mind naturally settles on that focal length when viewing something. Perhaps there is an optician or opthamologist on this site who can confim or reject this theory.</p>

The 50mm lens in 135 format gives a natural perspective due to minimal optical distortion but the field of a view is

hardly that of the human eye. When it comes to the distortions of wider angle lens views it has to be remembered that

the retina is not flat so that 120 degrees FOV of one eye, thanks also to brain processing, gives a natural view. I think

the 50 has a claim to being the natural perspective only for these reasons, and I see no reason not to consider the 35

or the 28 or even the 25 to be the match of the human eye perspective, especially with the current high quality

offerings at those focal lengths.

<p>The so-called normal lens is one that gives a 45 degree angle of view. This is the same angle as that on the human eye. Our eyes are round, while film is flat. That is why we can see more than 120 degrees but still the angle of view is 45.<br>

OK, next complication, long side or short side of the film? (For calculating the angle.) The industry norm is to take the diagonal. For 45°, the focal length is equal to the diagonal.<br>

The diagonal of 36X24 (135 film format) is 43.27mm. So that's the REAL normal lens, provided you accept the diagonal as the reference length.<br>

So the only real standard lens I know is the Pentax 43mm limited.<br>

Second complication: why 50mm then? According to Leica history, it was far cheaper to make a 50mm lens than a 43mm lens. In fact it seems to be true even today.<br>

In the 1960's, when Japanese manufacturers made fixed range finder cameras, it was almost universally 40mm. It was in fact far closer to normal lens than the 50. But people didn't know it and actually thought that 50mm must be the best, because Leica used it. In the end, every manufacturer had to bow to market ignorance and make a 50.<br>

Third complication, why not make a 36mm then? It will subtend 45° on the long side of the film. Well you do, the 35mm.</p>

<p>It does seem that 50mm is a more favoured focal length so, as with me, it may be disappointing for Leica with the X1 and Fuji with their X100 to see that so many photographers will not be buying their product. With such large sensors and excellent optics it is a shame. I shall have to continue with my Digilux 2 till a top flight affordable 50mm rangfinder is produced. Is anyone in touch with Leica or Fuji's design departments to know their reasoning ?</p>

<p>In spite of its' popularity- I just can't get used to the 35mm. I gotta use the 50.</p>

<p>I have found the reference to the 50mm lens as being "normal". It is in Dr.Alfred Grabner's 1937 booklet entitled 'Perspective as You Please' about Leica lenses. He says:-</p>

<p><em>The 5cm(2") Lens is the normal Lens.<br /></em><br>

When photographing it is often necessary to make use of an image field which is larger than the natural angle of sight and include objects which can be seen only when the eyes are moved. This is why the Leica is fitted with a lens which has an angle of view a little larger than the natural angle of sight. It is for this reason that a 5cm lens is supplied as part of the Leica equipment.<em><br /></em></p>

<p>Leica mayfair have just sent me this answer as to why the XI is 35mm.<br>

<em>The reason why Leica have chosen a 36mm focal length is because it is a more versatile focal length and suitable for most styles of shooting, choosing a 50mm focal length will make the camera more specialized and will not be suitable for wide angle shooting, street, architectural/interiors or landscape work.</em></p>

<p>So Leica appear to have have changed their view with 50mm now being a "specialised" focal length.<em><br /></em></p>

 

<p>Personally, I really like the 75mm focal length on an M-series Leica: long enough to concentrate on photo subjects of interest, short enough to use effectively even in relatively confined areas, fast enough to shoot effectively in available light, relatively compact and not too heavy. </p>

<p>I have 35mm and 50mm lenses too, and they offer real utility. The 35mm lens is useful for group shots and scenery, and it offers very compact size, light weight, and an unobtrusive appearance. The 50mm is useful for maximum speed in available light conditions, and also offers a normal visual perspective. The 75mm is on my camera much more often than the 35mm or 50mm, though, and for good reason. In my view, it produces the best results for the types of photos which I take most often.</p>

<p>While I can understand why someone would use a 200mm telephoto lens on an SLR, it is difficult to imagine using one on a Leica M body these days. The Visoflex attachment may have been well engineered back in the days when it was designed and built, but in actual practice, using one these days would almost certainly be clumsier and slower than using an SLR.</p>