Mike Johnston, SMP: Best M Lens

[scipc]

<a href=http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-dec-04.shtml>Sunday

Morning Photographer</a>

[bill_marshall1]

Thanks, Skip. Interesting article on the 35 'cron - especially from the man who once said that 40mm was the best angle of view.

[jim_mcbride]

I think Mike was correct the first time, although I do like my C/V 35mm f2.5.

[bill_marshall1]

Jim, I agree . . . at least, for candids.

[Nowhereman]

I think that Johnston is right that the 35mm has, probably since the 1960s, become the

"standard" lens for most people. But whether it's really "the best" to get for a Leica-M

depends on the type of photography that you are interested in. If you want general

landscapes and travel pictures for example scenes of buildings, etc.) -- picture postcard-

type images, in the positive and not the derogatory sense -- then the 35mm is the most

versatile and preferred lens for general photography. But if you want to make more

"striking" pictures, say, in the reductive manner of Ralph Gibson, then the 50mm lens is

much preferable. Johnston himself, in a 22 Oct 1999 posting on the LUG under the title

"The chameleon fifty" that I've saved in my computer wrote:

 

QUOTE:

...I had a long discussion of this with John Kennerdell, an American who has lived in Asia

for many years and works as a travel writer and photojournalist. Kennerdell's insight is

that the 35mm and 28mm are easier to SHOOT with, more satisfying for the photographer,

and that the 50mm is less pleasing to use because it's more demanding of the

photographer and returns fewer "good" shots. But he maintains that of the REAL hits...that

.1% of the pictures you take that you really live for...the 50mm produces more. In other

words, he thinks the average is lower but the high points are higher.

 

It took me about three years of shooting, thinking, examining other photographers' work,

and studying my own contact sheets, but I think he may have a point.

 

At any rate, I think the 50mm focal length is more difficult to use really well. And a bit less

satisfying...it makes more demands of the photographer if the shots are not to be "boring"

(the standard rap against the f.l.).

 

Another of Kennerdell's many interesting points (he is a zen master in my book) is that the

50mm is the only f.l. that can be both "moderate wide-angle" and also "short telephoto"

depending on how you structure the picture. With a single centered subject and an open

aperture, the picture might look as if were taken with a 60-75mm or so. With a broad view

and small aperture, it can look as if it's a slightly wider lens, say 35-45mm. (What I mean

here is if you were to look at the pictures without knowing the focal length of the lens it

was shot with, and try to guess it.) I have perfect examples of this. The odd thing about

this is that it is a sort of chameleon...it changes along with your mental approach. No

other lens can do this because no other lens is so "in the middle." I never took a picture

with a 40mm lens (one of my favorite focal lengths) that could be mistaken for a short tele

shot. I've taken LOTS of 50mm shots that could be so mistaken. It is very interesting to

look through many 50mm pictures with this thought in mind. Eye-opening.

 

For instance, is there anyone here who carries 3 or 4 lenses, including a 50mm, who uses

the 50 the most? I'd bet this kind of person is rare. I'll bet the average photographer who

carries a 50mm as one of three to six lenses uses the 50mm the least. You can master the

50mm only if you commit to it...if it is the only, or, say, one of only two, lenses you

typically shoot with. One of the shooters I most admire carried only a 50mm and a

135mm.

 

I don't LIKE the 50mm so much, but I am really fascinated by it. I think it is the maestro

focal length; one only really good photographers can master well enough to depend on.

Note that I didn't say all really good photographers CARE TO master it; you can be great

and never shoot a 50. But I think you have to be good if you want to shoot a 50 well. I'm

not all that good with it myself--still better with 35mm, which I think is easier.

END QUOTE

 

--Mitch/Bangkok

[al_kaplan1]

I could survive quite nicely without a 50 and I do get along fine without a 28 although I've owned them in the past. As I pare down I've also gotten rid of my 180/2.8, and the 135 sees little use. The 21 is very useful but so far the 15 is more of a "fun" lens. I enjoy using it because it makes me have to think. That may largely be because I haven't been using one week after week for 40 years. I still don't "see" 15mm without making a concious effort, but I'm getting there! The 35 gets the most use and an 85 or 90 comes in second, but the ratio is probably 10 to 1.

[derek_stanton2]

If i could have only one lens, it would have to be a 50mm. That's the focal length i feel

most comfortable with, no matter the format. 80mm on a Rolleiflex TLR or Hasselblad,

105 on a Pentax 67, and 50mm on a Leica-R.

 

I have a 35-R cron, but feel 'lost' when using it. It always includes too much information

for me. I bought it for occasions when i am in 'especially picturesque' surroundings, and

don't mind the environment's 'intrusion,' but wide angle lenses don't make much sense to

me in general....

 

I think this comes down to what kind of photographer you want to be. I started with

fashion and portraiture. 35s seem to be better for journalistic purposes, a type of

photography i struggle with.

[lee_shively]

I'm so very glad Mike Johnston's SMP column is now on photonet as well as Luminous Landscape. I despise trying to read anything on LL due to the black background that causes me acute eyestrain in a matter of seconds.

 

As is usual, I agree with Mike Johnston almost 100% on things photographic (and disagree with him almost 100% on things political). The 35 'cron is certainly the lens to use for quick candid shooting with a Leica M. I agree further that the best feature of Leica M lenses is that they fit on Leica rangefinder cameras. Despite the First Optical Gospel of the Universal Church of The Holy Leica, I contend everyone makes good lenses in the 21st Century but nobody makes a Leica as well as Leica.

 

I carry 4 lenses regularly. The 50mm Summicron is in a tie with the 35mm Summicron for most use.

[wai_leong_lee]

I thought it was the 35/1.4 asph that was the best lens for a Leica. Anyway, there are lenses that are more in line with the spirit of the M (small, unobtrusive) such as the collapsible 50's and the TE 90's, and other specialist lenses (such as the 90 AA and 50/1) which cannot be used in the way Mike Johnston described (prefocus by hand alone, quick lift up to eye for framing and shoot). But I still love these lenses for what they can do, and the Leica would be much poorer without them.

[claude_batmanghelidj]

Interesting comments from Mike. It made me take another look at that focal length. In my experience, for portraits, the best lens is a 50mm summicron. It allows me to fill up the frame more, and isolate my subject. It also lends a beautiful rounded quality to the image, which works really well for portraits.

 

Lately expenses have dictated use of another focal length, the 40mm, which I considered a perfect compromise between the 35 and the 50. However, reality is a little different. I think the duet of the 35 and the 50 might be a better option in my case, using an M4. So in my book, I could get by with just a 40 used with a camera that had 40mm framelines, or I could get by with a camera made for the 35 and 50 using those two lenses.

 

There must be a kind of platonic ideal in the design of the M cameras with their 35 and 50 framelines. The overall gestalt works.

[c_d5]

If I could afford it, the 35/1.4 ASPH, 50/1 Noct, and 75/1.4 Lux will be my main lenses. Nothing more.

[magumi]

Well, I am one of those photographers, who carries three lenses and still prefers to shoot with 50 most of the time. 135/2.8 is my second choice and I pull out the 28/2.8 the least.<div></div>

[jeremy_tok]

70% sure it's a 50mm

[jimdesu]

The foreground has that, for lack of a better word, wide-angle 'coming at you' quality. It'd be really neat if this was from a 50mm though. That's prove the point for certain.

[magumi]

Sorry folks, it's the third choice - 135/2.8. But this was a difficult one - the only hint was the perspective compression of the waves.

[jimdesu]

bravo, Martin!