Most 'natural' M Lens?

[matthew_gibbons2]

I have spent the evening looking through HCB photos knowing that he liked to use

a 50mm. I like to use a 75mm (35mm used to dominate my approach) but I have

never tried a 50mm on a M.

 

I have always been interested in trying a 50mm because I like capturing very

natural portraits with as little compression or stretching distortion as

possible.

 

I always thought that the 50 has a perpective that is most like the human eye.

But just now I read a sales blurb (see Below) for my lens - 75mm summicron and

it said "...It's perfect for portraits, giving a slightly more natural

perspective than a 50mm without the slightly more compressed perspective of the

90mm...' The Classic Camera.

 

Is this true? Do I already own the most natural of Leica M Lenses?

 

Also is it true that 'The lens is to the new Six Bit standard for the soon-to-be

release digital M camera'. (see Blurb)

 

Thanks

 

 

 

BLURB - "When Geoffrey Crawley tested this lens in Amateur Photographer a few

months back, he declared it to be the best lens he had ever tested. In some

ways it's not too disimilar to the recently introduced Leica 50mm f1.4

Summilux-M Asph, having the same floating element design plus the use of

fluorite glass for one of the elements. The net result of using this amazing

glass and an element with an aspherical surface is almost 100% contrast at full

aperture. There is a slight improvement when stopping down, but essentially all

you're doing is extending depth of field! This is an amazing optic, offering

unequalled performance at this focal length. It's perfect for portraits, giving

a slightly more natural perspective than a 50mm without the slightly more

compressed perspective of the 90mm. Only you can say what best suits your

photography, but one thing's sure; you can't buy a better lens than Leica's 75mm

f2 Apo-Summicron Asph! The lens is to the new Six Bit standard for the

soon-to-be release digital M camera, and comes boxed with full Leica passport

and guarantee."

[harry__florida_]

Perspective has nothing to do with the focal length of a lens. Perspective is solely a function of the distance to the subject.

[stuart_richardson]

That blurb is definitely a sales pitch, but I find it hard to argue with it. The 75mm f/2 is one

of the best lenses I have ever used...but so is the 75 summilux. I think they are very natural

in terms of perspective, but perhaps a 50 is more so. As the other poster said, I think it deals

more with distance to your subject. Anything from 35 to 75 can give a natural point of view,

but I think if you are splitting hairs between a 50 and a 75 other than in a bit of reach and in

depth of field. Here are two shots, the first with a 50, the second with a 75mm. They both

look pretty natural to me...<P><img src="http://www.stuartrichardson.com/kristen-

window-portrait.jpg"><P><img src="http://www.stuartrichardson.com/vivien-jetset2.jpg">

[kevin m.]

The Leica 75's might well be the best short portrait lenses ever, but the lack of accurate

framing, and the bird scratch framelines make that a moot point.

[g-man1]

Quote from above article: "Only you can say what best suits your photography"

Ditto. Get a 50mm and see if you like it. I like mine. <p>

True, perspective is a function of distance, that's why lenses are measured not only in f stops, but also in millimeters and inches.

[ronald_moravec1]

I have dozens of lenses and the older I get, the more I appreciate the 50mm lens. As a mater of fact, I have a collection of most all from the 50mm 3.5 red scale to the latest 50 2.8. Hard to go wrong with any.

 

Not that I don`t use other ones. I ordered a 90 Macro Elmar today.

It should be a gem and I will report on it next week.

[jimsimmons]

The lens that best correlates to how we experience everyday walking-around life is a 40mm in horizontal format. A "most natural lens" for portraits is a different proposition. When we study a person in a head-and-shoulders way, the 50 or 75 is more how we subconsciously narrow our vision to just what we're interested, effectively cropping out all the extranseous information. One reason a 75 or 90 is desired for portraiture is that it changes the perspective rendering such that the nose isn't exaggerated in size compared to the rest of the face. If you fill the frame with 50% face with both a 50 and a 75, the nose will appear larger in the 50mm shot. This is why a 90 has been the traditional portrait lens. It eliminates the big nose issue without introducing the opposite perspective effects that a longer lens can introduce. If it were me, I'd be very happy with that 75!

[Rob F.]

35mm is, to me, the "Goldilocks" focal length. Takes in not too much, not too little. Just right. I use everything from 21mm to 400, but 35mm is my normal default lens. I love my 75 Summilux, but it's more of a special purpose lens (to me).

[nee_sung]

>>the older I get, the more I appreciate the 50mm lens<<

 

I'll second that!

[simonpg]

Nee Sung, I totally agree - that says it all!

[mark_amos]

In thinking, myself, and reading the other comments, the idea of the most natural perspective for portraits, specifically, would depend on the type of framing of the subject. All in all, I would think the 75 cron, which you were discerning enough and fortunate enough to acquire, must be an ideal choice for M style portrature and also quite versatile for other things, but I would contend that a 50 would yet be the ideal most natural choice for capturing perspectives on the whole world, including close-ups of humans.

[Spearhead]

There's a huge difference between how humans see things and what photos look like. What makes photographs interesting is what they look like and how the photographer used what it would look like to create something, not how the photographer's eyes worked.

[brambor]

I think it's better to think what you want to photograph and how do you want it to look to portray your vision. Over the course of time you will learn lenses and use them accordingly. I think it's highly personal. I seem to do most shooting with 50mm and 24mm. Through the time I realized I don't like to go any wider and seldom need to go tele.

[steve w]

Focal length of human eyes is about 43mm. Ergo,get a 40 cron.

[jtdnyc]

It makes little sense to talk about the naturalness of the perspective of a lens without taking into account the size of the final print and the distance from which it is to be viewed.

 

A normal lens (50 or 40 or thereabout in the 35mm format) gives natural perspective in 8x10 prints viewed from normal reading distance, about 15 inches.

 

Change any one of the variables -- the size of the print or the viewing distance -- and you would need a different lens to give natural perspective.

 

The general principle for "natural persepective" is that the angle subtended by the lens should equal the angle subtended by the print at a given viewing distance.

 

As noted above by another poster, naturalness might not always be the result desired by the artist. Nowadays, National Geographic photographers (or editors) seem to favor wide angle perspective, while many traditional Japanese paintings show great compression of depth.

 

I think it's no accident that HCB, the aloof observer, favored the 50, while many "engaged" photojournalists favor wider lenses that might result in prints that are a little less natural but impart more of a you-are-there feeling.

[peter_evans4]

<p><em>Focal length of human eyes is about 43mm.</em></p>The very first time I've heard that. Still, the length 43mm is familiar: it's said to be the diagonal of a 24×36mm rectangle (though I'm too lazy to check right now), and as such to tend to produce negatives that, when blown up to prints seen in such-and-such a way, correspond to reality seen in such-and-such a way. (There are already earnest web pages and discussions devoted to this, I'm sure.)</p><p>Let's assume it's true for a moment.<p></p><p><em>Ergo,get a 40 cron.</em></p><p>Oh really? I'd have thought: Ergo, get a Pentax 43/1.9 (plus screw/bayonet adapter).</p><p>This is not particularly cheap, so if you don't mind odd ergonomics and a bit of slowth, try the old Chiyoda Kōgaku (now <s>Minolta</s> Sony) Super Rokkor 45/2.8 (plus the adapter). (Looks kewl, too, if this is an issue.)</p>

[icuneko]

<There's a huge difference between how humans see things and what photos look like.>

 

Exactly! Just what I've been trying to get my mind around for some time now. I've swapped lenses and sold some gems in the process to get one that conveys how I see the world. But seeing is with two eyes and with real not apparent depth. Not to mention the various 3-D effects of colors and light levels. Photos are not natural. They are 2-D that impart a 3-D illusion. Plus, B&W is not how humans see. Thus, my quest for a "most 'natura' lens" has been if not an exercise in futility, then a waste of money and the fodder for gentle and well deserved ridicule from my spouse. I've concluded that photos are not and never will be natural. But that's OK. They can be another way of seeing. Why settle for just one--the 'natural' one?

 

So, I've settled with using both 45 and 85mm lenses in 35mm format.

Why? I don't ask anymore; I just use them, hope for beauty and

settle for less.

[k_k_chan]

Naturally we see things with both eyes, and only the things focused in the centre are clear. It just happens that the 40-50mm focal lengths for 135 film are close to what we saw.

[terry_rory]

This is partly why I sold my Elmar and bought a 40mm Nokton f/1.4.

 

I prefer the focal length between 40-45mm.

 

"I have spent the evening looking through HCB photos knowing that he liked to use a 50mm"

 

If you are talking about his indoor portraits it is worth knowing he took a lot of them with the original Zeiss (Ikon) Sonnar 5cm f/1,5

[jtdnyc]

...yet few of his indoor portraits look as if they had been shot at full aperture. All the ones I've seen have seem to have considerably more depth of field than f/1.5 would give. I wonder what apertures he typically used indoors.

[jimsimmons]

He told Beaumont Newhall that he had the Sonnar fitted to his Leica because he needed the extra stop.

[dford]

Though he appears to have missed focusing on the face in his portrait of Truman Capote or maybe Truman was moving his head. DOF isn't shallow enough for f1.5. And I believe that the late forties would have been about the time that he would have been using the sonnar.

[fjords]

" Get the right tool for the job." <a href="http://www.stat.pitt.edu/stoffer/

Crumb.html">Mr. Natural</a>, I am sure, would advise!

[johnny massey]

Strewth, you get out of bed all groggy, turn on the PC and out of the blue John Doane sends you hurtling back to 1970. Think I'll smile all day (and carry a 50mm).

[terry_rory]

I always remember the Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers (especially fat Freddies Cat and the cockroach army.)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabulous_Furry_Freak_Brothers