[Leica] 75 Summilux-M and bokah

[Peter Klein <pklein@2alpha.net>]

Re. 50mm vs. 35mm:

I've been full-circle on this one.  For a time in the 70s, I had only a 50 
DR Summicron on my late, lamented M2. Then I got a 90 Tele-Elmarit.  I 
didn't have a 35.  I occasionally missed it, but not as much as you might 
think.

In the 80s, I had only my IIIf, and again, for a time, only a 50.  Once I 
got a 35 and a 90 to go with it, I used the 50 less.  But one big reason 
for this was size and weight.  I could go hiking with just a 35/3.5 and 
90/4 combo, and it was often enough.

Now I have an M4-P and a choice of 24, 35, 50 or 90.  At the beginning of 
my travels in Italy, I used the wider lenses more, and kept the 35 on most 
of the time.  As time passed, I started using the 50 more and more, and I'm 
glad I did.  There is much less extraneous stuff in my 50 shots.  Part of 
this may be because I wear glasses and don't always see the edges of the 
35mm frame, so more creeps in.  But another reason is that the 50 forces 
you to make the part stand for the whole, whereas the 35 tempts you into 
trying to get everything into the picture.  Less is usually more in 
35mm-format photos.

If you told me I could have only one lens from now on, I would not hesitate 
to pick the 50.  I could live with the 35, too, but I think the 50 suits me 
more, and forces me to concentrate on essentials.  Plus, 50mm lenses are 
generally cheaper and often better optically than other lenses.

I think the 35 and 50 are quite different in personality, and not at all 
too close together.  It isn't just angle of view, it's how close the lenses 
force you to be to your subject, and what that does to both perspective and 
your relationship to the subject.  A 35 is probably better as your 
"default" lens if you do most photography indoors and/or at close quarters 
and must include significant amounts of background.  A 50 is probably 
better if you have more room or like to zero in on things more.  With a 35 
(or wider), the photographer is often a participant in the picture.  With a 
50, you are more of an observer.

All this is to some degree a matter of taste, whatever floats your boat, 
and how close the walls are.  Another way of looking at is that the 
difference between 35 and 50 is two paces.

But I think some people prefer the 35 because it's what the "pros" 
use.  Use a 50 and you're a mere amateur.  Use a 35 and you are a great 
photojournalist in progress.  Show me someone thinks like that and I'll 
show you someone who heavily crops their photos--or ought to.

- --Peter Klein
Seattle

At 07:57 PM 07/09/2001 -0700, B.D. sez:

>I must be missing something here...what is so offensive about someone
>not seeing the point in working with a 50? I have to admit that about a
>decade ago, when I came back to Ms after a decade or so of wandering in
>the purely SLR wilderness, I bought an M4p with a 35 and 90, figuring I
>really didn't care whether or not I have a 50...Yes, I have one now, and
>I use it once and a while...but if told that I had to give up one lens,
>at this point that would be the one to go....Okay, I know that it was
>HCB's main lens...so good for HCB...;-)