50mm Lens purpose and struggles

[Enbee]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I recently purchased a lux 50. I also have a 35 cron. I was very excited with the opportunity to use it in various situations but I am struggling with the new lens. I took it for some street photography but then I have to be too close. Tried it at home - seems that people have to squished together to do a group across my dinning table that seats 4. I have tried it in a few other places. I am running out of ideas where this lens be used best. I love what 35 can do. I have a 21 as well, which serves well for landscapes etc. Can someone please suggest where to use 50 and how I can make the best use of it. Thank You in advance!

[FrozenInTime]

The 50mm works well for environmental portraits especially indoors for individuals.

 

For street use check out HCB's work

I suspect HCB was more of an anticipate and pre-visualize rather than a run and grab photographer.

( I will now duck )

Edited March 22, 2015 by FrozenInTime

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[fussgangerfoto]

The 50mm works well for environmental portraits especially indoors for individuals.

 

Yep. 50mm indoors (as in a home) is great for individuals but tough for a group shot. But it's my favorite focal length, mostly for individual portraits, usually in the studio or outdoors, where I can still interact with the subject. If you're not constrained by space, like a wall behind you, you can step back to take in more of the environment.

 

I've owned (and still own) more 50's than any other focal length.

[pico]

You have answered your own question.

.

[Mr_Jones]

Personally I'm a 50mm convert. I started with a 35 but now I find it too wide and don't even carry a 35 if I'm packing a 50. On the other hand I do appreciate a 35 is a great solo focal length and I always compliment the 50 with a 28 when I'm travelling. I like that combination and it makes sense to me. If a 50 does;t feel right to you it's probably not right for you.

 

As FrozenInTime said environmental portraits and individuals indoors are where it shines. There is an argument that 50mm is the most 'normal' length based on the size of a 'normal print' and 'normal viewing distance', see Erwin Puts for a complete explanation.

[Herr Barnack]

A 28mm or 35mm lens is the best choice for street photography and for indoors group portraits, unless you are in a very large room such as a banquet room. If you are in a room that is the size of rooms in a normal home, the 50mm is too long unless you want to make head and shoulder portraits.

 

The 50 is annoying for street, festival and farmer's market type photography (for me, at least) - it's too long. I always end up backing off my subject to get the framing that I want, which gives people room to aimlessly wander between me and my subject. With a 28 or 35, you can circumvent this problem by being able to get close to your subject to fill the frame.

 

The 50 is a good portrait lens (yes, many people say the 75mm and/or the 90mm are the ideal portrait lenses, but still - give the 50 a try). The 50 is also a good travel lens; a 28 or 35 paired with a 50 makes a very versatile two lens travel kit.

 

The 50 also has a place in landscape shooting. Landscape photography is not the exclusive domain of the 20-35mm and 70-300mm zoom lenses. You can do a lot in landscape photography with a 50mm lens; you just have to know how to frame your subject matter to make effective images with it.

[Jennifer]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm a recent convert to the 50, having previously relied almost entirely on a 35/90 combo. If I'm either unsure as to what I'll be shooting or am likely to be faced with a variety of situations but don't want to carry additional glass, it's either a Lux 50 or APO 50 I grab.

 

Travelling light on a recent trip, I just packed the APO 50 and Elmarit 28 and I can't say that either faster or other FL's were greatly missed.

[skinnfell]

I am not sure if this is a joke question or sincere. But I assume the latter and this is how I think of it (grossly generalized):

 

50mm shows the subject.

35mm shows the subject with a context.

 

Context in this regard would be the natural environment, but also how your subject interacts with other subjects. If you are going for juxtapositional images, meaning images where there is some sort of tension, connection or interaction between two subjects, I find the 35mm vastly superior. It seems this is what you have found when you talk about your subjects "sqeezing together".

Subjects in this regard could be people, or any other element that makes up the 'message of the picture', so to speak.

 

Put on an even wider lens and you are juggling several subjects. For this reason I don't really feel comfortable below 28mm.

 

A 50mm lens on the other hand would give you a clean portrait (at a close distance), something that a 35 would not give at any distance. Although certainly not impossible, I find it hard to make context-driven images with a 50.

Since I am more and more interested in creating images with a context and tension, my 35 cron is seeing more and more time on my monochrom.

 

I don't know if this was informative or not, but there you have it.

 

EDIT: For the record I am a recent convert, but towards 35 rahter than 50. For the first 10 years of my photography I used almost exclusively the 50mm. Looking back, I see these images I made as an long parade of isolated subjects. Interesting, but without tension.

Edited March 26, 2015 by skinnfell

[atournas]

I recently purchased a lux 50. I also have a 35 cron. [...] I took it for some street photography but then I have to be too close. [...]

 

Curious, I can't follow this remark. It should be the other way round. For the frame to cover completely a standing-up subject, a 35mm lens must be about 3m away, while a 50mm lens 4m (back-of-the-envelope calculations usng the angular coverage of these lenses).

 

Paul

[IWC Doppel]

I feel 35 is for people you know and get close too and works great for a heap of work (I definitely prefer to 50, most of the time)

 

The 50 is a great lens for a more distant approach that gets personal shots where a 35 would seem perhaps intrusive. I'd leave your 50 on and resist taking it off for a few weeks.

 

PS As already mentioned HCB is a great place to start looking at how a 50 on the street can be

Edited March 26, 2015 by IWC Doppel

[michaelwj]

35 is my standard go to lens.

 

I use a 50 like a short tele - single person portraits, or when I don't want to be in the face of the subjects. I found that after I added a 50, my 35 shots were better, I was getting closer and really using the perspective more, since I had the 50 for the less abrupt shots.

 

I never really bonded with a 90 (might try again one day), and likewise, you may not bond with the 50. I'd give it some time, but if the shoe doesn't fit, try another one.

 

Cheers,

Michael

[IkarusJohn]

If you consider on full frame, roughly what your eye sees (a "natural" field of view) is equivalent to a 43mm lens, I find a 50mm gives a very natural image. Read that how you will.

 

In days gone by, we'd get a "standard" lens - 50 or 55 of average speed - with the camera when we bought it. Typically, we'd put the lens cap on it, throw it in a drawer and forget about it. That reasoning only changed for me when I got a 50 Summilux ASPH.

 

I do find, though, that I like the drama of wides and the reach of teles for giving that different presentation (bearing in mind that I tend not to go wider than 21 or longer than 90). I guess what I'm saying is that it's not just about fitting things into the image, but what happens to the dynamic of the image as the field of view changes which appeals to me.

[Mornnb]

If you consider on full frame, roughly what your eye sees (a "natural" field of view) is equivalent to a 43mm lens, I find a 50mm gives a very natural image. Read that how you will.

 

50mm is as far away from 43mm as 35mm is. So both should be quite close to a very natural image.

 

In days gone by, we'd get a "standard" lens - 50 or 55 of average speed - with the camera when we bought it. Typically, we'd put the lens cap on it, throw it in a drawer and forget about it. That reasoning only changed for me when I got a 50 Summilux ASPH.

 

If I could only have one lens, it would have to be a 35mm. There's so much you can't shoot with a 50mm, because it's so tight.

[IkarusJohn]

50mm is as far away from 43mm as 35mm is. So both should be quite close to a very natural image.

 

Not really.

 

 

 

 

 

If I could only have one lens, it would have to be a 35mm. There's so much you can't shoot with a 50mm, because it's so tight.

 

Perhaps. But then, with a camera system, I see no point in having just one lens. To what possible purpose? If I'm going for a walk, I would take one of three lenses - 28, 35 or 50. It really depends where I'm going. I have three 50s, so there's a high chance it would be a 50. Particularly if it was somewhere like Paris or London. But if it was Venice, I'd take a 28.

 

For two lenses (a more common scenario) I would take a 50 & 28, no question. Three? well it could be a classic Leica 28-50-90 or 21-35-75 depending where I'm going and how I feel. If I'm driving, I would probably pack the lot so they're available. Why not?

 

But if for some stupid reason I was forced into one lens? It would be a 50 (probably Noct). But then maybe a 28 would be a better choice. The best thing is, I will never have to make that choice!

[A miller]

I find it a little odd that you plumped down so much cash for a tool that you dont even need, and that you are searching for advice as to how you can make use of it.

 

I think this is simple. Dont force yourself to like it. Use only what works for you and slowly expand your toolkit as you can visualize and even act on a broad rang of successful photographs using a particular lens.

 

I made this mistake with the 90mm apo cron. Bough it brand new without a f'ing idea what to do with it. I tried to force myself but ultimately realized that i was being stupid and thus sold it at a $1000 loss.

 

Now that was a 90mm, which defnitionally has a narrower range of purposes.

 

The only reason i dont use my 50mm as my main lens is that your subject needs to be more or less stationary as the dof isnt that great. But rendition-wise, it is my favorite.

 

I think you will slowly come to realize this, but i also think you may be putting the cart before the horse.

[IkarusJohn]

The only reason i dont use my 50mm as my main lens is that your subject needs to be more or less stationary as the dof isnt that great. But rendition-wise, it is my favorite.

 

 

If you like it that much, try using the aperture ring - depth of field is what you want it to be ...

[A miller]

Not sure i follow, John. I was merely making the simple point that the range of focus isnt as deep as a 28 or even a 35. For me, this is limiting as the type of shooting i like most involves very quick compose-and-shoots. This i why i use a 28 for this.

 

On vacation with my family, i will not hesitate to bring only a 50mm, as the rendition is jus sublime in my opinion.

[adan]

Way back when - the 50mm lens was what "came with the camera". It was supposed to be "normal", although compared to other formats than 35mm, it is a tad longer than the definition (= diagonal of the negative, which as mentioned, is 42-43mm for a Leica negative). Not sure why Barnack and Berek (and everyone who copied them thereafter) picked 50mm over 43mm - but there it is. Possibly because the focal length was already "out there" and easy to calculate, or because it was just a nice round number in either metric or imperial measure (50mm = 2 inches).

 

Or perhaps because it CAN be a do-everything focal length, especially since playing with the DoF/aperture, one can get some subject isolation with almost an "85mm" look, or a lot of DoF for a wider look (My 50 Elmar in college could stop down to f/22, giving the visual "effect" of using a 35mm in some cases.) It is also usually the cheapest way to get an f/2 or f/1.4 aperture, even in the Leica world.

 

The flip side of that is it also can be seen as a "jack of all trades, and master of none."

 

Personally, except for my days with the cropped M8, where a 50 made a very nice fast "almost 70mm," I haven't used that focal length since 1980 or thereabouts. Like the OP, I use a 21 and 35, and just go right on up to a 75-85-90-105 for longer shots. But if I needed f/1.4 or thereabouts on a limited budget, I would look at a 50, because a 21, 24, 28, 35 or (R.I.P) 75mm f/1.4 costs at least twice what a 50 would (some 50 f/1.4, not necessarily the latest Summilux NIB!).

 

Whether a 50 (or any lens based on the diagonal of the image) really is "normal" is another question. Someone once compared landscapes by the Dutch masters to the original settings, and claimed that their paintings were framed with the quote-perspective-unquote of - a "100mm lens." So much for "normal"....

[KM-25]

I have actually been doing some soul searching on this as well. At one point I had 4 M film bodies and 5 lenses but sold most of it off once the project I was working on was done.

 

What I kept, one M3, was a gift so from a sentimental standpoint, it totally made sense. I have been through 5 different 50mm lenses in trying to get to the sweet spot for using 400 speed black and white film. While the 50 Lux Asph I have now is beautiful, I am realizing that I much, much prefer a 35 1.4 in using an RF. What drove this point home was just how much easier it was to nail the right focus in off center compositions wide open in using a 50mm on my F3 was last week. I try to do the same using the M3 and it is sooo slow compared to how fast I worked with the 50/Nikon or used to work with the 35 lux in RF.

 

The other thing…and this is really the big one, is that the 50 is just not allowing me to tell my stories as well as I can with a 35. I’ll even go as far as saying that the difference between a 28 and 35 is not nearly as pronounced as that of a 35 and 50.

 

So I showed my wife some images, some views through the lenses on my Nikons and she agreed with me. I am likely to sell the 50 lux, buy a good used collapsable Summicron or Zeiss 50/2 Planar and get another M6 and 35mm 1.4 asph and be done with it.

 

It is what it is, I have to get what works….

Edited April 3, 2015 by KM-25

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[bocaburger]

I'm an old timer who got into Leica around 1970, and in those days the "standard" lens sold at a slightly discounted kit price was a 50mm Summicron. It was several years before I could afford another lens, so I took tons of photographs with a 50 and to this day feel very confident with it as a one-lens outfit if need be. That said, once I expanded my outfit, I quickly came to favor 21-35-90 and that is still my core preference. I still shoot with a 50 quite a bit, but when space and weight is a consideration (as when traveling), the 50 is the first lens I leave home. I find it limiting in close quarters, and a bit short for my comfort zone when shooting strangers in public.