RE: [Leica] Re: more on 50 vs 35...

["Rodgers, David" <david.rodgers@xo.com>]

I'm going to Saporro for two weeks. I'm taking an M6,50/1.4 and 28/2.8, and
R7, 35/2 and 80-200/4. Want to keep things simple. Thought about swithing
35s and 50s; taking the 35/1.4 ASPH M and 50/2 R. I still might. 

I'll be photographing a 13-year-old All-Star baseball team, but I'll be
capturing much more than just baseball. 

Film is the tough choice. I'm required to shoot color neg film. Just bought
60 rolls of Supra 400. For personal use I'm taking Neopan 1600 and D400.
Film is a tougher choice than equipment. I want to shoot some slide film but
I'm only taking two bodies. Plus I always find it tough to switch between
negs and trannies. 

May look into buying a Fuji TX-1 when I'm there. In the unlikely even that
happens, it'll probably turn grey when I cross the International date line. 

Dave   

- -----Original Message-----
From: Jim Brick [mailto:jim@brick.org]
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 11:49 AM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us; leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: [Leica] Re: more on 50 vs 35...


I have two M6's and have had a 24, 35, 50, 75, & 90. After a few years of 
carrying this stuff around, I sold everything except the 35 and 50. 35/1.4 
ASPH and 50/1.4. I have found that I use the M6/50 far more than the M6/35. 
For photo hunting, the 50 has proven far more useful for me. For 
documenting where I am and what I'm doing, the 35 is much better. I may try 
a new 28/2 one of these days for that purpose. It is possible that my 
35/1.4 would then be considered a low light lens only. When the 28/2 has 
run out of gas.

Jim


At 07:45 PM 7/12/01 +0100, Guy Bennett wrote:

>I tend to prefer wide angle lenses, and thus generally wander around with a
>35 mounted on an M6. Of the 4 focal lengths I have, the 35's the one that
>sees the most use. The 50 has been languishing in my bag for a while now. I
>mention this because I recently had a bad 35mm day...
>
>A week or so ago I was out shooting in an architecturally interesting spot
>and wanted to get some shots of people moving through the monumental
>geometry of the space. I alternated between one M6 with a 35, and another
>M6 with a 90. Looking over the negs, I am really dissatisfied with the
>shots taken with the 35 - there's too much info and the people are too
>small to create what I would consider to be effective compositions.
>
>This was basically a miscalculation on my part. I was after the space and
>immediately thought "35," though I should have realized that I would have
>to move in closer for the people but in doing so would lose the space.
>Hanging back, I got the space (and too much of it), but the people are
>lost.
>
>My point is that the 35 has become a sort of default lens for me - I carry
>it everywhere and generally get good results with it. So much so that I'm
>losing touch with other favorite focal lengths, one of them being the 50.
>I'm rethinking my 35 strategy and am going start forcing myself to use the
>50 instead. I'm hoping that it will allow me to hang back a bit, but still
>manage a relatively tight (in comparison with the 35) composition.
>
>Guy