When I started in photography in high school the standard lens was the 50 mm, which I have always liked. Apart from zoom lenses, people today tend to pass over the 50 for the 35 and some seem to prefer the 28. I was wondering if any members of the list still have an affinity for 50 mm lenses. I certainly do. It is the way I see the world. After that I like short telephoto (90 mm).

-- David Enzel (dhenzel@vei.net), May 27, 2002

Answers

The 50mm is still one of my favourites, most of my best images are taken with a 50mm, but I am getting more and more into wide angle photography and would like someday to get a 24mm.

-- Karl Yik (karl.yik@dk.com), May 27, 2002.

Dear David, I love 50 mm lenses. It seems to be exactly the way I see things. I've got the new 50 Summilux for the R (which is amazingly good), the 60 Macro for the R. both the 50 Summilux and Summicrons for the M and a 50 macro switar for my old Alpa. I love them all.

If pressed to take only on body and one lens I would have no trouble choosing the focal length. Now which particular lens might pose a dilemma.

Kirk

-- kirk (Kirktuck@kirktuck.com), May 27, 2002.

before owning a leica my mostly used lens with my slr was the 50mm. most other lenses stayed at home. i went on a trip to japan shooting about 50 rolls with only the one 50mm lens. its a highly versatile and very 'private' view, which i couldn't get with any other lens.

but with the rangefinder it seems to be different. i like my elmar and my lux, but it feels more comfortable with a 35 lens, if i can only use one. maybe it is true that with a rangefinder you are more part of the scenery than an observer. don't know...

-- stefan randlkofer (geesbert@yahoo.com), May 27, 2002.

I prefer a 35mm lens, I do have 50mm but it doesn't see much use.

-- Bert Keuken (treb@operamail.com), May 27, 2002.

Dave, when all I had was a Nikkormat and a 50/2.0 lens, the choice was clear! Then I got more equipment and the choice was not so clear. For a while, I was shooting with an M3 and a 35/2.0 (with eyes) and I really fell in love with that lens. Afterward, I used 35/2.0's on Nikon and Canon systems and pretty much forgot the 50's altogether. I was shooting weddings with a 60mm on the Hasselblad and that worked well (about the same as a 35mm lens in 35 format).

Having said all that... I have to say I'm rediscovering the 50mm or "normal" focal length again. For 3/4 length portaits is ideal, and I'm liking it a lot more for "just carrying around" than the 35mm focal length lenses. I find myself carrying the 50mm alone, rather than carrying the 35mm, and switching to an 85mm or 90mm to get closer, and doing fine with that.

Examples:

http://64.192.168.77/leica/2002/week17/index.html

The "first" example is a portrait with a 50mm, the "alternates" also are 50mm, and you can see, some of them are just too close, but the 3/4 length shots are just about right for perspective.

-- Charles (cbarcellona@telocity.com), May 27, 2002.

I started with a 35 cron when I got my m6ttl in December and quickly picked up a 50 cron rigid in January of this year. I must say that I like the 50 better, it allows me to be more selective in terms of what I include in the frame while I find the 35 to be much more inclusive. It works out well because now I find the 35 is as wide as I need, at least for the time being. Allways need a new toy...

-- john bosso (jbee193@aol.com), May 27, 2002.

David. My Leica M 50/1.4 gets the most use then comes the 28/2.0 followed by the 35/1.4.

-- Steve LeHuray (steve@icommag.com), May 27, 2002.

It is great to know I've go some company in liking the 50. I have the 50 summicron and it works well for me.

-- David Enzel (dhenzel@vei.net), May 27, 2002.

The 50 is my favorite lens. Of all of them, the 35 is my least favorite, and I don't even own one now. To me it has the most boring field of view--I guess that's what others call "natural". :-)

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), May 27, 2002.

yep, i still like the 50... at least in my opinion, for people photography nothing beats a 50... short tele's are too traditional and restrictive, and wider angles require you to get "too close for comfort".

-- Matthew Geddert (geddert@yahoo.com), May 27, 2002.

David - I started with a 50mm on my 1945 IIIc, and the 50 is still my primary lens on our M4 and M6. Our 35 'chron is great inside cathedrals and castles, but not much used elsewhere. It's a little difficult to break a 57-year habit! < grin >

-- George C. Berger (gberger@his.com), May 27, 2002.

The majority of my photos are taken with a 50. I noticed on the recent "Which one lens?" thread that there was an even split between those who chose a 50 and those who chose a 35--you are not alone.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), May 27, 2002.

I have my 50mm cron with my M6ttl, i love the perspective of the 50, do have the 35mm cron but the 50 is my favorite and shoot with it 90% of the time.

-- edgaddi (edgaddi@msn.com), May 27, 2002.

it becomes too easy to like or dislike the 50, as it usualy comes with our brand new SLR cameras, or at least used to (now it is mainly a little zoom), and we get tired of them easily if exotic focal lengths are at hand. I apreciate your question David, and would like us to get to analize the magic this lens has give to many photographers along the world and history.

For sure a prime choice among leica M users.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), May 27, 2002.

I was never a big 50mm fan for several year, going right to the 35mm lens when I bought my Nikon system. After I did the traditional Leica entry, with an M3, I of course got a 50mm lens. I quickly dismissed it and did an incremental step into the various 35mm lenses, starting with bug-eyed Summarons, and ultimately settling on the then current 35mm Summicron (and the bodies that supported that focal length).

The last few years, I have re-discovered the 50mm lens, and it is now always fighting the 35mm lens for my "favorite" status. I can never imagine not having both, because while they seem too close to justify having a 35 and 50, they are quite different. If you simply stand in one spot and switch lenses, then there might not be a drastic change, but if you move YOUR position to keep a foreground subject the same size, then it can make a big difference in the relationship of the elements. You can subordinate the subject or the environment just by choosing the lens. You can see a demonstration at this thread I posted a while back: from the archives, 35mm and 50mm difference

The 50mm is also becoming a big portrait lens for me with my M6. I might go to an 85 or 105 with my Nikon, but the 50mm on the Leica gets me the shots at shutterspeeds I couldn't succeed with using an SLR. I can still get the selective focus I like from telephotos, and minimize distortion I might get with a 35mm lens for more natural head and torso shots in an environment: 50mm as a portrait lens

Lastly, it is not always easy to get good selective focus with a 35mm lens, but a 50mm lens used at full aperture in-close can allow the "effect" of a short telephoto, and then when you need the "look" of a moderate wide-angle, just close the aperture, set the infinity mark to the far f/16 and you can get pretty deep focus. Here is a 50mm lens shot outdoors that does not readily give a clue to the focal length: selective focus give semi-tele effect

The bottom line... there probably isn't a more versatile focal length.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), May 27, 2002.

I agree with you, David. For me, the 50mm is my "go to" lens. It's the lens I routinely leave on my camera and go down (28mm) or up (90mm) from there as the situation dictates. When the situation calls for a wide angle, I like a lens that's more clearly differentiated from a normal lens . . . for me, that's the 28mm.

-- Jim Reed (jimreedpc@aol.com), May 27, 2002.

Seems almost moot to add to this, but I love the 50mm focal length, too. A 50 is on my camera 90% of the time, and always goes back after other lenses are used, as a sort-of default lens. it's such a versatile focal length, and one that provides a real natural persepective. I find the 50 also lets me get as much or as little detail as I want, just by moving my position.

Ralph Gibson is quoted in the current Leica catalogue as saying something like "more pictures were probably made with a Lecia and a 50mm lens than any other combination"- I don't know if this is true, but is true of me- the 50 just helps me record images excatly as I want them to be with least fuss.

I understand that a lot of you folks love the 35mm lens. I keep trying it again, wondering if I've missed something. Nope. Just not a focal length for me. Nice that Leica makes 'em both so well.

-- drew (swordfisher@hotmail.com), May 27, 2002.

Al --

Your example of using the 50 mm lens as a portrait lens is stunning. Beautiful color and a nice soft background. May I ask which 50 you used for that picture?

-- David Enzel (dhenzel@vei.net), May 27, 2002.

If I had to have only one lens for general photography it would be a 50, no question about it.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), May 27, 2002.

Pictures always seem to come effortlessly when I use a 50mm.I went through the 35mm and the wide angle is better period in my life but the message always seems to come through with power and presence with the 50mm.The only situation that the 50mm is dicey in is cramped interiors. The problem with the 35mm for me is that the view is slightly distorted and snapshot in funtion with less unusual photos than the 50mm albeit with some noteable exceptions.

-- Emile de Leon (knightpeople@msn.com), May 27, 2002.

If the frame lines for the 50mm showed 100% true field, rather than only 80%, it would be used a great deal more, instead of having to resort to a 35mm. A seperate finder showing the exact field is allowed HC-B to shoot virtually all his pictures with a 50mm lens.

-- Willhelmn (wmitch3400@hotmail.com), May 27, 2002.

While I lean toward lenses other than 50mm with other kinds of cameras, I like the focal lengeth mostly on a M. I own 4 different 50s for my Ms. It's often a toss-up between one of them and the 35/mm 1.4 ASPH.

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), May 27, 2002.

I also prefer the 50mm focal length, perhaps because I started out using the Zeiss Ikon Contax RFs, which only have the 50mm view through the VF. Also, although I like to do street photography & such, I just don't like the weird distortion & exaggerated facial features introduced by wide-angles (28mm & below) when they're used close-up (e.g., by every Winogrand wannabe). Like HCB, I guess, I prefer to maintain a "certain distance" from my subjects. I also like the short telephotos (85mm, 90mm, 100mm, 105mm, 135mm, etc.) for the same reasons.

-- Chris Chen (furcafe@NOSPAMcris.com), May 27, 2002.

Don't own a 50; don't miss it - especially on a rangefinder where the close focus limit means it NEVER frames tightly enough. I shoot 21/35/ 90 - the 35 is the 'middle' lens, but not necessarily the 'normal' - the 21 may come closer to that.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), May 27, 2002.

You need to frame things more tightly than this?

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), May 27, 2002.

For me, 50mm is a useful focal length and sees its fair share of use on my cameras in the form of Tri-Elmar and Summilux lenses. 50mm offers, to me, the most natural angle of view and is ideal for selective composition of near- to middle-distance subjects. I've achieved most of my favourite shots with 50mm. It's my focal length of choice for "available light" and for most landscape/cityscape use. However, the good old "standard" lens does have its limitations.

I much prefer using 90mm for close-cropped portraits, since it allows me to be farther from the subject and offers good control of DoF. I find the 90mm Elmarit-M to be superb in this role, now that I'm used to using it. I wouldn't ask for more. IMHO, whoever designed this simple, reasonably priced but superb lens was truly inspired!

I also find 28mm and 35mm essential, on occasions, to include the surroundings of the subject and for photography in confined spaces. I'm content to use the Tri-Elmar for both these focal lengths, since it does everything I want in this respect.

-- Ray Moth (ray_moth@yahoo.com), May 27, 2002.

Nice picture Mike.

I find the 50 a breath of fresh air whenever I pick it up, but then I hardly ever use it. I always want to be wider or longer.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), May 28, 2002.

David, I myself may be a bit off but I don't completely prefer the 50. (Maybe I will someday.) Everybody is always talking about the natural angle etc and if there was a 42 mm then I might prefer that instead. But I somewhat prefer the 35 because it is more "natural" to me. Maybe it's due to the fact that I like wide-angle shots in the first place. My 21A is nice and wide, but sometimes too wide. What I like about the 35 too is it's width-to-distance relationship (being about 1-to-1). Still -- and as usual Al Smith sums it all up very nicely -- I use my 35 and my 50 each about 45% of the time.

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), May 28, 2002.

Mike,

Great photograph; wonderful expression. May I ask which 50 you used?

-- David Enzel (dhenzel@vei.net), May 28, 2002.

Like most everybody here, I love 50 mm. But there is something that is not mentioned, and that is value for money. For some reason, 50 mm's (at least Leica or Nikon) always seem to be the cheapest high quality lenses in any brand's line of lenses. Of course, I'm not talking about the fastest models, but the standard ones. Nikon has a wonderful f:1,8 and Leica has the no less wonderful f:2 Summicron. Both for like half the price of the next lower priced. That counts also.

-- Olivier (olreiche@videotron.ca), May 28, 2002.

50mm cron i use alot because i can juge composition on sight and do not need to decide when lookin trough a camera. the 45 degree angle (natural sight) of the leica's are unique (sofar i know), most others are 46 degrees. This is a great advantage when taking pictures in busy/chaotic situations. 35mm and 90mm i use alot too.

-- Henk (Henksadress@hotmail.com), May 28, 2002.

Olivier, (a) Leica's M 2/50, 2/35 and 2/90 are all about 60% of the price of the next lower priced. (b) If money is the greatest problem, one should get an Elmar.

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), May 28, 2002.

Michael, recent price check, one on-line store: 50 mm Summicron, $995.00, 35 mm Summicron, $1,495.00, 90 mm Summicron, $1,895.00. They don'tseem to be «all» half the price of the next lower.

-- Olivier (olreiche@videotron.ca), May 28, 2002.

David,

Sorry for the late reply to your follow-up question. I used the next to last version (same optics as the newest) of the 50mm Summicron. That portrait was shot at f/2.0 @1/15th handheld.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), May 28, 2002.

In our Circle of the Leica Portfolio over 80% of the pictures are still taken with a 50mm of some sort. 135s are slightly more popular and wide angles reducing. 90s have not moved. This info. covers the last 24 months.

-- Tony Brookes (gdz00@lineone.net), May 28, 2002.

What's the Circle of Leica Portfolio? I have never heard of it and it sounds interesting to me.

-- David Enzel (dhenzel@vei.net), May 28, 2002.

Summicron 50 is the best!


-- Dexter Legaspi (dalegaspi@hotmail.com), May 28, 2002.

I have rediscovered the Summicron 50 DR on the M6, after having used a Summicron 35 for a long time. And I always put the Voigtlander 25 mm in the bag, sometimes an elmarit 90. This makes for a complete set, for all situations, which remains light. On the IIIf, the Elmar 50 is on 90% of the time.

-- Sebastien Simon (sebastien.simon@alumni.ethz.ch), May 28, 2002.