Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/05/30
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I like 50mm lenses. I've used a 35 more lately, but often I wish I'd taken the shot with a 50. Added bonus: on a Leica, a glasses wearer can see the whole frame. With a 35, I can't, and sometimes it shows! A 35 is easier to default to--you can always crop. But when you shoot 400 speed film, do you really want to throw away half the frame? It's funny how as the last half-century has progressed, people's concept of a "normal" lens has gotten wider and wider. First the 50 was normal, then the 35, then 28. Until now, when we have people for whom a 24 is normal, a 21 is a moderate wide, and a 50 is a telephoto! Maybe a lot of this is a simple case of "because I can." New tools became available, so we use them. And certainly a new lens can force you to start over and redefine your vision. I'm thinking specifically of Ted and his 'Victoria through a 15 and 400' project. (Aside: So Ted, when can we see some of that?) In news and documentary photography, wides let you see a person and some of their surroundings in a small space. OK. But, careful--it also may mean that to get enough of the person into the picture, you have to practically stick the lens in their face, turning the session into a confrontation rather than a recording of what's there. Or you end up with an oversized foot, knee, or nose. It's like the Heisenberg principle: by "measuring" the subject, you've changed the outcome. There's another trap. The perspective distortion of really wide lenses can make striking images when used well. But in many wide images I see, the only statement is the weird look of the lens itself. Or the conceit of "see, I'm avant-garde, I've broken all the rules." So often you get, as Mark says, "itsy, bitsy little nothings" on a huge foreground. Or chihuahaus that look like daschunds. People's noses that look like Barbra Streisand's. I was really glad to have a 25mm lens in Italy. All those skinny streets and tall arches and bell towers. But I still regard it as a strong spice, not the main course. And I'm beginning to wonder if an SLR is not a better tool for lenses wider than 35mm. - --Peter > SthRosner@aol.com wrote: > > > > In a message dated 5/29/01 5:27:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > > mark@rabiner.cncoffice.com writes: > > > > << Lots of very strong shots you've passed over becuase of loose framing. > > ...not getting close enough. > > >> > > > > Mark: a reason to return to the 50mm lens? Seth LaK 9 > > Return? > never left it! > a minute ago i posted: > "The sand bag is my black and white bag. It has my black M6 TTL in it with a 50 > Summicron on the camera" > > I agree the wides - a 35 can make you sloppy. > A 50 must be used which much more care and precision and it's too easy to be too > lazy and just put on a 35. > > At least I'm not walking around with a 24 glued to my camera like i used to like > everyone i knew. > long long ago > far far away > itsey bitsey little nothings > Mark Rabiner