Strange attraction of rangefinders and 50s ?

[Spyderman]

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
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...

[FrankS]

Yes and no. I was always a 50 guy.

[xayraa33]

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.

[robin a]

Hi, 50's the best..........Robin

[DavidH]

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]

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]

Just feels right. Especially with a 1x viewfinder

[iml]

Originally Posted by FrankS

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

[wilt]

Love the focal length, both in rangefinders and SLR (OM 2).

[Welsh_Italian]

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!

[Vics]

I got into the 50 during my last days with SLRs and that was what drew me to the M3. Never looked back.

[raid]

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

[adep]

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]

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!

[mhv]

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]

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]

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

[FrankS]

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.

[roundg]

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.

[daniel~]

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

[oscroft]

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.

[pvdhaar]

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

[lament]

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.