Most 'natural' M Lens?

[al_kaplan1]

It all depends on how your mind visualizes the world. One person's 'natural' might not suit another. For the past couple of years I've used the 15mm so much that it seems natural. In the late 1960's I went through a 19mm (Canon on my Leica) phase.

[john_r._fulton_jr.]

I'm with John Richard. I'd forgotten about Mr. Natural. Excellent. thanks John D for the flashback. Lenses? Whatever works for you. It's a matter of how you see and what you see and getting it onto film. While HCB saw the world mostly thru a 50mm, Winogrand favored a 28 and David Alan Harvey is partial to the 35mm. Avedon favored a view camera for most of his work. It all gets down to how you see, not what camera or lens you use.

[frederick_muller]

Perspective has to do with the apparent spatial relationship between objects that are closer to the camera lens and those that are further away. So a telephoto lens compresses perspective by making that distance appear to shrink, while a wide angle lens stretches perspective by making that distance appear to expand. This is a separate issue from coverage, which is how much of the scene one gets on film.

 

If you really want to notice the subtle effects of focal length on perspective, shoot an RD-1. Simply put, you can use a 28mm lens to give you a 40mm field of coverage, but your final picture will show perspective relationships - the apparent difference between near and far - consistent with a 28mm lens. You may use a 21mm to give you coverage comparable to a 28, but your perspective will stretch out much more like a 21, because that is what the lens is! The effect is less pronounced with telephotos, but it is there. With wide-angles, it is really pronounced. I find that using a 35mm with an RD-1 to give myself 50mm coverage is a strange experience because my depth of field is deeper and perspective is subtly different from a regular 50mm.

 

I like the 28mm because it is a wide angle that covers a lot of ground but does not have too exagerated perspective and distortion effects. Take a 21mm and use it on an RD-1 to give yourself a 28mm field of view, and the perspective and distortion effects are much more dramatic than those of a real 28 on a film camera. This is much more difficult to manage.

 

Sorry for rambling on, but the answer to the question will probably vary with the individual. For people, I like 50mm and 75mm. For places, 15mm and 28mm.

[paul_neuthaler]

I'm with the rest of us "older" guys: the 50 Summicron does it for me --

[frederick_muller]

lol ... Paul, that must make Al the youngest guy in the pack with his preference for the 15!

[brambor]

It interesting that HCB ditched the 50mm in favor of 35mm when he photographed USA. It sort of frustrated him at the beginning with 50mm. He wasn't getting the framing he wanted.

[frederick_muller]

That's weird, Rene ... I find myself moving to wider angle in Europe with the narrow streets and closer quarters and all. I will have to dig up some HCB folios and compare his european shots to his american shots.

[frederick_muller]

"Focal length of human eyes is about 43mm."

 

It sure doesn't seem that way. I think the 50-75 most closely approximates what our eye-brain combination can focus on at any one time for interest's sake. But if you look at what our binocular vision can take in, it's gotta be closer to a 12mm!

[stephen_w.]

Focus on any word in the middle of any paragraph more than 3 lines long. Can you discern any word more than one line above/below? How about more than one word to the left/right?

 

Wierd

[al_kaplan1]

Frederick, I think young! The 15 is fun to play with!

[matthew_gibbons2]

Thanks guys for such interesting answers. I am really enjoying this thread.

 

I agree that one has to experiment with focal length. So far I have have had a M6 0.72 and I spent most of the time shooting with a 35/1.4mm. Even now, months after I sold it, I see 35mm compositions everywhere. I also used to have a 90/2 but rarely used it as it took too long for me to focus the street scenes I like.

 

Now I have a M7 and 75/2 lens. This seems like a perfect combination. The few films I have take so far have given me some of my all time favourites shots. It isolate the subject, is great close up or far away. I will stick with it for a few years but already I am like the look of those solid 50mm framelines in a 0.85 rangefinder. Perhaps as I get older the 50mm wjich is presumable slightly less forgiving may be my next experiment. That 50mm f1.4 Summilux-M Asph sounds amazing!

[brambor]

Al Kaplan wrote:

<p>

<i> Frederick, I think young! 15 is fun to play with...</i>

<p>

Al, what do you mean by that?

[terry_rory]

Al actually said... "Frederick, I think young! <b>The</b> 15 is fun to play with!"

[brambor]

Thanks for help. I couldn't copy and paste. So my question still stands. How does it relate to young?

[terry_rory]

I hope that '<b>the</b>' makes the difference. The alternative does not bear thinking about and is illegal in Florida. (I think)

<p> :-) </p>

[brambor]

I'm not sure it makes a difference, unless I missed the latest fad of teenagers shooting with fisheye lenses.

[kevin m.]

"The alternative does not bear thinking about and is illegal in Florida. (I think)"

 

Sadly, you can be sure that there is more than one trailer in the Sunshine State with a girl that

age as the 'woman' of the house.

[paul_neuthaler]

Frankly, a "50" for Al & me is plenty young!

[al_kaplan1]

I had a "15" girl friend when I was in high school. Now I have a "15" Super Wide Heliar.

[frederick_muller]

Stephen, the experiment you just described illustrates a capability that forms the basis for speed reading. The whole notion is to focus between the lines rather than on individual lines, and to sweep the page with your eyes in a broad "S"-path, gulping in groups of words at a time rather than individual words.

[donald_brewster]

I would have to agree with Steve about 40mm lenses. They feel more natural to me. Ultimately, anything between 35 and 50mm is "normal" or natural. I've gratitated to the 45mm Planar on my G2 and the 80mm lens on my Mamiya 7II (which is the 6x7 equivalent of about a 40mm for a Leica). But, the 80mm Summilux is wonderful for portraits and it is welded on my R7. I too prefer it to the slightly longer 90mm. YMMV of course.

[george_b1]

I believe that it's what your mind and eyes become accustomed to as how you see what you want to photograph.

 

I started with only a 50 elmar 3.5 on a IIIc in 1945 and didn't own a 35mm or a 90mm until 1968. I learned to "see" in 50mm. Ergo, the 50mm still is my favorite lens, as I can look at a scene and visualise how it will look on projection.

 

Recently, macular degeneration has more or less driven me to the 24mm, as I can zone focus and deliberately compose in a way that's no longer possible with either the 50mm or the 35mm.

 

Guess what? I'm learning to "think" in 24mm! My choice of subjects has beel altered, and my "what -passes-for-technique" has taken a new course.

 

It's not only your brain and normal eyesight that can determine what you believe is a logical lens - - it also depends on WHAT you can see and your ability to see and to compose.

 

Just my 60+ years of using a 50mm and, now, having to abandon it.

 

George (The Old Fud)