I just made the decision to sell my 24 mm Elmarit, and 35 mm Summicron and ecomomize on my kit with a 35 mm Summilux. The Elmarit was seeing little use because I found the idea of an accessory finder ackward. The 35 Cron was getting the most use so I figured an extra stop couldn't hurt. Anyways...

How many of you other street photographers utilize hyperfocal when shooting with your 35 mms? I use to be really anal about getting perfect focus but now I find myself using hyperfocal more and more. If there's one thing I learned about the various critiques of my work its that (as David Alan Harvey would say) the moment is what makes the picture. Concentrate on the moment, everything else is anticillary. I find I'm getting more keepers if I adhere to that philosophy. Perhaps I need to refine my strategy of focus "on the fly" so I rely on hyperfocal less in the future.

Comments, suggestions?

-- John Chan (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), December 26, 2001

Answers

Yes. I use the 35 mm and shorter lenses at hyperfocal for landscapes and when I need good DOF. I also set the lens at f4-5.6 unless a larger aperture is rqd because of low light. This technique works well when you can set the bottom of the frame so that the nearest object doesn't have to be within a few feet of the film plane. I find that this technique gives better image quality than when the lens is stopped down to f8-11, and also allows a faster shutter speed for better hand holdability.

As far as getting rid of the 24 and 35 to buy a 35 lux, if it were me, I wouldn't do it. First of all, the 24/2.8 is a terrific lens, possibly the best wide angle (shorter than 35 mm) Leica ever made. Secondly, having a 35 and 24 gives you much more flexibility to deal with various photographic situations than the 35 alone. Finally, unless you frequently and habitually work in poor light, the 35 Lux won't add much to your repetoire.

I think you're better off learning to use the lenses you have optimally. These are two of Leicas finest lenses.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), December 26, 2001.

Hello John,

I hope you do not regret to have sold your 35 SUMMICRON lens. Or do you still have it?

Some time back I invested in the 35 mm LUX Aspherical (1. version) and sold my 35 CRON for it, better for the cost of the frontlens alone, for the rest of the funds I had saved before.

But I soon found the bulk of the new lens annoying and I missed the compact size of the CRON I had given up. I had sold it privately and was able to recover it again. Now I´am using both.

In low light the LUX is unbeatable, but for outdoor use, to carry my camera in a waistbag, I choose the CRON (the version before the preaspherical). When stopped down I find it extremely difficult to see any diffrence in sharpness etc. compared to the LUX. So I still use the CRON with confidence.

Recently I added a ROKKOR 40 mm to my lenses. This one really goes straight into the waistbag without hassle. Thanks to Andrew Sch. for supporting me to get it ...

Best wishes

-- K. G. Wolf (k.g.wolf@web.de), December 26, 2001.

Hello John,

just saw your entryphoto from the 25.th. You still have your CRON it seems, and your photo there is great. The one stop more with the LUX wouldn´t have made a much better photograph. If you go on the ice with your camera, the LUX would perhaps drag you down occasionally, while you are able to balance perfectly with the CRON, I would think.

A joke, but what I mean is: the smaller lens goes out with you much more easy than the bigger one. The hyperfocal business - I´am not using it a lot, so I can not comment on it too much - with both 35 mm lenses works identical, because DOF with f2.8 for example is just the same.

Keep those two wonderful lenses you have even if your dealer tries to talk you into the LUX. To utilize fully what you have to me would be the best alternative.

Best wishes

-- K. G. Wofl (k.g.wolf@web.de), December 26, 2001.

I agree with Eliot-- I would be much more inclined to reatain the flexibility of the 24 and 35-- but thats just me. Its taken a not inconsiderable amount of practice, but I use hyperfocal more often than not with wide angles, and Ive found I tend to zone focus if possible with with my normals. Ive been doing that so much, I as amazed how long it took to focus yesterday when I was trying to be really precise (with an old Canon 50mm f1.2 @1.2) It was quick, but seemed tortise like compared to prefocused shots. best,

-- Marke Gilbert (Bohdi137@aol.com), December 26, 2001.

Geez, could I have thrown any more typos into that response? Glad my students don't read this stuff...

-- Marke Gilbert (Bohdi137@aol.com), December 26, 2001.

I became comfortable with hyperfocal and zone-focusing with a Rollei- 35. Because it has no rangefinder, I did all my focusing before the camera ever came to my eye. I felt that if I was shooting candid street shots, my actions were less likely to "spook" potential subjects because the camera was in front of my face for just a moment, rather than the several seconds it would take to focus. It relieved me of that nagging fear that I was affecting the subjects actions.

-- Pat Dunsworth (pdunsworth@aryarch.com), December 26, 2001.

Sorry to disappoint fellas but I've already committed to the change. Maybe if I slip on someone's driveway this holiday season I can ante up some deneros for a complete set...

But seriously, I've given this thing quite a bit of though and even went as far as using a loaner 35 Lux for a week. Size-wise, its really not a bother because of the way I carry my cameras.

Thanks for the input though... (I guess we all have to learn our own lessons nes pas?)

John.

-- John. (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), December 26, 2001.

Well John, this lens you already have maybe the dream of many users here (including me); I just can´t see my self without the compacness of the ´crons, about the 24 I´ve never try it, but if hiperfocal is your media the 24 can be of a great help, but guess you have already try it and didn´t find it useful.

When I just begun reading and writing in this forum;(more than a year ago) Al Smith share a tecnik he was using working with pre-focus subjects. You may work this way already, any way, using your focusing tab try practicing it until you can put the tab in the distance without looking through the telemeter, well hope it can be useful to you.

I´mm willing to see examples of your 35´lux, by the way picture of past post, find great (the one of skaters in front of ligthed buildings)

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), December 26, 2001.

A good exercise to practice is to stand in a large room. With the camera focused at infinity, pick something and focus on it with the rangefinder. With your eye looking at the object... feel the tab. Now return the lens to infinity. try to adjust the lens to the proper distance of the object...without looking trough the finder... just by feel. Now look through the finder to see how close you got. Pick another object in the room and repeat this process. Spend 10 to 15 minutes a day on this exercise and you should be able to focus the lens before the camera gets to your eye. This is not something like, "That person is 7 feet away", and then setting the lens to 7 feet. It is a visual thing where the distance is mentally translated to a position of the focusing tab... infinity is easy, but the intermediate distances can be learned over time. It is not exact, but it will get you very close, and all before the camera comes to the eye. The use of a moderate stop is insurance to cover minor inaccuracies.

Just my two cents... I love my old Summicron not only for the optics, but the size. Even if I ever bought a Summilux, I'd keep the 'cron just for those time that I'd like to stuff my M6 into a pocket or hide it under my coat. Those tiny lenses keep the stealthy M stealthy when that is important.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), December 26, 2001.

Eliot wrote: >As far as getting rid of the 24 and 35 to buy a 35 lux, if it were me, I wouldn't do it. First of all, the 24/2.8 is a terrific lens, possibly the best wide angle (shorter than 35 mm) Leica ever made. Secondly, having a 35 and 24 gives you much more flexibility to deal with various photographic situations than the 35 alone<

Roberto wrote: >but if hiperfocal is your media the 24 can be of a great help<

I know you have already made up your mind, but I had to let you know I agree with Eliot for the reason Roberto gave... If hyperfocal is going to be your game, the 24 is a superb optic to keep.

Now to answer your question specifically... I use hyperfocal with the 24 often -- just check out the DOF at f5.6 on that lens! But with the 35 I tend to take the extra second and roughly focus. If there is a lot of action happening, I am not too persnickety about focusing accuracy, but I find I like the results a lot more when I've at least roughly focused. I am also thinking that what I've said above is perhaps a decent argument in favor of the 28 as a compromise optic...

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), December 26, 2001.

I don't use hyperfocal focusing as it is pretty lazy and every one else does it. Same with using ultra-wides for candid work. Cheesy kid's stuff.

Instead, I've made an effort to learn how to estimate a couple of distances accurately. In my case, 2.5m when using the 50mm lens (80% of the time) and 1.8m when using the 35mm lens. After a few months you'll find you can guess distances surprisingly accurately - meaning you can open up your lenses and move away from the vast bulk of the SP pack.

I agree though with the sentiment of concentrating on the "moment" rather than the shot. A lot of my earlier material was perfectly composed and focused but completely banal and pointless. So after all these years there is still plenty to learn there!

-- Andrew Nemeth (azn@nemeng.com), December 26, 2001.

I disagree that the moment is everything, and I don't think Harvey's photogaphs follow that to the letter. The problem I see with most street photographs is that regardless of what is captured, the background is a problem, usually because there is insufficient separation between the subject and the background. Sometimes this is just the result of clutter, sometimes it is the result of the lighting. The moment is irrelevant if you can't spot it.

Looks, Copyright 2001 Jeff Spirer

Hyperfocal distance usually refers to something approximating "here to infinity." This doesn't make much sense for street shooting since infinity is usually irrelevant. However, setting a camera for depth of field within a reasonable range makes a lot of sense if you don't have time to focus.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), December 26, 2001.

Very nice frame Jeff; wich place of Mexico is it?., is it?

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), December 26, 2001.

It's in the old section of Puerto Vallarta.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), December 26, 2001.

same kind of buses we have in Mazatlán; sorry for getting out of subject John.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), December 26, 2001.

The main reason I'm getting rid of the 24 is that I like cropping as close to full frame as possible. Also, I've found that after looking at my negatives I don't have the inclination to comment on failed shots as "oh, well it would've looked better had I used a 24 mm perspective". Instead, for me the mind just clicks more readily with the 35 as it gives me quite a bit of coverage while not exaggerating the perspective.

I've given it about 8 months and dozens of rolls of film. I think Martin Blanke (Grosse Pointe Blanke) says it all about my feeling for the 24.

"Its not me."

-- John Chan (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), December 26, 2001.

I'm another crazy who swapped a 35 'cron ASPH and a 24 for the 35 'lux. I've never regretted it for an instant. I don't like accessory viewfinders or superwides - the finders because I don't use the hyperfocal technique and switching finders slows me down, and I think the ultrawide point of view is too easy to use as a gimmick. People all too often substitude wide-angle distortion for photographic insight.

-- Paul Chefurka (paul@chefurka.com), December 26, 2001.

On the other hand, there are occasions when an ultra-wide is the only way to capture the whole thing...

Boingggg!, 15mm Voigtlander lens, Copyright 2000 Jeff Spirer

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), December 26, 2001.

Sorry, Jeff - there are a number of ways you could have shot that scene with a 28 and captured all that was important. One of my favourite gripes is people who use ultras to "get it all in" when a tighter crop of salient elements would make a more interesting picture.

-- Paul Chefurka (paul@chefurka.com), December 26, 2001.

I agree with you Paul, for years now 35 is my one prime lens, bear by the 50 and 28, as inmediat options, the 21 used to be the lens for me, but now I feel too far with it.

Well Jeff, the great thing in life is that there is ice cream in any flavour.You know when I see that 12mm Voigtlander ad, of a woman laing on the sand, ma´ma I want one of those too. But I dont know how would I use it.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), December 26, 2001.

I'm w/Andrew Nemeth. Hyperfocal is *not* a substitute for real focusing & is something that should only be resorted to as necessary. I also agree w/him that the wide-angle view is a bit of a cliche for street photography. Aren't you the guy w/the 75 Summilux? If so, try using it as your main SP lens for a while. Otherwise, I would echo those recommending that you switch to the 35/1.4 'lux only if you need the extra stop (unless you just want to spend some $$).

-- Chris Chen (furcafe@cris.com), December 26, 2001.

I belive you´re getting out of point here Chris; it is clear that focusing a huge 75/1.4 is in another dimention compared with a 35, and not only for deep of field, but to move the barrel only, and it doesn´t seems for me an heroic way to take street photography, may be street portraits could be,

On the other hand hiperfocal settings are a way to catch up a moment other wise you won´t, so for me 75 is another way of doing photography, not compared with 35, as 35 has nothing to do with a 12mm lens. IMHO

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), December 26, 2001.

but also agree with Andrew, there is nothing more in focus than what´s in focus.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), December 26, 2001.

R(oberto?), my only points about using the 75/1.4 are that *any* lens can be used for street photography w/enough practice & that focal lengths > 35mm can be very useful & possibly preferable (e.g., we all know HCB like 50mm & I think Eugene Smith sometimes used 90mm lenses). Sure, it's much harder focusing a 50, 75, or 90 on the fly, but if used properly (i.e., @ appropriate distances when you can't or don't want to get within a few meters of your subjects), there's still plenty of depth of field to work with (& you don't get as much background clutter & distortion as you do w/the wides). I guess my answer to John's query is that one should be both "anal" about correct focus *&* concentrate on "capturing the moment." IMO, too many Winogrand-wannabes use wide-angles set to hyperfocal as a kind of crutch (& also end up wasting much of the optical advantages of their expensive Leica glass).

-- Chris Chen (furcafe@cris.com), December 27, 2001.

I still think hyperfocal would help in certain instances. Here's one.

This was taken with the 50 cron, full aperture 1/60 (what I gauged to be the "minimum" shutter speed to freeze the action). Unfortunately, I had only 200 ISO film in my body at the time so smaller apertures were ruled out (low light). Double unfortunate that I thought I was shooting at F4 and effectively utilizing my "loose focus" strategy for capturing the moment.

-- John Chan (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), December 27, 2001.

Chris; using a wide or super wide as a way to make "interesting" pictures is another history, and agree with you here, there are a lot of people interested in wide angles just to add crazy distortion, at the end what´s important is a good frame, no mather what was it made with.

About the 35 for street, I like because it alows me to get close and at the same time have fore ground to relate my close subject to.

And I can thik of great SP using a longer lens, after all 75 or 90 are not so long.

Diferences are not a big deal, but a way to discover out similitudes.

Happy New Year Chris, John and the rest of friends here.

-- roberto watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), December 27, 2001.