are you a 35mm or a 50mm photographer ?

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, Tux4711 said:

[...] there are focal lengths at which a photographer “sees” his scene better or worse – probably s a matter of habit and taste. I have found that I tend to perceive scenes that interest me better in a 50mm frame. When I use a 35mm lens, I prefer to get closer to my subject, and when I use a 90mm lens, I tend to move further away [...]

+1. As HCB used to say, "the 50mm lens is my life. A certain distance with people. The wide angle shouts, and the 90mm reminds me those ear trumpets that old ladies used to use in the past".

[costa43]

I love both. I find the 50mm more deliberate. When I use a 50mm it’s because I specifically want to use that focal length. I tend to pick up the 35mm when I don’t know what I’m shooting or I’m indecisive. 

Edited April 29 by costa43

[DadDadDaddyo]

1 hour ago, Al Brown said:

Man you sure do have a thing for animal entrails and offal...

It's what all the most stylish influencers are wearing....

[pippy]

3 hours ago, Al Brown said:

Man you sure do have a thing for animal entrails and offal...

Would probably feel right at home sampling the gastronomic delights of a Burns' Night Supper...

Philip.

[DadDadDaddyo]

50 minutes ago, pippy said:

Would probably feel right at home sampling the gastronomic delights of a Burns' Night Supper...

Pipe in the hagis!

No, it's the fascination folks have with exotic materials, especially when mixed with cameras.

I believe the mistaken perception of Leica's "jewelry value" has been exacerbated by the tendency for Leica to issue "Special Editions," usually centered on some absurd use of rare materials. 

The more absurd, the more irresistible to the "collector:" the very definition of Veblin Goods.

But what, I always wonder, has any of this to do with photography?

So when people see me and say, "Oooooh, a Leica," it's often about this nonsensical trope that the Leica is jewelry, and that that's why people use Leicas: to be seen using Leicas. 

I'm trying to concentrate on making a photograph, not on making an impression. 

So, whenever an opportunity arises to lampoon the absurd use of exotic materials to add "value" to the camera, as if it's some trinket, I tend to take advantage of the opening. 

Just the same, the fashionistic preoccupation with accessories. 

Which leads me to the eternal question, the one question that really matters.....

Does this camera make me look fat?

Edited April 30 by DadDadDaddyo

[robb]

75mm all day long and desert island lens… but 50 will do

Robb

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, DadDadDaddyo said:

[...] I believe the mistaken perception of Leica's "jewelry value" has been exacerbated by the tendency for Leica to issue "Special Editions," usually centered on some absurd use of rare materials [...]

Been this way since the 30s. Leica has always fascinated both collectors and photographers. Good tradition if you ask me but YMMV 😎

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[DadDadDaddyo]

Jah, I understand, lct: I do see your point. 

But the regard in which they were held was, from the start, I believe, a testament to their mechanical design, and even more, their precision. In this sense they were synonymous with the phrase, "German engineering," that is, occupying a pinnacle.

Their "jewel-like" character was the result of that engineering and precision, as admirable as in a fine watch. 

And, yes, fine watches have come in all sorts of materials selected for their beauty or rarity.

But. When we sent a watch to the Moon, it was built of stainless steel, not gold or platinum (and, it was Swiss, not German, and so was the camera, but I digress...). Any materials used were there for their functional contribution, not for bling value. 

So that's the basis of my undoubted bias about camera materials. I feel they should be selected for their sheer, functional, appropriateness-to-task, not for their cosmetic appeal. 

Anything else is window dressing. If the maker wishes to pander to some of their patrons, to stoke the delight in their eyes, then so be it. A modern day Faberge Egg, I guess.

But I value the Leica because it's a hellova fine tool, nearly perfectly suited to the task I use it for. I admire its design, its precision, its heritage, even just the fact that it's still in existence. 

All that's best about the Leica is true, even if it isn't covered in the pelts of Northern Fur-Bearing Trout.

 

 

[lct]

1 hour ago, DadDadDaddyo said:

[...] Any materials used were there for their functional contribution, not for bling value [...]

Sure but golden Leicas are hardly new. They are aimed at the collectors market and even kings and queens don't use them to take photographs i suspect. We may like it or not but a market is a market and i'm glad talented workers can find a way of practicing their art this way. Again YMMV 😎

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

[Smudgerer]

2 hours ago, DadDadDaddyo said:

But. When we sent a watch to the Moon, it was built of stainless steel, not gold or platinum (and, it was Swiss, not German, and so was the camera, but I digress...). Any materials used were there for their functional contribution, not for bling value. 

 

 

 

Not certain, but weren't the "moon camera / s" made for NASA by Hasselblad?

Edited April 30 by Smudgerer
Spelling

[pippy]

I'm in a strange position as far as Rarity etc. goes.

Purely on a personal level I agree with much of what you say about the fascination with...erm...shall we say less usual(?) skin coverings. All my own camera kit has been bought to be used as tools of the trade yet at the same time - and for over 20 years now - 90% of my day-job is concerned with photographing Fine Art, Antiques and Collectibles. As a consequence I have developed a deep respect both for those who deal with those items and also for the connoisseurs who are their clients. As such I can appreciate a Leica Luxus (for instance) both as a machine for capturing images in its own right and also as an artifact of jewel-like beauty at the same time.

I seriously doubt that I will ever in my life be tempted by a Safari / Reporter / Gold-Plated Leica as they are just 'not my thing' but can understand why some folks find them desirable. These versions will be every bit as useable as the regular models and have a certain appeal all their own into the bargain.

Many photographers, of course, have a 'Collector' side to their nature and vice versa. Being a Collector doesn't mean one can't also be a fine Photographer. Same in the world of Music. Same in the world of Cars...etc...etc...

I realise that I'm also being slightly hypocritical here. Yes; the MD-262 was bought because for my needs it really is as near-perfect a tool as Leica has made. The acquisition of the M Monochrom, however, was two-fold. It was bought because it, too, is a superb tool but I also held-off buying a Monochrom until I found one in Silver-Chrome finish. Why on Earth did I do that? A regular Black-Chrome one would have done the same job and been far more stealthy into the bargain. Simply because there was a certain something about having a S-C Monochrom which I found to be irresistible.

There we have it. 'Guilty As Charged'......😸......

Philip.

Edited April 30 by pippy
Attempted clarification of expressed intent.

[lct]

1 minute ago, Al Brown said:

I use my golden M to take photographs all the time, it is my only film M.

You must be using white gloves then given its mint condition 😉

[Smudgerer]

1 minute ago, lct said:

You must be using white gloves then given its mint condition 😉

Al has a butler to carry and protect it...........

[pippy]

2 minutes ago, Al Brown said:

I do not buy from collector side, just whatever brings joy to my heart...

Ah; I wasn't clear enough in my phrasing. It wasn't my intention to suggest that it is only collectors would buy the Safaris, Reporters and Gold Leicas of this world. Apologies if I have caused any offence.

I will endeavour to clarify my previous post!

Philip.

[DadDadDaddyo]

Ar any event, I feel I've done a disservice to the originator of this thread whose question, in fact, was perfectly legitimate. 

Sorry for the sidetrack!

For this particular refugee from the 1950s (I was born in the  Eisenhower Administration, fer cryin' out loud) the 50 mm was ubiquitous, and Normal, and the 35 was considered wide-angle.

Every 35mm film camera I had was equipped with a 50mm lens initially. In some cases, such as my M3, that was the only lens I had on it for many years, and I rarely even thought about what my "second lens" would be. This was during my typically lean early adulthood, and the Leica, whilst considered a really nice camera by folks who recognized it, was never thought of as a luxury item; it was simply what some folks preferred over a Nikon F2.

And when I finally did add an alternative point of view to the kit, it was a 90mm, not a 35mm, that was my first choice. 

These days, I'm probably more likely to crop down than I was in the analog days, other than having to fit onto that cursed 8x10 sheet of Kodabromide or Polycontrast. 

So these days, I sport a nice, normal-ish, 35mm pretty often (but not always) as a good, basic, walking around lens. You can do a lot with 60 megapixels that was tougher with Tri-X.

And actually, as I've posted before, that 90mm is still a focal length I reach for in many more than just the typical head and shoulders portrait situations. If you're going to include more stuff in the frame, you have to account for all of that more stuff in the frame. That's work. The 90 lets me pick something out and look at it. 

But still, that 50mm, running at a glorious f/1.4, that's simply a beauty of a lens, and on the M11M, it can make sheer magic happen. 

Great thread, and sorry again for the sidetrack, folks!

[AZach]

My solution was to buy VM Nokton Classic 40/1.4 - I like it a lot with the M11-P - my 35 and 50 M luxes are taking a holiday since. 

[costa43]

On 4/30/2025 at 1:18 PM, AZach said:

My solution was to buy VM Nokton Classic 40/1.4 - I like it a lot with the M11-P - my 35 and 50 M luxes are taking a holiday since. 

A goldilocks focal length, love it, some of my favourite ever shots were taken on the 40mm Nokton f1.4. I think framelines would be perfect in the 0.72 finder too if they ever came. slightly more space than the 35mm. 

[Crem]

On 4/29/2025 at 6:02 AM, mottykytu said:

Yes, again I will start this "Civil War"

but are you a 35mm guys or an 50mm guys and why ?

sometimes longer/bigger is not the best for men ? 😜 I'm 35mm myself

I never regret leaving the house with only a film Leica and a 35mm. The problem is that after digging through my archive, I think my best photos are with a 50. Also most of the photos I’ve printed and put on my walls are with a 50. This is possibly a sign I should sell everything and buy a Q343 🤣

Edited May 1 by Crem

[keeping_a_balance]

On 4/29/2025 at 4:05 PM, jaapv said:

It is not the photographer behind the camera but the scene in front of it that determines the angle of view. 

exactly.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pippy]

12 minutes ago, Crem said:

...I think my best photos are with a 50. Also most of the photos I’ve printed and put on my walls are with a 50. This is possibly a sign I should sell everything and buy a Q343...

...or, as mentioned by the previous two posters, the Voigtlander 40mm f1.4...😸...

The 40 seems to be a much underrated focal-length for those in the M-World At Large but, interestingly, there are many forumites here (including myself) who rate it amongst their most-used lenses. As well as the Voigt. there are few other options such as the Leitz / Minolta 40mm f2.0 Summicron / Rokkor (and the less commonly found Leitz 40mm f2.8 Elmarit-C) and the Rollei 40mm f2.8 HFT.

Philip.