Longer focal lengths in B&W

[pippy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

5 hours ago, nico4444 said:

What I am asking is whether it is more challenging to achieve it using longer focal lengths and if so, by how much, because that what makes or breaks a great B&W picture.

Using a longer focal-length lens on the street is no more difficult - in terms of getting the exposure correct - than when using a 50mm-or-under lens. Usually easier in point of fact.

Philip.

[Jeff S]

10 minutes ago, nico4444 said:

I wrote "better" for lack of more fitting words. Maybe "easier" would have suited my point? I have plenty of books of B&W photography and, actually, I have only B&W photography books, and in each one of them, the photographer takes into account the zone system whether intentionally or not.

I am not debating which focal lengths yields better B&W images, because that's arbitrary - I am asking whether longer focal lengths are harder to use to achieve a consistent result in B&W photography with the zone system in mind.

Lastly, how is your experience in film and darkroom having any relevance in modern day digital B&W and to my post in general? I understand the zone system was a pain to deal with in the past, but I think you are overestimating its difficulty for current applications and overcomplicating what it actually is, because nowadays, with information found everywhere on the internet, one does not need to read entire books to comprehend it.

I already wrote that longer focal lengths were not harder for me.

And I also wrote that I don’t implement the zone system with my digital work, as digital tools make things easier (and far more flexible). My comments about past use and understanding of the zone system was merely in response to your stating that we understand it differently. I understand it just fine.

As for tones in portraiture, even with head and shoulders, one can create dramatic effect with lighting, clothing, background, skin tone/makeup, editing techniques, etc. No reason for a bland photo other than a bland idea and execution.  

Jeff

[nico4444]

11 minutes ago, pippy said:

Using a longer focal-length lens on the street is no more difficult - in terms of getting the exposure correct - than when using a 50mm-or-under lens. Usually easier in point of fact.

Philip.

I am not talking about exposure here. With the Monochrom bodies I'm looking to underexpose anyway to avoid clipping as much as possible.

5 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

As for tones in portraiture, even with head and shoulders, one can create dramatic effect with lighting, clothing, background, skin tone/makeup, editing techniques, etc. No reason for a bland photo other than a bland idea and execution.

I am talking street photography and portraitures in a street environment, where one can somewhat control the background and subject, so one needs to search for perfect lighting, and I believed that it is harder to achieve results with longer focal lengths over wider ones. It feels like one has to neatly include everything in the frame to work the zone system with a longer focal length. A B&W shot of an one-coloured bird sitting on a branch with a telephoto lens would make a boring B&W picture due to lack of tonal gradation

[Jeff S]

Filling the frame in an interesting and compelling way.... it’s the challenge for all photography. Prerequisites are a good eye and good decision making. Some might still find a way to make your bird photo work in print, depending perhaps on lighting and gesture, others would fail miserably. Working close with  a wide angle lens, the photographer might scare away even the loveliest bird. Pros and cons for all decisions.
 

There are various pros and cons for using long vs wide lenses for ‘street’ photography.  These are covered in many articles and videos. Some photographers ‘see’ better and/or relate to subject matter better with certain focal lengths, wider or longer. Some work magic with a limited tonal palette, while others still produce crap with a broad range of tones. It’s part of what I love about photography and printing. 

Jeff

[Likaleica]

4 hours ago, nico4444 said:

I wrote "better" for lack of more fitting words. Maybe "easier" would have suited my point? I have plenty of books of B&W photography and, actually, I have only B&W photography books, and in each one of them, the photographer takes into account the zone system whether intentionally or not.

I am not debating which focal lengths yields better B&W images, because that's arbitrary - I am asking whether longer focal lengths are harder to use to achieve a consistent result in B&W photography with the zone system in mind.

Lastly, how is your experience in film and darkroom having any relevance in modern day digital B&W and to my post in general? I understand the zone system was a pain to deal with in the past, but I think you are overestimating its difficulty for current applications and overcomplicating what it actually is, because nowadays, with information found everywhere on the internet, one does not need to read entire books to comprehend it.

deep breaths

Edited February 16, 2021 by Likaleica

[pippy]

11 hours ago, nico4444 said:

..A B&W shot of an one-coloured bird sitting on a branch with a telephoto lens would make a boring B&W picture due to lack of tonal gradation...

A B&W shot of a one-coloured bird.......would make a boring pic regardless of focal-length. What you are discussing here is subject-matter and composition.

Why don't jou just buy a cheap 90mm f4 Elmar - they can be had for around £70 / $90 - and go out and see for yourself?

P.

Edited February 16, 2021 by pippy

[AceVentura1986]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I work mostly in BW on my M9M, but also shoot an ME and Canon gear as well. My go-to lens on the M system is a 50mm Summicron, with a 35mm CC Nokton as a close second. I will use a 75mm CV color skopar for portraits on occasions but the 50 can serve that task as well. I can’t see using anything longer than a 75 on an M system  

On the Canon, I used to use a 50 f/1.4 regularly, but now use the 40 f/2.8 because of its slightly wider FOV and because as a pancake lens it’s so small and light. I also have a 28mm but have never really taken to that focal length. Of course, on the Canon I also have a variety of L zooms as well ranging from 17mm to 200mm as that system serves a wholly different purpose than the M. 

Edited February 16, 2021 by AceVentura1986

[Hanno]

On 2/15/2021 at 1:54 PM, nico4444 said:

I don't know if this has been discussed already, but I'm wondering if focal lengths above standard make sense for B&W photography.

Let me elaborate. I was looking to get a Monochrom and the choice comes down to Leica M and Q2M, so M glass selection or fixed wide 28mm. I like to shoot with 75mm or longer in colour for portraiture and 28mm in B&W for street, but I realized I never shoot B&W at longer focal lengths, because utilizing the zone system in those occasions is not always intuitive.

I see a lot of professional B&W portraits, done almost exclusively in studio lighting, and B&W landscapes, where longer focal lengths are used, but in normal situations, like street, I find myself using wider focal lengths naturally.

It would be insightful to hear how users go about building their systems for B&W photography.

Thank you.

Hi Nico4444,

If you are considering (B&W) street photography with 75mm or 90mm on a M, I would suggest testing it before, and in particular one issue which may bother you or not… the block in the view finder created by the long focal lens. 

You can rely on the LCD screen of course or use the Visoflex/ EVF solution. For me, for street photography and the “decisive moment”, I truly want the OVF. The EVF on a M is more a tool for specific situations than a go-to. I personally moved into SL2 for long focal lenses and keep my M10M and M10R for 28mm and 50mm.

Everyone is different and unique, simply check if this is an issue for you or not.

All the best!

[nico4444]

4 hours ago, pippy said:

A B&W shot of a one-coloured bird.......would make a boring pic regardless of focal-length. What you are discussing here is subject-matter and composition.

Why don't jou just buy a cheap 90mm f4 Elmar - they can be had for around £70 / $90 - and go out and see for yourself?

P.

That was clearly an example of a poor B&W shot. I don't shoot B&W for the sake of it - I shoot B&W with intent and I think that what differentiates our methodologies.

Also, I'm not a hoarder - why would I buy a random lens? I am asking long-term users about their experiences in achieving great result in B&W with longer focal lengths using the zone system, so I have that in mind as a reference.

11 hours ago, Likaleica said:

deep breaths

Nice contribution to the post - as practical as the other guy referencing his work from 40 years ago in a digital era.

[pippy]

9 minutes ago, nico4444 said:

That was clearly an example of a poor B&W shot. I don't shoot B&W for the sake of it - I shoot B&W with intent and I think that what differentiates our methodologies...

What differentiates our methodologies is that I know exactly what to do when shooting on the street in b'n'w with longer than 50mm lenses.

Bye!

Philip.

Edited February 16, 2021 by pippy

[nico4444]

3 hours ago, AceVentura1986 said:

I work mostly in BW on my M9M, but also shoot an ME and Canon gear as well. My go-to lens on the M system is a 50mm Summicron, with a 35mm CC Nokton as a close second. I will use a 75mm CV color skopar for portraits on occasions but the 50 can serve that task as well. I can’t see using anything longer than a 75 on an M system  

On the Canon, I used to use a 50 f/1.4 regularly, but now use the 40 f/2.8 because of its slightly wider FOV and because as a pancake lens it’s so small and light. I also have a 28mm but have never really taken to that focal length. Of course, on the Canon I also have a variety of L zooms as well ranging from 17mm to 200mm as that system serves a wholly different purpose than the M. 

I was looking at either the APO 75mm or APO 90mm, but I just have not seen a lot of pictures taken with those two lenses in B&W and I was just wondering if people are not finding great success with those focal lengths for B&W. Is your choice of predominantly using the 50mm a stylistic choice or a more practical choice?

21 minutes ago, Hanno said:

Hi Nico4444,

If you are considering (B&W) street photography with 75mm or 90mm on a M, I would suggest testing it before, and in particular one issue which may bother you or not… the block in the view finder created by the long focal lens. 

You can rely on the LCD screen of course or use the Visoflex/ EVF solution. For me, for street photography and the “decisive moment”, I truly want the OVF. The EVF on a M is more a tool for specific situations than a go-to. I personally moved into SL2 for long focal lenses and keep my M10M and M10R for 28mm and 50mm.

Everyone is different and unique, simply check if this is an issue for you or not.

All the best!

I'm already prepared to shoot mostly on the EVF to get critical focus. I have used the Summilux-R 80 for a few years adapted and got great results in colour. The problem is composing in B&W with that focal length that I have trouble with. I also would love to have the combination of 28mm+50mm - I think it gives a good coverage for B&W. Is it a practical choice of yours for not using something above the 75mm?

[nico4444]

6 minutes ago, pippy said:

What differentiates our methodologies is that I know exactly what to do when shooting on the street in b'n'w with longer than 50mm lenses.

Bye!

Philip.

And you actively disregard the zone system? That is what my post is mainly about.

[pgk]

On 2/15/2021 at 1:54 PM, nico4444 said:

It would be insightful to hear how users go about building their systems for B&W photography..

Exactly the same way as for colour photography. I see absolutely no connection between choosing lenses and deciding on whether to use them for colour or black and white. I choose and use the lens appropriate for the subject and composition. You are overthinking this big time.

The zone system is a way of producing desired tonality on film and is of limited application in the digital age when a raw file can be revisited innumerable times. As long as the exposure captures the highlights and/or shadows which are of importance to the subject matter, then the file can be worked on ad nauseam.

Edited February 16, 2021 by pgk

[nico4444]

Just now, pgk said:

Exactly the same way as for colour photography. I see absolutely no connection between choosing lenses and deciding on whether to use them for colour or black and white. I choose and use the lens appropriate for the subject and composition. You are overthinking this big time.

I am simply making an observation as I realized I haven't been able to use that focal length consistently in B&W myself. Also, looking at the history of B&W, most of the photographers' work, that I know of, were done with a 50mm and/or wider. I truly think B&W and colour take completely different skillsets and I am suspecting longer focal length particularly, is not well favoured by B&W photographers.

[pgk]

1 minute ago, nico4444 said:

.....I am suspecting longer focal length particularly, is not well favoured by B&W photographers.

No. Much more likely that you are finding that historically there were more reasons not to use longer focal lengths - film was far less sensitive so shutter speeds were lower, focus was manual so shorter focal legths were preferable as they were easier/quicker to focus, and so on. With modern. digital cameras we have far more freedom and this includes viable focal length choice from extreme ultrawide to reasonable telephoto. I would say that what you are finding is that you prefer certain focal lengths, and that's fine, but extrapolating that to suggest that longer focal lengths are not well favoured by B&W photographers is assuming way too much.

[pippy]

29 minutes ago, nico4444 said:

And you actively disregard the zone system?

No. Why on Earth would I do that?

Edited February 16, 2021 by pippy

[nico4444]

12 minutes ago, pgk said:

No. Much more likely that you are finding that historically there were more reasons not to use longer focal lengths - film was far less sensitive so shutter speeds were lower, focus was manual so shorter focal legths were preferable as they were easier/quicker to focus, and so on. With modern. digital cameras we have far more freedom and this includes viable focal length choice from extreme ultrawide to reasonable telephoto. I would say that what you are finding is that you prefer certain focal lengths, and that's fine, but extrapolating that to suggest that longer focal lengths are not well favoured by B&W photographers is assuming way too much.

And I can live with that. However, my assumption about B&W photographers not favouring certain focal lengths does not seem to be completely unfounded given the lack of bodies of work. Or maybe I just haven’t found them? If so, I would really appreciate it if someone could point them out.

 

18 minutes ago, pippy said:

No.

I’m asking since you are contradicting yourself a bit.

[pippy]

1 minute ago, nico4444 said:

...I’m asking since you are contradicting yourself a bit...

Where, exactly, am I contradicting myself?

[Hanno]

35 minutes ago, nico4444 said:

I was looking at either the APO 75mm or APO 90mm, but I just have not seen a lot of pictures taken with those two lenses in B&W and I was just wondering if people are not finding great success with those focal lengths for B&W. Is your choice of predominantly using the 50mm a stylistic choice or a more practical choice?

I'm already prepared to shoot mostly on the EVF to get critical focus. I have used the Summilux-R 80 for a few years adapted and got great results in colour. The problem is composing in B&W with that focal length that I have trouble with. I also would love to have the combination of 28mm+50mm - I think it gives a good coverage for B&W. Is it a practical choice of yours for not using something above the 75mm?

Yes for street photography / documentary, I love the compactness, non-intrusiveness and lightness of the 28mm and 50mm lenses. I have the Noctilux 75mm which is nearly 1kg. Its weight and viewfinder blockage / forced reliance on the Visoflex gradually pushed me towards using the M series only for 50mm and below. I guess it would be different for landscape and Astro photography. I have also moved more towards portraiture and the Visoflex / EVF experience on a M body is not comparable to the SL2.

I am truly glad you are comfortable using the EVF (and probably even jealous of you!  ) as I do love so much the M experience. If you are fine using long focal lenses and the EVF in colour, then maybe it is simply a matter of practice for you to get as comfortable with B&W. Maybe it is more natural for you to see/think in B&W with a 35mm or 50mm, but with practice I am sure you would be as equally comfortable with longer focal lenses. I saw no practical differences in using my 75mm on the M10-R or M-10M. 

(As a side note, the 28mm Summilux asph f/1.4 is simply a remarkable lens).

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[nico4444]

4 minutes ago, Hanno said:

Yes for street photography / documentary, I love the compactness, non-intrusiveness and lightness of the 28mm and 50mm lenses. I have the Noctilux 75mm which is nearly 1kg. Its weight and viewfinder blockage / forced reliance on the Visoflex gradually pushed me towards using the M series only for 50mm and below. I guess it would be different for landscape and Astro photography. I have also moved more towards portraiture and the Visoflex / EVF experience on a M body is not comparable to the SL2.

I am truly glad you are comfortable using the EVF (and probably even jealous of you!  ) as I do love so much the M experience. If you are fine using long focal lenses and the EVF in colour, then maybe it is simply a matter of practice for you to get as comfortable with B&W. Maybe it is more natural for you to see/think in B&W with a 35mm or 50mm, but with practice I am sure you would be as equally comfortable with longer focal lenses. I saw no practical differences in using my 75mm on the M10-R or M-10M. 

(As a side note, the 28mm Summilux asph f/1.4 is simply a remarkable lens).

These are some good points regarding the weigth/size (also lack of stabilizations) of various lenses that can discourage users from picking them up. I got used to the 28mm after years of using the Leica Q, which I shot predominantly with the B&W EVF and I came to the point where I can somewhat visualize the frame lines accurately enough. I might be stepping in an uncomfortable territory with longer focal lengths for B&W as you said.

(Currently, I have no need for large aperture lenses since I tend to shoot stopped down, but that lens and the 24/1.4 are something else)