View Full Version : Strange attraction of rangefinders and 50s ?
Spyderman
05-03-2007, 11:12
I don't understand this thing:
With SLR I never liked the 50mm FOV too much, I prefered 35 or 85 or anything else, but not a "plain old 50".
Since I got into RFs, I seem to like the 50 much more.
Are there any more of us who feel similar about 50mm FOV ?
PS: I do not just like to use 50s, but also to have different versions of them, and I came to a state that I have exactly 10 50mm lenses :D
in LTM I have 2 x I-61 (Panda + L/D), 3 x Jupiter-8 (black + silver + tabbed), 1 Jupiter-3 (just arrived ;) ), 1 Industar-22 (collapsible) and in Kiev mount 1 CZJ Sonnar 5cm 1:2 and 2 x Jupiter-8M. I know it's nowhere near Raid's collection of 50s ;), but still when I look at it - it's a lot...
Yes and no. I was always a 50 guy.
xayraa33
05-03-2007, 11:31
the 35mm rf camera seems to be made for the 50mm FL.
the LTM Leicas and rf Contax always feel right with the 50mm IMHO.
Hi, 50's the best..........Robin
Yes - or as near as dammit - the 45mm with my G2...and a 75 with my MF camera. And I still don't like the 50 with my SLR's.
:)
photophorous
05-03-2007, 12:32
I liked the 50 on an SLR, but I like it better on an RF. I like the 40 on my Canonet a lot too, but suprisingly I'm not as fond of 35.
freeranger
05-03-2007, 12:36
Just feels right. Especially with a 1x viewfinder
Yes and no. I was always a 50 guy.
Likewise, 50mm is just right. But I've also been getting the hang of some new-fangled wider lenses recently.
Ian
Love the focal length, both in rangefinders and SLR (OM 2).
Welsh_Italian
05-03-2007, 13:43
In the bad old days (before I had a rangefinder camera), I was bequeathed an old SLR (Praktica) with some lenses: 35mm, 50mm and 135mm. I never used the 50mm at all because I never saw the need.
But having used LTM cameras (Fed's) with a 50mm lens and seen the wonderful results I got, I dug out my SLR for a family weekend at my brothers house and took the 50mm lens.
It was wonderful!
I think that I had been concerned before about being too close to my subjects (ie, having their face fill the picture) so I used a 35mm for pictures of people (and the 135mm lens for nature photography - mostly birds), but this was great to get in close to someone's face and snap away to get a candid portrait.
I haven't had the results back yet (will do on Monday), but some of the pictures felt like good ones - you know that feeling when you press the shutter and it "feels" that you've got a good one? Time will tell if the lens has nice bokeh - it's a Pentacon so probably not as nice as Industar bokeh, but I'll see soon enough. It focuses very close though which helps enormously.
I am almost tempted to use the SLR a lot more now, especially as it gives me the preview of the picture. If only it was quieter, sigh!
I got into the 50 during my last days with SLRs and that was what drew me to the M3. Never looked back.
The 50mm lens is King. There is no other focal length that I like better for RF photography. You get images the way your eyes sees those scenes. Many masters relied on the 50mm lenses to do what they have done. Wide angle lenses distort images. They make life easier for some photographers who want an easy way to get "interesting looking" images. Focusing is less critical. I rarely use wide angle lenses. The 50mm focal length is for me the most useful. I am biased.
Raid
50 was a big yawn for me on SLRs (more into 35 then), but since getting my first rangefinder a year-and-a-half ago, I now have three 50s (two rf, one slr). I like it a lot now. Don't really know why.
matteaton
05-03-2007, 14:40
I don't actually own a 50mm lens. It's not that I don't like them, I just found bargains on my 35mm Summicron and 90mm Tele-Emarit just after I got my RF and so theres not really enough cash lying around for one right now.
When there is though, I know I'll get myself a good 50. It's such a useful focal length and my old one I sold with all my Nikon gear taught me a hell of a lot about framing. It was also my first "fast" lens (1.4), so the bokeh was brilliant!
Admit it, it's all because subconsciously or over-consciously we think of HCB with his 50mm...
Personally I've been using a 50mm since I started with an SLR. I got tired of it only when I bought other focals (wide and tele) but then eventually came back to it, because it's the focal which I find the most sympathetic to how I react to life. Wides always demand a "wide" look, and teles are to me only for specific purposes (portraits, distant objects, etc).
With a 50 I have the impression that the image I'm projecting on the subject (when it's conscious of myself) is reciprocal to the one I'm receiving from it. In other words, it feels normal and instinctive.
sepiareverb
05-03-2007, 15:44
I started out with a SLR/50 and noting else- started wide and long after that, but for me too 50 fell by the wayside. I did use it some, off and on, but nothing like the 24 or 28 or 105. When I got the G1 I got a 45 and nothing else, and when it went I stayed away from 50. Strangely as I was ending my SLR days the 50 crept in a fair bit- and is currently my #1 lens.
back alley
05-03-2007, 16:23
i have NEVER been a 50's kind of guy.
the zm 50 planar was maybe the best 50 i have ever used and it still did little for me. i like having the sonnar 50/1.5 but i view it as a special purpose lens.
now 34/40...that's a completely different story. i like getting closer to the action and including more into the shot, so the 35 is king for me.
with a 50 you have to stand further away from your subject - maybe it's the better choice for a more shy person?
i hope to be able to collect, yes collect, a few more 35 and 40 mm lenses to play with in the future.
joe
I think the 50 (as opposed to a 35mm lens) is more for a controlling person. The 50 with its tighter angle of view makes it easier for me to decide what's in and what's out of the frame, and then make it so, especially with regards to the background.
It's also very versatile, allowing me to do portraits as well.
It's the right "brush" for me. YMMV and that's okay.
I tried very hard to get myself comfortable to 35mm, but failed no matter with SLR or RF.
I believe I wil only keep 50mm lens finally.
I perticularly enjoy using 50mm lens with SLR. I like the 28mm + 50mm combination actually. Very versatile indeed. It's a joy even just to look through the bright 50/1.4 Planar!
For RF I use 35mm mostly. I know my G28 & G45 are top rated, but I shoot more with G35 Plannar nowadays. 35mm seems so easy to control and saves me the trouble of changing lens.
Post deleted by posters request
With SLR I never liked the 50mm FOV too much, I prefered 35 or 85 or anything else, but not a "plain old 50".
Since I got into RFs, I seem to like the 50 much more.
Are there any more of us who feel similar about 50mm FOV ?
I'm exactly the same. I haven't tried to understand the reason - I just never liked a 50 on my SLRs but really like it on a rangefinder.
I started out with a Zenit-E and a 58mm Helios 44-2. That SLR and a ca. 50mm was what I used for 20 years. I learned to make the 50 do what a wide angle does, and what a tele does. It was a matter of moving closer, further, and most important of all, getting away from eye level shooting!
This day, I've got lenses ranging from 17 to 300 mm, but if I'd only have a 50 on the Bessa-T, I'd still be as happy as I was with that Zenit for 20 years.
Post deleted by posters request
Having said that, I'd be miserable without a 50. 35 + 50 is all you really need! (I've never really understood the 35 + 90 proposition.)
Portraits.
oftheherd
05-04-2007, 09:29
I like the "normal" lens, and probably if I had to choose only one, it would be that or a wide angle. For wide, 28mm or wider, I've never been able to "see" 35mm. All that in 35mm SLR as I don't have an interchagable 35mm camera. I have used 50mm for the majority of my photos in 35mm. The 100mm has been my most used lens with the Super Press 23. I don't know, it just seems right most of the time.
I am not against other lenses, and use them when I see the need. But if I don't see a particular need, I feel the normal lens it the one to use. It seems to "see" better. as Frank said, YMMV.
Post deleted by posters request
bensyverson
05-04-2007, 17:33
50 is too tight for me most of the time... When I shoot with a 50, I wind up with a head that fills the frame. 40 is pretty good, allowing a little neck and shoulder, but 28 - 35mm is really my favorite range... I like to be able to see the context around my subjects.
mike goldberg
05-04-2007, 19:52
It's a one year connection with RFF that "opened up" my seeing to the 50.
As a working PJ carrying Nikon SLR's, it was the 35 and 105. In RF I have two J8's, a Fed-50 Elmar type collapsible and I-61. This way of seeing led to enjoying the Zuiko 50/1.8, a superb lens on my OM-1's. The 50 is great for the street... as is the 35, and sometimes the 75/2.5 and the 25/4 are as well.
One more thing: with an SLR you are blind for an instance after you press the shutter. I don't see how this makes you miss anything critical photographs that you could have taken otherwise. It's just not a rational argument.
It's fine to have a dislike for shutter slap, but that's a matter of taste and entirely subjective.
Philipp
Post deleted by posters request
With a 50mm lens I find I'm always moving back a bit, seeing so much on the edges that I'm leaving out. But that's the way I see things regardless of the camera. I'm trying to get the big picture, and perhaps consequently I'm rather distractable. I've never understood the argument that a 50mm lens has a field of view corresponding to what we see. For me that's probably truer of a 12mm lens!
I was very comfortable switching between the 40mm Rokkor and a C-V 21mm on my CL while traveling. Occasionally I'd use a 90 for an architectural detail, but even with my little digicam (38-114mm equivalent) I find I'm rarely changing the wide setting with which it starts up. So I think there is a psychological aspect to what "normal" one prefers, but perhaps it's as much the psychology of perception as it is the psychology of personality.
Post deleted by posters request
NickTrop
05-05-2007, 07:29
I agree with the "prefer 50's on a RF" dunno why. M42 SLR it's usually the 2/85 J9 for portraits, love that lens. Or it's the Zeiss Jena 2.4/35. The ZJ 50/1.8 Pancolar sees little action for whatever reason, though there's nothing wrong with that lens.
Actually, actually I really like the 45mm lenses, a somewhat odd focal length in SLR-land that's a smidgen wider than a 50 but still in the standard focal-length territory. This is why I'm in the fixed lens "Yashica camp". The Lynx 14e gives you a very good fast 7element/5 group 45mm 1.4 lens, full manual control, and a reasonably accurate built-in light meter, and parrallax-corrected viewfinder whose framelines are designed around a single focal length. As good a lens as the 1.4's found on interchangeable lens cameras? Dunno. To me a double gauss 7/5 lens is a double gauss 7/5 lens. Same optical formula, so the interchangeable lens "system" cameras tout more esoteric stuff like "superduperyduper multi-coated", "superiour quantum contrast", "Sigma 6010 quality standards"... My fully CLA'd Lynx 14e sample cost $42.39 not including shipping. What's any 50/1.4 Leica, CV, ZI, 'tax G1-2 running these days? Are these lenses really that much better than the ones found on the yard sale cameras that have basically the same optical formula?
Similary a GSN gives you a great 1.8/45mm plus some cool/useful low-light features and aperture priority.
It's not that I'm cheap (well, actually I am pretty cheap) but to my way of thinking, why spring for a pricey "system" camera with interchangeable lenses when I know that 90% of the time I'm going to use a standard 50? Also, I prefer leaf shutters to cloth or "venetian blind" shutters for their quiteness and (overlooked and underrated) fill flash capabilities.
MRohlfing
05-05-2007, 10:36
I started out with a Zenit-E and a 58mm Helios 44-2.
Me too. The Zenit-E had a great viewfinder, showing 78% (!!) of the picture you got on the film - it was always a nice surprise to see the finished slides - like getting something free at no cost :D
Later in my Olympus days I had a 28-85 Zoom - I once made an evaluation of the focal length I was using most, it was around 40mm. Maybe that's why now on my RF's I like my Rokkor-M 40 so much.
Post deleted by posters request
Post deleted by posters request
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.