[Leica] The chameleon fifty

[Mike Johnston <michaeljohnston@ameritech.net>]

Mike Hintlian: >>> If you are saying that the 50 is the only lens that
you will use on the HM,
and that you have another body with a 35 or 28 or something, then...ok.
But, if the 50 will become your "only" lens be forewarned that the 50mm
focal length, while arguably the most common focal length in the 35mm
landscape, is the most difficult to master.  Trust me on this one.  If
you
intend to really learn the 50, be prepared to endure paying the price.
The
flip side is...when you really nail it with a 50, there is nothing
sweeter...the photos sing.

You have my support...but....you have been warned.<<<


I'm with Mike here. He speaks with the voice of the shooter. I had a
long discussion of this with John Kennerdell, an American who has lived
in Asia for many years and works as a travel writer and photojournalist.
Kennerdell's insight is that the 35mm and 28mm are easier to SHOOT with,
more satisfying for the photographer, and that the 50mm is less pleasing
to use because it's more demanding of the photographer and returns fewer
"good" shots. But he maintains that of the REAL hits...that .1% of the
pictures you take that you really live for...the 50mm produces more. In
other words, he thinks the average is lower but the high points are
higher.

It took me about three years of shooting, thinking, examining other
photographers' work, and studying my own contact sheets, but I think he
may have a point.

At any rate, I think the 50mm focal length is more difficult to use
really well. And a bit less satisfying...it makes more demands of the
photographer if the shots are not to be "boring" (the standard rap
against the f.l.).

Another of Kennerdell's many interesting points (he is a zen master in
my book) is that the 50mm is the only f.l. that can be both "moderate
wide-angle" and also "short telephoto" depending on how you structure
the picture. With a single centered subject and an open aperture, the
picture might look as if were taken with a 60-75mm or so. With a broad
view and small aperture, it can look as if it's a slightly wider lens,
say 35-45mm. (What I mean here is if you were to look at the pictures
without knowing the focal length of the lens it was shot with, and try
to guess it.) I have perfect examples of this. The odd thing about this
is that it is a sort of chameleon...it changes along with your mental
approach. No other lens can do this because no other lens is so "in the
middle." I never took a picture with a 40mm lens (one of my favorite
focal lengths) that could be mistaken for a short tele shot. I've taken
LOTS of 50mm shots that could be so mistaken.

It is very interesting to look through many 50mm pictures with this
thought in mind. Eye-opening.

For instance, is there anyone here who carries 3 or 4 lenses, including
a 50mm, who uses the 50 the most? I'd bet this kind of person is rare.
I'll bet the average photographer who carries a 50mm as one of three to
six lenses uses the 50mm the least. You can master the 50mm only if you
commit to it...if it is the only, or, say, one of only two, lenses you
typically shoot with. One of the shooters I most admire carried only a
50mm and a 135mm.

I don't LIKE the 50mm so much, but I am really fascinated by it. I think
it is the maestro focal length;  one only really good photographers can
master well enough to depend on. Note that I didn't say all really good
photographers CARE TO master it; you can be great and never shoot a 50.
But I think you have to be good if you want to shoot a 50 well. I'm not
all that good with it myself--still better with 35mm, which I think is
easier.

What do you think of all this, Tina M.? Your shot that opened our "World
at f/1" portfolio (speaking of lovely Noct shots!) is a "tele" 50mm shot
to me. Just looking at it, it looks like you had "short tele" in your
subconscious--look at the way the picture is arranged--if I didn't know
better, I'd think it could have been taken with a 60mm, if not a 75mm.
You think?

- --Mike