Do I need a 50mm?

[larry_kincaid2]

<p>Since no one has mentioned it yet, I will. Leica lenses are not "normal" lenses in the sense that they do not lose value, and in the case of all of the lenses that I bought "used" or formerly owned in like new condition (to me), the prices have gone up substantially. That means I can easily sell any of them for no loss whatsoever, and in some cases for profit. This takes the sting out of trying out a lens, in this case "after buying it." As said above, you can find good used summicron for a good price. Use it exclusively for a while until you get used to it. Then decide if you want to keep it or not. Become a 2-lens photographer rather than a one lens one. But everyone will warn you that even if you still favor the 35mm most of the time, it's always very hard to sell any Leica lens once you own it. The argument I made above works in reverse: if the prices may be going up and you want to use it some of the time for specific purposes, then why sell it at all. It's a good investment, certainly better than the stock market right now. I don't think two lenses is extravagant. So, search the used lens sites (this forum and others, KEH, Photo Village, even Kevin Cameras for a vintage 50mm in great shape), and if you see a good price, go for it. You won't regret it. This will not stop you from wonding if you should then go 35/50/and 75 or 90. Nothing puts a break on those thoughts. </p><div></div>

[bill_dewberry]

<p>My normal lens is a 90, my wide angle is a 60- go figure, its just the way I see and photograph things.</p>

[ty_mickan]

<p>i have three bodies. one with a 35 'cron, one with a 50 'cron and one with a 90mm elmarit. i occassionally use the 90mm however the 50 and 35 get even use. </p>

[axel-cordes]

<p>As I learned - - - questions are not laughable - but answers.<br /> Or in other words - questions can not be silly, but answers.</p>

[e_b7]

<p>The 35mm is kind of a natural on a RF because of the short focus throw and wide coverage area. Having said that, I don't always want the slight wide angle look of a 35mm. I like photographs that see the way my eye usually sees, and that means a 50mm. I use a 35, 50 and 90 on an M4. You can spend some time changing the framelines of your M6 and composing different images without using film, just to get a feel for the different focal lengths. Also, you can try this with an SLR and a zoom to perhaps better visualize them. To show more distance perspective, make use of lines, add a little drama, and get more in the picture, the wide angle is best. To not embellish, and capture a feeling just as you see it with your own two eyes (if not your brain), I feel the 50 is best. For isolating distant subjects, minimizing depth-of-field, and headshots, use the 90. Good luck and have fun.</p>

[pankaj purohit]

<h1>Do I need a 50mm?:</h1>

<p>>> Everybody needs...!</p>

[per_pettersen]

<p>Thanks a lot for your great answers!</p>

[jeffrey_prokopowicz]

<p>I like the 35/ 50 Summicron combination: sometimes a 35 is just too wide. The longer focal lengths are better served with an SLR.</p>

[nee_sung]

<p>Divide 50 by the square root of 2 (1.41) and you get 35. That's the reason for making a 35mm. THe area covered by a 35mm is twice that of the 50mm. So the difference is not insignificant.<br /> The recommendation from Leica, as reported several times in Leica Fotografie over the years, is, for a 2 lens combination, 35/75, or 35/90. (35 X 2 = 70, so a 75mm lens covers about 1/4 the area of a 35mm. A 90mm is getting close to 2X50.) For a 3 lens combination, add the 50mm.<br /> The angle of view of 50mm is about 45º, so it approximates the perspective of the human eye. Whereas for the 35mm, the angle of coverage equals the distance from the subject. In other words, the width of the image equals the distance of the photographer from the subject. So it approximates the angle of attention of the human eye, again very natural.<br /> Hope this helps.</p>

[billsymmons]

<p>As a single only focal length I like a 40mm, it just feels right to me.<br>

To me a Leica is for more "intimate" photography and my two lens preference would be 40mm and 75mm. From 85mm and longer I feel a DSLR works better.</p>

 

[graham_thompson1]

<p>Per. Whilst owning a new MP I would not call myself a Leica snob. In fact I think you will find the guys on the forum's very helpful<br />and their combined knowlage would fill many a book. I bought a 35 for my MP. I then went out for a few days with my D700 with a 24-70.<br />I used that to see what I really wanted. The 35 and 50 are IMO to close. I wold go for something at the longer end. The OP is right if you buy right you can sell with little or no loss.<br />Whatever you choose enjoy and welcome to the World of Leica.<br />Oh by the way Per. You just need to chill a little. Some guys (myself included) often answer in 'rough' way. We don't mean it.</p>

[tom leoni]

<p>Yes. I think you do need a 50mm. I couldn't say enough good things about this length if I could hog the whole thread. Close to the perspective of the human eye. A classic default choice. Incredible versatility--from portraits to landscape. The natural fault line between "long" and "short." Availability of incredible glass at modest prices. Etc., etc.</p>

[bkhan]

<p>I strongly recommend you to go for 50mm if you can afford F 1.4 and enjoy low light shots and strong portraits. Missed my 50mm f2 which was stolen.<br>

Best of luck Bangash</p>

[apostolos_tournas]

<p>I use the 35/2 ASPH and three 50's: the Nocti, the "modern" 50/2.8 collapsible Elmar and the latest 50/2 Summicron (plus some other lenses).<br>

I find the 50mm Summicron sharper than the 35mm and with better color rendition; as for distortion, the Elmar is practically distortion-free with a superb plasticity in imaging. I would never abandon either of the two. Nocti? Superb but so limited in general-purpose use.<br>

My experience, however, is that the main difference between the two Summicrons is in street photography. Assuming I aim at a person's figure, I need to cover about 2 meters in the vertical. With the 35mm I have to approach 3 meters, with the 50mm 4 meters. When I shoot in the street, I always preset the exposure and the distance, so that 1 meter is critical for me. Staying a bit away from the subject with the 35mm, I usually find too broad a coverage.<br>

Perhaps you should enjoy the 35mm as much as you can, but eventually get the 50mm Summicron. Don't ask me why but a lot of experienced M users in the past have claimed that this lens is a "must". So, make it a future goal to have both!<br>

One last thing. I don't know David Bell and apparently he doesn't need this but, with all due respect to the others, I find his reaction somewhat reasonable. 50 and 35mm focal lengths are so close to each other, in general, that only personal taste and preference may justify the choice of one upon the other.<br>

Paul</p>

[john_lovelace]

<p>When I owned a series of M3s years ago, I had the full range: The fish-eye 35mm, a collapsible 50mm, a 90mm and a 135mm. Over time I got rid of them all because I didn't take time to learn how to use what I had.<br>

A year ago, at the recommendation of two pro photo friends, I bought an M6 in top condition and a mint-in-box 50mm Summicron. I prefer the 50mm because its "see" range is approximately that of the naked eye. In other words, if I can see "it," whatever "it" is, my 50mm, properly focused, can and will see "it", needing only my correct setting of f/stop and shutter speed. Unlike my great, old M3s, the M6 built-in TTL light meter makes those correct settings easy. Good seeing -- and good shooting -- to you.</p>

[norman_sims1]

<p>Per Petterson<br>

I would invest in a 50mm. lens not because it is considered a normal lens but the overall advantages when using it for taking available light photos. I say this because I know from experience taking available light photos using a 50mm. lens having a 2.0 maximum aperture thus allowing the journalistic approach as opposed to the traditional approach.</p>

[DB_Gallery]

<p>

<p >I own 4 Leica M bodies and 5 lenses, 15mm Heliar, 28 Summicron, 35 Lux asph, 50 Lux asph and 50 collapsable for a chrome M3. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Notice how I am not longer than a 50? This is mainly do to my shooting style and frame line / VF area inefficiencies. In order of what I use the most, 35 1.4, 50 1.4, 28 2.0, 15 4.5 and 50 2.0. I just don't like the feel of the 75 and 90 lenses in terms of total VF area when shooting on Leica bodies, it feels like sitting in the back row of a movie theatre to me, so a 50 is as long as I go.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >A 50 feels really nice for portraits of people, close but not as distorted as the 35, I can see why HCB loved it so much with an M3, mine pretty much lives on it. The 50mm 1.4 Summilux aspheric is reason enough to own a 50 and an M3 for that matter, I could shoot for the rest of my life with that combo and be quite happy. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >So my main trio is 28, 35 and 50, they feel great, are different enough from one another and make shooting two bodies a joy, less lost shots to re-loading. I also feel like I have to move around less with this combo and I stay in close to my subject. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >The 50 Collapsable is a sweet little lens, compact and really beautiful with black and white and looks gorgeous on my chrome M3 ( I use a black one with the 50 1.4 ) The collapsable has a old world cinematic look to it while the 1.4 is just stunning image quality at every setting.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >This is in a sushi restaurant with the 50 1.4 on the M3 at 1/25th of a second, it does not get any better than this:</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

</p><div></div>

[02Pete]

<p>Per --</p>

<p> If you are thinking about buying a second lens for your Leica after a 35mm, I would suggest considering a short telephoto (75mm, 85mm or 90mm) before getting a 50mm. Lenses in that range are useful when shooting candid environmental portraits, most have maximum apertures sufficiently large for available light shooting, yet the focal length is short enough to allow considerable flexibility. If you're on a limited budget, maybe an old Nikkor 85mm f/2 LTM with an adapter; if you have a bit more, a used pre-aspheric 90mm f/2 Summicron; if you can afford something expensive, a 75mm f/2 Summicron. There are, of course, many other good choices as well.</p>

<p> Having said that, a 50mm lens is certainly something worth having ahead of a number of other focal lengths. In use, the 50mm focal length is noticeably longer, has a more selective field of view, and offers a somewhat more natural perspective, than the 35mm focal length. Because the focal length provides a visual perspective so close to that of normal eyesight, rather than something obviously different, it can seem a little bland at times, but its characteristics also allow it to get out of the way of the photographer, rather than forcing an approach dominated by an exaggerated perspective. It can be a highly flexible and effective photographic tool. This focal length has the most affordable lenses offering a maximum aperture of f/1.4 for shooting in dim available light. Quality lenses in this focal length also offer some of the highest optical quality available.</p>

<p> While many people recommend the 50mm f/2 Summicron, and it clearly has an excellent reputation for very high optical quality, f/2 is a little slow for my taste for a focal length whose greatest strength may be available light photography. (Older 50mm f/2 LTM lenses, such as the Summar or Summitar, do not match the more recent Summicron in optical quality.) By the same token, lenses such as the 50mm Noctilux, whether in f/1.2, f/1 or f/0.95 flavor, are sufficiently large, heavy and expensive, and have sufficiently shallow depth of field at maximum aperture, to fall into the category of special-purpose tools rather than general-purpose lenses -- superb for really dim available light, but somewhat impractical for everyday use.</p>

<p> The 50mm f/1.4 appears to offer the best overall balance of high speed, compact size, reasonable weight, high optical quality and affordability. If you're going to get a 50, that's probably the one to get. If you're on a limited budget, the old Canon 50mm f/1.4 LTM with an adapter is hard to beat for quality, affordability, and handling characteristics. It's a classic for good reason, and certainly more than good enough for amateur shooting, although it may be a step behind by current professional standards. For a bit more, the Voightlander 50mm f/1.5 Nokton seems to have a good reputation. If you can afford one, the current 50mm f/1.4 aspheric Summilux reportedly offers just about the highest optical quality of any lens ever offered for a 35mm camera.</p>

<p> The good new in all of this is that there are many choices available, and it's hard to go wrong no matter what you choose in this general range, whether 50mm, 75mm, 85mm or 90mm, whether fast or a bit slower, whether current production or several decades old. Many of the lenses in this range that will work on a Leica M body are pretty good, some are exceptionally good, and most will deliver quality results in the hands of photographers who pay attention to what they are doing.</p>

 

[jonathan_reynolds]

<p>Several people in this thread have stated that the 50mm has a natural perspective, but that is surely not correct? Perspective is determined solely by the position of the camera relative to the subject. What the focal length determines is the angle of view.<br>

I've gone the other way. Having operated with a 50mm Summicron as my sole lens for several years, I felt a need for something wider and have just bought a 35mm Summicron ASPH. This was after some soul-searching, because in the past when using 28, 35 or 40mm lenses on various cameras, I have always longed for something longer, faster and sharper. Also, rather than fuss with equipment, I prefer to choose a particular set of constraints and work within them. But my photography was stagnating, and I felt the need of different constraints to liven me up, if possible. The angle of view of the 35mm feels un-natural to me, so it may be just what I need.</p>

<p> </p>

[fred_obturateur]

<p>50mm and 35 are rather close imo. You might need a 75 or a 90 or... nothing at all! In this case your wide will love you and you'll be a happy man.</p>

[bart_s]

<p>Daniel,</p>

<p>That's a great picture. Did you process it digitally/ scan? Or enlarged the neg in a darkroom? If it is the latter could you please indicate the paper, developer and toning used?</p>

<p>Thanks<br /> Bart</p>

[nozar_kishi]

<p>No. One camera; one lens; one mind.<br>

Focal length of lens does not matter. If you want to take the picture of the bird on top of the tree and do not have a telephoto, then take the etree and the bird with normal. if only have wideangle, then take the bird and tree and the child playing under the tree.</p>

[thomas_sullivan]

<p>It really depends on what you take pictures of......</p>

<p>....but, if you do low light photography, like I do, the 50mm lenses always have the fastest glass. For that reason alone, I always buy a 50mm lens (or equivalent in medium format) for whatever camera I have</p>

[randy_lewis1]

<p>Yes, Yes, Yes and Yes. I have 4 of them at the moment.</p>

[peteradownunder]

<p>My take anywhere set is 21/28/50 for film. Forced to choose just one lens - definately a  50 on M.</p>