Jump to content

Do I need a 50mm?


Recommended Posts

<p>This question is laughable. Who are we to be advising you what to buy! You should be able to answer this yourself! Is 35mm too wide for a single lens? Do you think you would use the slightly tighter 50mm lens significantly?</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I always have felt the Leica was designed for and is best used with a 50mm lens. The summicron is such a peach, why not? Some days 35 is what you need, sometimes 50. The 35 summicron is a great one, but a used 50,even an old collapsible will not disappoint and will be useful. And not a big investment.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I feel very sorry for having wasted your time with a laughable question, David. I was hoping that you pros could write something like "I have a 35mm but have always missed a 50mm when taking portraits", or "I have both but always use the 35 mm for all purposes; I feel the 50mm is a waste of money", or something like that. <br /> <br /> I like to be advised by experienced users after having read a lot of theoretical articles about photographic equipment.<br /> <br /> Instead, I have made you laugh. It`s a pity.<br>

Thanks, Charles and Charles!</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The various 50s are great lenses...but totally unnecessary unless you like working at that focal length. I went almost 10 years with my first Leica (M4) using a 35 as a primary, a 90 and a 135 (occasionally). Occasionally I borrowed a friend's 50, but really didn't use it often. Even today, although a 50 travels with my camera, I'm much more inclined to use a 35 or a 90. My advice, if you really want a 50 is to read Putts' analyses of the 50s, and then make some choices to narrow things down, namely: how much do you comfortably want to spend....is a Noctilux the right lens for you (I had two but found that they got scant usage, and their value for the price was outrageous); is razor sharpness important to you...then look at the current Summicron...if speed isn't critical the Elmar does a great job. Do you like the "dreaminess" of older lenses... lots of choices here, the Summilux of the 1960s or a collapsible Summicron from the 50s may be just the ticket. I've owned all these over the years and used them, and finally pared down to my favorites a current model Summicron (VI) and a 1950's collapsible Summicron (I).</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>There are rf users carrying a kit with two lenses: 35 and 75, or 35 and 85, or pairings in which a 28mm is the wide lens. Quite a few available permutations. I agree that this is personal, and highly dependent upon what you like to photograph.</p>

<p>For quite awhile, I used only a 50mm on the rangefinder ... because it was the only lens I had for the camera. And I didn't feel deprived, because it fit <em>nearly all</em> of what I was trying to photograph. (That lens, which I still have, is the 50mm f/2.8 "modern" Elmar, a collapsible lens. It's excellent.)</p>

<p>By the way, 50mm feels more than "slightly tighter" than 35 to me, but again that's personal.</p>

<p>[There are some 'pros' on this forum, and non-pros who regularly exhibit and sell photos, but I'm not among them.]</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>"I feel very sorry for having wasted your time with a laughable question, David. I was hoping that you pros could write something like "I have a 35mm but have always missed a 50mm when taking portraits", or "I have both but always use the 35 mm for all purposes; I feel the 50mm is a waste of money", or something like that. <br /><br />I like to be advised by experienced users after having read a lot of theoretical articles about photographic equipment.<br /><br />Instead, I have made you laugh. It`s a pity.<br />Thanks, Charles and Charles!"<br>

Get used to it on this forum. My experience with both the 35 and 50 is a preference for the 35. I like a little wider angle of view for what is now called an environmental portrait showing more of the person AND what they do instead of the more traditional head and shoulders shot. Still a used 50 can be picked up reasonably and is an excellent lens for the H&S shot, that being said I went for the 75 so I can have a little more working distance between me and the subject. A 35 & 75 combo is not a bad choice. Hope this helps. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>First off, I think the question is legitimate. What else is a forum for? I'm tired of the forum snobs.<br>

I think it depends on whether you plan to just carry one lens at a time, or have two with you.<br>

If you now plan to carry two lenses with you, you may not find enough differentiation between a 35 and 50. A portrait length between 75 and 90mm may be better.<br>

If you still plan to just carry one lens, the 50 would be a good idea. If I only want to carry one lens, and I forsee most of my photos will be landscapes but want to have the option of taking a portrait, I'll bring the 35. If I only want to carry one lens, but forsee most of my photos will be of people, I'll bring the 50.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Good question!<br>

I have 50mm DR Summicron and 50mm f2.8 Elmar -M and have rarely used the Summicron only when it was the first M lens I had and never used the f2.8.<br>

I mostly use a 35mm Lux ASPH and 75mm ASPH. I would use your 35mm for at least a year and then if you catalog situations in you mind where you would have liked a longer focal length, you can try to determine what you want next to allow you to do what you couldn't do with only the 35mm unless you just have GAS!.-Dick</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Forum snobs...? Call them what you like. I am not a snob, but feel free to call me one - I have no issue with that. This is such a subjective question that nobody can answer it except for the OP. If you have a FF DSLR with a zoom lens covering 35mm and 50mm, try them both out and see if you would enjoy the 50mm setting.</p>

<p>Per, I enjoy laughing so thanks for the post, no need for apologies!</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Per, HCB couldn't live without the 50 but Eisenstaedt wrote that he made 90% of his shots with a 35.</p>

<p>I don't put myself in the same class as either of them, but here's my approach. I usually use the 35 indoors and the 50 outdoors. They are both in the "normal" range, but the 35 is useful when you can't always move back to show the environment, i.e., indoors; and the 50 is useful when you want to bridge the gap to the subject, i.e., outdoors. So, yes there is a difference between them and you might find yourself using both.</p>

<p>If I had to choose between the two, I would probably choose the 35, even thought I use the 50 more often, because you can always crop a 35's image down to the field of view of a 50, but not vice versa. So, when traveling with one lens, I take the 35.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Per,<br /> <br /> My first foray into Leica rangefinders was with an M6 Classic and the 4th version 35mm Summicron. For me, the 35 just feels natural. That was over twenty years ago. I also use a 90 & 135. I never owned a 50 for the M and I never felt the need or desire for one.</p>

<p>However, in the past few years, I bought my first screw mount Leica (a IIIf RD with a 5cm Summitar) and use it with a SBOOI bright-line finder. Again, for some reason, *that* feels natural to me and have I no inclination to add another focal length to my LTM. Weird, I know, but it just feels right.</p>

<p>Hope that helps :-)</p>

<p>- Ray</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>In my day, sonny, the 35mm was a wide-angle lens, and the 28mm was an "ultra"-wide.</p>

<p>There's enough difference in perspective to make both a 50 and a 35 reasonable, in my opinion (unspoiled as it is by these new-fangled zoomar lenses.) ;)</p>

<p>The old standard 35mm lens assortment was a 35mm, a 50mm, and a 135mm. For portrait work, you would have added a nice 85mm or 100mm short telephoto.</p>

<p>Signed, Cranky old git.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Per -<br>

 <br>

Your question is very legitimate and realistic, please disregard abrasive and rather unfriendly responses as perhaps just not well considered. I am strictly an amateur with several decades invested in this hobby, here are my thoughts as to your 35mm plus 50mm question.<br>

 <br>

I use an M-6 with 35, 50 and 90 lenses, I find this mix to be not ideal. The 50 being the normal perspective I consider a bit boring much of the time, often not wide enough to get what I want in the photo. I use it pretty much limited to longer landscapes, or wherever it just works as the best choice. The 90 is the least used lens, staying mostly in the bag. <br>

 <br>

If I could only have one lens for the camera it would surely be the 35, it gets the most use by far. For my application, there is no compelling reason to consider the 50 as the most usable lens. The 35 is wide enough to make the photo interesting by encompassing what I want, usually, but not so wide as to make the image seem exaggerated, or distorted.<br>

 <br>

Having lived with this combination for some years, if I could go back to the time of purchase I would go home with just the 35 and a 75. Do you have any opportunity to rent or borrow a 50mm to try out? A short time with one would answer your question, as to how useful it might be for you. Enjoy your M-6.<br>

 <br>

Patrick </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Yes. The 50 is a brilliant focal length. Great for portraits, also surprisingly versatile for landscapes. The tighter framing can help composition. The 35 is good for travel. Go for a Summicron and you won't be disappointed.<br>

Please disregard rude feedback; such posters do themselves no credit and are best ignored. </p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> The majority of Bresson's best shots came from one focal length -- the 5cm Zeiss --<p>

 

My favorite lens.

 

a 1941 5cm F1.5 Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar "T", in LTM. Wide-Open on the Canon P. <p>

 

<img src="http://www.ziforums.com/picture.php?albumid=90&pictureid=727"><p>

 

<img src="http://www.ziforums.com/picture.php?albumid=90&pictureid=728"><p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Unofrtunately, the only definitive way to find out whether or not you need a 50 to complement your 35 is to try one. Wrt RF gear I have 2 50's and 2 35's. Different uses, different characteristics.</p>

<p>This one's from a ZM 50mm Planar.<br>

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3127/2697513192_593f351db4_o.jpg" alt="" width="1000" height="800" /></p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>35mm & 90mm are my choices for a two-lens kit. The 35mm is my main lens; the 28mm & 50mm too close to the 35mm (for me) to take along. I prefer one fast lens (35mm Summilux asph) and then another significantly diff lens (90 cron asph). In actual street shooting I want to trek light.</p>

<p><br />This is a good question even tho its asked often and many of us are happy to consider it anew.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...