35 mm vs 50 mm

[olivier_reichenbach]

Good question, Neils.But I'm not sure. Yesterday I was street shooting some teenagers having

their caricature drawn by a street artist. They were having a ball, and I was standing right there,

leaning on a wall, about 6 feet from them, just peering over the top on my camera from time to

time (I can't focus with my right eye, unfortunately), and just quickly focusing and triggering (on

AE with a M7) with my 35 Cron and some 400 ISO B&W. I had the feeling that I was

absorbing the whole ever changing scene, the painter, the girl sitting on the stool, the friends

behind, watching and laughing, just like my naked eyes did. Then I decided to put my 50 mm

on. All of a sudden, everything went slower and quieter. I was looking for a detail, a hand, an

eye, a bag, two close faces... Yes, I felt I was isolating things much more, but through tighter

framing, not DOF. I kept the aperture as small as possible anyway (come to think of it now, I

wonder why.) Strange as it may sound, the 35 was like a film with the music and dialogue and

effects, but the 50 had muted the sound. That was a strange shooting experience. Now, let's

see the resulting negs. Thanks.

[ardenpress]

Having just a few months ago converted from SLR to Leica M and even medium format, I have to say, am bound to say. that after many years of SLR I almost never found using a 50mm lens the way to go aesthetically. Even using s Canon lens that started below 35 and went beyond 50mm I never stopped the lens at 50, however 'natural' that is supposed to be, it apparently never seemed that way when I framed a shot. Why should that be? Even the 80mm Rollei rense which recreates a 35mmlens at 52mm is boring. Is it me, or something in photography more 'rhythmic' or 'melodious' than 50mm that makes me and many of us use longer and wider lenses?

[Spearhead]

<i>Even the 80mm Rollei rense which recreates a 35mmlens at 52mm is boring. Is it me, or something in photography more 'rhythmic' or 'melodious' than 50mm that makes me and many of us use longer and wider lenses?</i><p>

 

Some incredibly perceptive photographer said "There are no boring lenses, only boring photographers," or something to that effect. <p>

 

<center>

<img src="http://www.spirer.com/images/thewall/06580de0.jpg"><br>

<i>Anticipation, 50mm lens, Copyright 2002 Jeff Spirer</i>

</center>

[ray_moth]

Perhaps I'm being dumb but, to me, it's all a matter of magnification and perspective, not angle of view. I think an easy way to find out, once and for all, what is the "normal" focal length lens (the one that renders a perspective closest to what the eye sees) is to try looking through the viewfinder of an SLR camera that sees 100% of the frame, with a 50mm and then a 35mm lens mounted. Then look with the naked eye at the same scene and from the same position. Does the 35mm view look more like that seen by the unaided eye? Or is it the 50mm?

 

I'd try it myself but I don't have an SLR any more! I could always try taking photos, I suppose, like Al Smith did. In Al's two photos of the fence and the tower (accessible by following Al's link above), which most closely represents what the naked eye would have seen if the person had been standing at the camera position in each case?

[Spearhead]

Who cares about what the eye sees? It's what you put on film that matters, not what your eye saw. It's never going to be what the eye saw, and it shouldn't be. It's going to be a two-dimensional, contrast limited, angle of view limited, image on a piece of paper (or a screen or something), but it will <i>never</i>, <b>never</b>, be what your eye saw, no matter what. So think about the <i>photograph</i> and you might make something worth looking at.

[roberto_watson_garc_a]

...amen

 

I didn´t read this topic before, but for sure is interesting what´s coment here, for me both focal lengths worth great, with the M I use the 50 as the first aproach lens, mounted on a M6 to make ligth read, and folows up the 35, it usualy stays workng longer, when only one camera can be carried, the 50 goes when not image or concentration clear in my head, and make lots of first impresions, when images are flowing before me the 35 is a more practical length.

[nesrani]

Jeff is right, I think - or at least, I agree with him. I also think that that's any good snapper's main insight.

[ray_moth]

Of course, Jeff is right. However, his comment doesn't address Olivier's question about what people consider to be a "normal" lens.

[michael_kastner]

But Roberto's comment <i>did</i>.

[mark_sage]

Just to stir the pot some more...I think what constitutes a normal perspective depends as

much on subject and composition as it does on the lens. Subject distance and size are the

biggest factors - in general, the further away or the smaller the subject, the longer the

focal length I'd consider normal. This is because it's not just the eye that sees, but also

the mind - we tend to "zoom in" on subjects which are further away, whereas our attention

becomes "wider" in group situations in close spaces where we may be paying attention to

several people simultaneiously. Thus a 90mm might be considered normal for a subject

at infinity (assuming the subject isn't too large), whereas a 28mm might provide a normal

perspective for shooting a group of people indoors.

[andrew_c2]

<p>Great thread. To add some more:<br /><br />I like the 50 because, at around 17 feet on the street when I'm starting to order a scene in my head, the subject(s) fills the frame just the way I like it. By the time I'm closer to fill the frame with a 35, the moment is usually gone. I guess I'm all about filling the frame with just what is needed so as little cropping as possible is to be done later; I'm not one to include environment when it takes away from the subject.<br>

And, let me be honest, I'm too bashful to get into people's faces to fill the frame with the 35; kudos to those that do!</p>