The myth of 35/40/50mm: personal experience and lessons

[Greenhilltony]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I found that I can switch between a 35mm lens and 40mm lens back and forth with ease. They are indifferent to me in terms of handling, zone-focusing, and the feels of shooting from the hip. Indeed the 40mm should have a narrower DOF but I never found it bother me when I zone-focus or guesstimate the distance. The framelines don't bother me much since I can't see the whole corners of the 35mm lines with an attached diopter glass on my viewfinder, which in turn is a rough estimation of the 40mm fov. The pictures taken from the street and through these two focal lengths are also seemingly indifferent to me. You can understand this statement if you check my posted pictures in my thread. They are a mix of photos taken with a CV35/2 Ultron II and a Minola M-Rokkor 40/2. The experience from composing/snapping the shot, review, to post-processing with the two lenses are seamlessly the same to me.

However when I switch from 40mm to 50mm two days ago, the whole world changes for me. I am struggling to establish the underlying connections between the focus distance and composition, and the less DOF latitude raises more challenges in zone-focusing. The comfortable shooting distances for me at 35/40 mm are around 2-3m mostly, sometimes 1.2-2m for closeup kids and 5m for a larger scene. For 50mm, I think I have to start shooting beyond 3m, which is a distance for half-body portrait at 50mm, and 5m for whole body, and lastly 10m for a larger scene. To me, it is like adapting to a whole new mindset and muscle memory. Maybe that's because I have been shooting with many 28/35mm compact film camera before, and just switched to 50mm for two days. But in conclusion, this already clearly illustrate that 40mm is not a all-around choice between 35mm and 50mm; it is just a slightly cropped 35mm, with little to notice differences in user experiences, while 50mm is completely different to 35/40mm.

[Advertisement]

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

[dpitt]

Same experience here. Using my Summicron 40 C with the standard 50mm frames it brings up is very hard. I had it modified to bring up 35mm frames on the M series. That works perfectly for me, shooting inside the frame is very accurate.

The 40mm is actually my preferred FL on a FF rangefinder. 35 already feels a bit wide and 28 is too wide or not wide enough for me. I would rather use my 21 in stead of the 28 to have some dramatic difference with the 40. No issues here with a 50mm although I must admit I rarely zone focus with the 50.

Edited April 12, 2023 by dpitt

[Greenhilltony]

1 hour ago, dpitt said:

Same experience here. Using my Summicron 40 C with the standard 50mm frames it brings up is very hard. I had it modified to bring up 35mm frames on the M series. That works perfectly for me, shooting inside the frame is very accurate.

The 40mm is actually my preferred FL on a FF rangefinder. 35 already feels a bit wide and 28 is too wide or not wide enough for me. I would rather use my 21 in stead of the 28 to have some dramatic difference with the 40. No issues here with a 50mm although I must admit I rarely zone focus with the 50.

I would like to try 50 for a month first. If I still couldn’t find my way to work with it and develop my style, I would go back to 40. The only thing I am not satisfied is my M-Rokkor-QF 40 copy is a little bit wobbly, the focus ring has almost no grease and with several dust spot inside. That sometimes makes me worry about the lens would fall apart when I fiddle with it lol 

[cfritze]

interesting. years ago, 40mm was the first lens on an M camera i shot with, and i agree it’s much more like a 35mm lens to me too. this week, i started trying a converted Contax G45 lens, and it on the other hand crosses the line into the feel of a 50mm in terms of focus distance, composition, depth of field. 

Edited April 12, 2023 by cfritze

[dpitt]

9 hours ago, cfritze said:

interesting. years ago, 40mm was the first lens on an M camera i shot with, and i agree it’s much more like a 35mm lens to me too. this week, i started trying a converted Contax G45 lens, and it on the other hand crosses the line into the feel of a 50mm in terms of focus distance, composition, depth of field. 

That sounds familiar too. I have a Tessar 45 f2.8 for my reflex bodies and it feels like a 50mm. Actually some 50mm lenses are actually 48mm, others can be 53mm, so the script on the lens is not always accurate (depends on the brand/make of a particular model)

Edited April 12, 2023 by dpitt

[Alberti]

I started with the 40mm Rokkor when I had the M8. The 50mm was really a small (and handsome)telelens at 65mm equivalent. Very different in feeling.

Then on the M240 the 40mm really got used a lot - second in number of pictures, after the Summicron 35. The 40 gives a tad more concentration than the 35mm. And the quality / look is superb. Now on the M10 R I like the 50mm again, it has a great feeling. So for me the body also has a lot of influence.

[dpitt]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, Alberti said:

I started with the 40mm Rokkor when I had the M8. The 50mm was really a small (and handsome)telelens at 65mm equivalent. Very different in feeling.

Then on the M240 the 40mm really got used a lot - second in number of pictures, after the Summicron 35. The 40 gives a tad more concentration than the 35mm. And the quality / look is superb. Now on the M10 R I like the 50mm again, it has a great feeling. So for me the body also has a lot of influence.

Thanks for pointing that out. I experienced the same with the transition from M8 to M9. At the time I attributed it mostly to the crop factor. I did not upgrade my M9 to a high resolution M like the M10R or M11 yet, so I am a bit surprised this also affects your choice of FL. If anything I suspect I might move my FL down in stead of up with increased cropping possibilities of the higher MP count. But I can not be sure of course.

Maybe the 50 would replace my beloved 90 mm Macro Elmar on the M9. I don't know.

[RexGig0]

One of my favored Nikon SLR lenses is a manual-focus “pancake” lens, the Nikkor 45mm f/2.8P, in the more-available silvery finish. I have mostly used it on a huge, black D5, of all things, which has started some interesting conversations. My first primary system was Canon EOS EF, and I had the small auto-focusing 40mm STM lens, until a flood ruined it. I also like the slightly larger Voigtlander 40mm SL II, also Nikon F-mount.

It is probable that I will, eventually, add a 40mm M-mount lens. 

 

Edited April 12, 2023 by RexGig0

[Olaf_ZG]

42 would be perfect…

[Bikie John]

11 hours ago, Olaf_ZG said:

42 would be perfect…

This is the one for you then Olaf:

https://www.kenrockwell.com/olympus/35rc.htm

First camera I ever bought with my own money, and I still don't regret it

John

[newtoleica]

Agree, I’ve shot for years with eith a 35mm Summilux or an Olympus 40mm f2 pancake. Both lovely lenses. 
50mm for me on an M I use like an 85mm on an SLR, a short tele. 
my other lens (and much more used than the 50) is a 24. 28 is just a bit ‘meh’….

[yanidel]

A lot of it has probably to do with the smaller depth of field of 50mm lenses and need to adjust your body position to get the same field of view/angle. I just take take different kind of pictures with a 50mm than I would with a 35mm/40mm lens, and this versatility is probably why many people recommend picking the two focals. 

[grahamc]

I started with 40mm (on Minolta CLE) and then 35mm on Leica body.  I still use those the most frequently and them interchangeable focal lengths really.

50mm I used to use for street portraits as I found it sufficiently different from the 35/40 and appreciate the increased 50mm depth of field for that use.

But, recently I've been shooting some street in a more open-space environments where it is difficult to get as close as I like to be with 35/40 FL. In this case I've found the 50 to do the the same job from farther that my 35 does when I'm closer.  Obvious really of course but I didn't appreciate it before and had closed my mind off to 50 as being too tight for street .  So happy new discovery. 

The overall look is consistent enough between these especially at 5.6 and above I think.  

 

Edited April 15, 2023 by grahamc

[Ko.Fe.]

I'm old, GW's school, trying to avoid hip thing. Following his school means no framing in PP, but on the spot.

I'm this old, I have started with only one (my parents) rangefinder and only 50 lens on it. 

Life was less busy and 50 was wide enough.

I still use 50, if I'm in the boonies, bushes or walk on Yonge-Eglington

Once it is closer to where building are getting higher, I'd rather use 35.

Downtown - 21. Working close and trying to avoid hip. 

 

Now, to this 35/40/50 difference.

50-40=10.

40-35=5.

Very obvious.

 

Some details from my experience. 

Main 40 weakness is in wrong tooth. It engages inaccurate 50 framelines. Which is easily, but bit messy to correct.

Once it engages 35mm framelines, 40 is much more accurate on framing comparing 35 mm lens on framesets with where 28mm was added. 

On M3 it still brings 50mm and framing with inner part of those fat lines, makes is fine for framing. 

I liked 35 on Bessa R and M4-2 for accurate framing. I used 40 on M-E 220 where it was accurate.

At the end, 35 is 35, 40 is 40 and 50 is 50.

35 is modern 50, 50 is modern tele and 40 is just a meh.

Oh, actually my GW's school of framing assignment began right with parents RF and 50. I was shooting only slides. No hip, no loose, crooked framing  .  

Edited April 20, 2023 by Ko.Fe.

[cboy]

Shouldn't be a problem with a 40 if one uses a dedicated brightline viewfinder 😉. Otherwise use the EVF..

If the OP uses hyperfocal then it's no problem getting focus.

I find the 40mm a good compromise. The 50mm has a tighter crop and have to be careful with composition, whereas the 35mm has too much in the environment at times. Horses for courses.

 

[PhotogLeica]

My 50mm is mainly used for portraits, event photography, running around grandkids, or other situations where it makes sense to me.  I use zone focusing on the 50mm sometimes with F8 or F11. Usually that means focal point selection of 2 meters or 3 meters (6.6 feet or 9.8 feet) This gives potentially four focal choices depending upon the situation.

[otto.f]

I never heard of a myth about the difference between this lenses. ?

[Anbaric]

I think a modern M viewfinder exaggerates the difference between 35mm and 50mm, as the 50mm framelines seem undersized (unless you are shooting at close distances). A 50mm always feels a bit wider on an SLR.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[lct]

•

Edited May 13, 2023 by lct

[derleicaman]

On 4/12/2023 at 4:24 PM, Olaf_ZG said:

42 would be perfect…

Interesting that you mention a 42mm lens. This is what the Ur-Leica used!