Re: What's the point of a 50mm? Or rather, where does a 50mm shine?
RoamingScott wrote: chiron wrote: thousandths wrote:
I promise this is not a troll post. tl;dr: for those who get a lot of value from a 50-55mm prime, what situations does it excel at?
My 35mm GM order got delayed a second time, which caused me to ponder my two open pre-orders for the 35GM and 50GM f/1.2. In my kit, if I'm going to take primes with me, I will generally pick things at differing ends of the spectrum, such as pairing the 24GM or CV40 with an 85.
This review (linked at the bottom) that someone linked to in another thread had similar thinking and put into words something I hadn't been able to put my finger on. Whenever I feel like I'd want something in middle range where a 50mm might be appropriate, I'd probably opt for a 24-70 and maybe one extra fun prime.
While the Zeiss 55mm was one of my first lenses when I moved to the E-Mount ecosystem, it rarely gets used despite having not a single bad thing to say about it. I just haven't ever had the heart or urge to sell it, other than the allure of the 50GM because I never wanted to play roulette on the quality variation of the Zeiss 50. Also, as someone in an apartment, 50mm is sometimes too challenging for tighter indoor spaces.
So, my question is: for people who use and like a 50mm for things other than landscapes, what types of shooting does it excel at? What makes you pick it over other focal lengths?
Henri Cartier-Bresson is often described as the greatest photographer of the 20th Century. Virtually every photograph he ever took in a 50 year career was taken with a 50mm lens. With a couple of exceptions, they were all printed uncropped. You could look at the great variety of his images.
He thought the 50mm lens gave a view that was most similar to natural human vision and that it included a workable number of elements for composing an image. He was interested in depicting what he himself saw and criticized manipulated or artificial photographs. For example, he never used a flash.
A great many of Henri's photos, however, are environmental. He did not use the 50 as a portraiture lens often, and used it how many people use 35mm today.
I loathe 50 personally, but interestingly 58 with my Helios is different enough to capture my eye, both in terms of perspective and rendering. I find images posted here from the 55 far more interesting than say the 50GM, which comes across as amazingly sterile and boring.
He often included the environment, but he always did it with a 50mm lens, which I think is really the point. His images have a very natural, non-wide angle, undistorted look to them, and they seem very real. He didn't like the 35mm length--he thought it included too much for an effective composition. I don't remember seeing any full face images by him, although one can certainly do those with a 50mm. They tend to look the way a person looks if you are standing there talking to them. Quite different and more intimate than the heroic telephoto Mt. Rushmore look.
Jul 16, 2021 at 03:11 PM
Previous versions of chiron's message #15652403 « What's the point of a 50mm? Or rather, where does a 50mm shine? »
