The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

why is the 50mm so perfect on M9?

gooomz

Member
just started using my M9 and i have several lens 28mm, 35mm, 50mm and a 90mm but i think the 50mm is so perfect for me and this is strange because on my 35mm slr i seldom reached for a 50mm. i used to swap out lens often in the field with my slr but with the m9 i can totally see myself with a 50mm 24/7. i know many prefer a 50mm with the M9 but just based on my past shooting style i didn't think the 50mm would be for me.

what make the 50mm so perfect on a rangefinder like the M9?
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
It is because it produces, for that format, a natural appearing perspective. I think that something around 43-45mm actually would be more natural, but 50 was where it started.
-bob
 

250swb

Member
But 35mm is the lens that covers the viewing angle of the eye (roughly speaking of course). But in either case, a 35mm or a 50mm, they are both lenses that relate to human scale, lenses that are neither overly wide nor telephoto, what you see in the image is pretty well what you would see just standing there without a camera. That is why they work so well, it is something a viewer can relate to, and of course the photographer can feel they were directly involved with, rather than standing off with a 300mm lens, or creating an alternate reality with a 15mm lens.

Steve
 

kit laughlin

Subscriber Member
I like the 40mm EFOV of the 20/1.7 on a µ4/3rd's camera myself, but anything in between 35–50 is great for me, too.

Possibly the reason you like it!
 

gooomz

Member
i know i just find it surprising how much i like the 50mm on the M9 when on my contax 167mt and aria i never really found myself reaching for a 50mm.

i am thinking the range finder system lends itself to this lens.

a pleasant surprise.
 

D&A

Well-known member
But 35mm is the lens that covers the viewing angle of the eye (roughly speaking of course). But in either case, a 35mm or a 50mm, they are both lenses that relate to human scale, lenses that are neither overly wide nor telephoto, what you see in the image is pretty well what you would see just standing there without a camera. That is why they work so well, it is something a viewer can relate to, and of course the photographer can feel they were directly involved with, rather than standing off with a 300mm lens, or creating an alternate reality with a 15mm lens.

Steve
Pentax used to say in their literature that 43mm was a very close approximation for the average field of view for the average person...therefore they manufactured their 43mm limited lens quite a few years ago.

Dave (D&A)
 

250swb

Member
Pentax used to say in their literature that 43mm was a very close approximation for the average field of view for the average person...therefore they manufactured their 43mm limited lens quite a few years ago.

Dave (D&A)
I think 35mm became the Leica standard for the human eye because they didn't have a 43mm lens in the range and didn't have the framelines to suit one anyway. But it all depends on if you've had your peripheral vision properly calibrated at Solms, although I undertsand you can do the test at home by staring at a wall and seeing how many bricks you can count :D

Steve
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
I think 35mm became the Leica standard for the human eye because they didn't have a 43mm lens in the range and didn't have the framelines to suit one anyway. But it all depends on if you've had your peripheral vision properly calibrated at Solms, although I undertsand you can do the test at home by staring at a wall and seeing how many bricks you can count :D

Steve
Leica made the Summicron-C 40mm f/2 for the CL model, it was always one of my favorite Leica M lenses..

Btw, there's a Pentax-L 43mm f/1.9 Special (Leica M mount) with viewfinder listed on EBay, new in the box for $965 BIN ...
 

thomasl.se

New member
If I'm not mistaken, Leica's (M and R) 50mm's commonly have an actual focal length of around 52mm. Don't know about other manufacturer's M-mount 50mm's.
 

D&A

Well-known member
Leica made the Summicron-C 40mm f/2 for the CL model, it was always one of my favorite Leica M lenses..

Btw, there's a Pentax-L 43mm f/1.9 Special (Leica M mount) with viewfinder listed on EBay, new in the box for $965 BIN ...
Godfrey, the Pentax 43mm RF lens was released a number of years after Pentax's 1st and what was then to go on to be their most well known "limited" lens, the 43mm f1.9 SLR lens. At the time of the 43mm RF lens release, it was rumored that Pentax was either planning to go into RF photography by issuing a RF body or the release of the 43mm RF lens was going to be the 1st in a series of "limited" RF lenses, much like they did with their initial series of 35mm SLR ones. Apparently, from what I had heard, the 43mm RF lens didn't take off like they expected and so plans were altered not to release any more RF lenses.

The 43mm f1.9 SLR lens on film had a very unique optical signature and an early contender for what many described as a 3-D signature...something I've also noticed with this lens when using it on a film body. Apparently it lost much of this attribute when used on a 35mm DSLR body. As for the 43mm RF lens used on a film body, I haven't heard much in the way of raves etc., but thats not really saying anything about its performance...although I believe it's optical formula is similar or the same as it's SLR sibling.

Dave (D&A)
 
Last edited:

jonoslack

Active member
what make the 50mm so perfect on a rangefinder like the M9?
In interesting question - everybody else has chipped in with the conventional vision about field of view etc. But like you, I wasn't ever really interested in 50mm, and yet I find that the 50 f1.4 spends more time on my M9 than any other lens.

all the best
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
... The 43mm f1.9 SLR lens on film had a very unique optical signature and an early contender for what many described as a 3-D signature...something I've also noticed with this lens when using it on a film body. Apparently it lost much of this attribute when used on a 35mm DSLR body. As for the 43mm RF lens used on a film body, I haven't heard much in the way of raves etc., but thats not really saying anything about its performance...although I believe it's optical formular is similar or the same as it's SLR sibling.
Dave,

I'm extremely familiar with the SMC Pentax FA43mm f/1.9 Limited. I made many many thousands of photos with it on the Pentax DSLR bodies ... it almost incited me to keep the Pentax system as it was a superb performer in every way. I have no idea what it did on film as I never used a Pentax film body (although I owned an MX and a Spotmatic II briefly), but if it lost anything at all it must have been quite stunning. Its "long normal" FoV on the DSLR bodies was just right, a perfect complement to the DA21/3.2 Limited. Those two lenses alone on a K5 would be a great, complete kit for a heckuvalot of photography.

The FA43 is without a doubt my favorite Pentax lens.

As far as I'm aware, the Pentax-L 43mm in M mount is absolutely identical optically and should perform identically on an RF body, whether film or digital.

---

But to get back to the subject on this thread, I've long said that a fast normal lens is without a doubt the most useful and versatile lens you can have for any camera. The "50mm EFL" on whatever format just works perfectly for seeing photos with intense content, it incites being intimate with the subject matter rather than looking at it from far away. Light, fast, compact and (usually) a reasonably priced lens, the 50 EFL field of view is just right.

It has saddened me to see the standard lens for most interchangeable lens cameras become a slow, bulky, cumbersome zoom since that started happening in the middle 1980s. The novice photographers who never get beyond a body and a kit lens are being done a disservice. I can't do decent photography with the darn things, I always end up selling the 'standard zoom' and buying a fast 50 EFL lens.
 

D&A

Well-known member
Dave,

I'm extremely familiar with the SMC Pentax FA43mm f/1.9 Limited. I made many many thousands of photos with it on the Pentax DSLR bodies ... it almost incited me to keep the Pentax system as it was a superb performer in every way. I have no idea what it did on film as I never used a Pentax film body (although I owned an MX and a Spotmatic II briefly), but if it lost anything at all it must have been quite stunning. Its "long normal" FoV on the DSLR bodies was just right, a perfect complement to the DA21/3.2 Limited. Those two lenses alone on a K5 would be a great, complete kit for a heckuvalot of photography.

The FA43 is without a doubt my favorite Pentax lens.

As far as I'm aware, the Pentax-L 43mm in M mount is absolutely identical optically and should perform identically on an RF body, whether film or digital.
QUOTE]

Godfrey, Like yourself, the 43mm limited was my favorite lens too! I purchased mine the very first week after it was introduced by Pentax in the film only era and subsequently obtained the two other original "limiteds", the 31mm and 77mm upon their worldwide introduction. They too became "go to" lenses, not because of their construction or unique status at the time, but because of their performance characteristics. Their focal lengths were of course as they appeared on the barrel, since film bodies was all Pentax offered at the time. When Pentax introduced a DSLR, the 31 and 77 retained they characteristics but the 43mm, as good as it was, somehow appeared different to most who compared using this optic on their film bodies vs. the DSLR. It didn't do quite as well at f1.9 and a stop down from max. aperture, in comparison and the incredable 3D look that this lens was capapable of, was mostly gone when used on a DSLR. Thats not to say it isn't a superb lens, just that it changed significantly when its use transitioned from film body to a DSLR.

The 21mm "APS only" lens is another excellent lens and along with the 31, 43, 77, made a absolutely gem of a small compact DSLR system. Sort of reminded me (size wise) or taking along rangefinder body with four gems for lenses. This goes one step further if the 31, 43 and 77 lenses were used with a Pentax MX body....which Pentax itself used to use in advertisments and compare side by side with a Leica M body...small, compact, lightweight and well built, all manual film body. Both the Pentax MX and Leica M were actually shown side by side by Pentax in these Print ads.

I suspected the 43mm RF lens was the same optically as the SLR version (as you mentioned), but sadly for whatever reason, the 43mm RF lens didn't appear to sell well and so Pentax decided not to make any more RF lenses, in any focal length.

Dave (D&A)
 
In interesting question - everybody else has chipped in with the conventional vision about field of view etc. But like you, I wasn't ever really interested in 50mm, and yet I find that the 50 f1.4 spends more time on my M9 than any other lens.

all the best
Indeed, 50 has a way of ´sneaking in´ and stay put.... Reason tells me 35 and 75 (which I bought right after the M9) is my ideal configuration: 35 being the widest light frame I can see when using my glasses, and 75 about twice that - and they´re both stunningly good!

Yet, my ´60es vintage Rigid Summicron has a tendency to get chosen day after day, and then used on its own. It´s *almost* as tight as the 75, and also *almost* as wide as a 35, as soon as one has some freedom to move. And, while it doesn´t have the Asph signature, it has its own character, and is quite sharp, even wide open.

Possibly part of the explanation is that the rangefinder is ´optimized´ for 50 lenses: that light frame is the easiest to see and use of them all, with just enough air outside the frame to see what´s happening around the subject. Also, the Rf mechanism is made for 50 mm; all other focal lengths have differential focussing helicoids that ´translate´ the movement of the glass to that of a 50 mm lens, but the 50 just uses the rear edge of the optical unit. And less mechanics should feel smoother and mean less risk for misadjustment.

Be that how it may: much of the time, the 50 feels just right. One just shoots, without worrying what other lens in your bag might be better.... And, having just returned home after knee replacement surgery, one feels strongly for carrying as little as possible!
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Of course, this is a pretty big digression from the topic at hand so I apologize in advance for the rant...

---
Godfrey, Like yourself, the 43mm limited was my favorite lens too! I purchased mine the very first week after it was introduced by Pentax in the film only era and subsequently obtained the two other original "limiteds", the 31mm and 77mm upon their worldwide introduction. They too became "go to" lenses, not because of their construction or unique status at the time, but because of their performance characteristics. Their focal lengths were of course as they appeared on the barrel, since film bodies was all Pentax offered at the time. When Pentax introduced a DSLR, the 31 and 77 retained they characteristics but the 43mm, as good as it was, somehow appeared different to most who compared using this optic on their film bodies vs. the DSLR. It didn't do quite as well at f1.9 and a stop down from max. aperture, in comparison and the incredable 3D look that this lens was capapable of, was mostly gone when used on a DSLR. Thats not to say it isn't a superb lens, just that it changed significantly when its use transitioned from film body to a DSLR.

The 21mm "APS only" lens is another excellent lens and along with the 31, 43, 77, made a absolutely gem of a small compact DSLR system. Sort of reminded me (size wise) or taking along rangefinder body with four gems for lenses. This goes one step further if the 31, 43 and 77 lenses were used with a Pentax MX body....which Pentax itself used to use in advertisments and compare side by side with a Leica M body...small, compact, lightweight and well built, all manual film body. Both the Pentax MX and Leica M were actually shown side by side by Pentax in these Print ads.

I suspected the 43mm RF lens was the same optically as the SLR version (as you mentioned), but sadly for whatever reason, the 43mm RF lens didn't appear to sell well and so Pentax decided not to make any more RF lenses, in any focal length.
I was using Pentax gear exclusively from 2004 to 2008 for my work, and had a relationship with Pentax USA marketing during that period. I had all the Limiteds made up until I sold out of Pentax gear in mid-2008.

(BTW, All SLR lenses in any make are marked by actual, optical focal length, regardless of format. Otherwise the madness of crop factor, EFL, etc wouldn't be what it is. Only Ricoh with the GXR and its camera modules, since they use different sized sensors for different lens options, has a real reason to use an EFL focal length designation ...)

I had heard from many about the supposed poor performance of the FA43 on the digital bodies. I avoided it at first and tried the 31 Limited. I felt the 31 was highly overrated, the FA35/2 was a better performer at a third the price on the digital bodies. The FA77 is superb, if slow to focus (either manual or auto). The later DA70 is just as superb, albeit a little slower but a lot faster focusing. The DA21 was my baby ... a perfect wide-normal for the 16x24 mm format. Finally I tried the FA43 on the bodies and to my delight it was the best of all the Limiteds ... Once I revealed what it could actually do on the DSLRs to the Pentax list by showing my photos with it, everyone else had to have one too.

The 21, 43 and 77 would be a perfect trio. I could live without the 31 Limited entirely ... it's still way way too expensive for its performance IMO.

I suspect the real reason for the failure of the Pentax-L 43mm in the market place was Pentax rather ambiguous and inconsistent position for that market. It was a pretty expensive lens from a manufacturer known primarily, at that point, for value-for-dollar, rather than ultimate quality, and for SLRs, not RF cameras. And of course their marketing has always just plain missed the mark since the LX pro-attempt by being confused, irrelevant and inconsistent.

I no longer care about things from the marketing and promotion of equipment standpoint, my photographic business and personal interests have changed quite a lot in the past couple of years, and Pentax just doesn't cut it for me anymore. Some nice bits they've made in the Limited lenses, a plethora of "almost" bodies, a number of good state of the art zoom lenses encumbered by inconsistent quality control. I'm somewhat astonished they've kept it going so far...

Hopefully the K5 will make a good niche for them, despite the problems I keep hearing about, and they can fix their quality issues. But I'm out of the market on them.
 

D&A

Well-known member
Of course, this is a pretty big digression from the topic at hand so I apologize in advance for the rant...

-
I was using Pentax gear exclusively from 2004 to 2008 for my work, and had a relationship with Pentax USA marketing during that period. I had all the Limiteds made up until I sold out of Pentax gear in mid-2008.

(BTW, All SLR lenses in any make are marked by actual, optical focal length, regardless of format. Otherwise the madness of crop factor, EFL, etc wouldn't be what it is. Only Ricoh with the GXR and its camera modules, since they use different sized sensors for different lens options, has a real reason to use an EFL focal length designation ...)

I had heard from many about the supposed poor performance of the FA43 on the digital bodies. I avoided it at first and tried the 31 Limited. I felt the 31 was highly overrated, the FA35/2 was a better performer at a third the price on the digital bodies. The FA77 is superb, if slow to focus (either manual or auto). The later DA70 is just as superb, albeit a little slower but a lot faster focusing. The DA21 was my baby ... a perfect wide-normal for the 16x24 mm format. Finally I tried the FA43 on the bodies and to my delight it was the best of all the Limiteds ... Once I revealed what it could actually do on the DSLRs to the Pentax list by showing my photos with it, everyone else had to have one too.

The 21, 43 and 77 would be a perfect trio. I could live without the 31 Limited entirely ... it's still way way too expensive for its performance IMO.

I suspect the real reason for the failure of the Pentax-L 43mm in the market place was Pentax rather ambiguous and inconsistent position for that market. It was a pretty expensive lens from a manufacturer known primarily, at that point, for value-for-dollar, rather than ultimate quality, and for SLRs, not RF cameras. And of course their marketing has always just plain missed the mark since the LX pro-attempt by being confused, irrelevant and inconsistent.

I no longer care about things from the marketing and promotion of equipment standpoint, my photographic business and personal interests have changed quite a lot in the past couple of years, and Pentax just doesn't cut it for me anymore. Some nice bits they've made in the Limited lenses, a plethora of "almost" bodies, a number of good state of the art zoom lenses encumbered by inconsistent quality control. I'm somewhat astonished they've kept it going so far...

Hopefully the K5 will make a good niche for them, despite the problems I keep hearing about, and they can fix their quality issues. But I'm out of the market on them.
Hi Godfrey,

Our paths are somewhat similar with regards to Pentax and the Pentax Corp. I had a close formal association with the company prior to the Hoya merger/takeover for many years and have shot professionally with their equipment, both SLR (DSLR) and 67. You are correct, they had a number of very near misses unfortunately which often left them "in the hole", especially after making a run at the pro market with the LX. 35mm bodies were not their strengths (with an occasional exception or two) as they were mostly and primarily an optical company. The DSLR's, especially the early ones had severe performance issues and along with many of their high end original FA lenses having diffiulty with these bodies. This precluded my continuing to use their 35mm equipment exclusively for professional work, especially when the job required equipment to come through on demanding shoots (technically speaking) and clients were often high profile. Their engineering dept tried to work out some of the serious issues, but we all untimately came to the conclusion that the fault sometimes was at the interface of the len's chip that passed along incorrect info to the DSLR and at other times the fault was with the way the SOFAX AF system wasn't able to handle properly certain wavelengths of stage lighting. Bottom line, it wasn't usable.

The 31mm limited was the weakest of the original 3 lenses but I still liked how the lens performed. The 43 f1.9 wasn't bad on DSLR's contrary what some had said...but if compared to its performance on film, thats where disappointment set in for some...in other words, when such a comparison was made (lens on film vs. digital).

I'm currently putting the Pentax 645D body through its paces with most of the original production FA Af 645 lenses. Some teathing pains at first with the lenses on the body, but things are sorting themselves out nicely.

I too much truly apologize for diverting the original topic from the OP's questions and subsequent responses. A good discussion as to the merrits of a 50mm focal length len's use was well underway. Thanks all!

Dave (D&A)
 
Last edited:

250swb

Member
Leica made the Summicron-C 40mm f/2 for the CL model, it was always one of my favorite Leica M lenses..
QUOTE]

But its a Johnny Come Lately lens in the history of where these ideas started, made for one camera, and hardly counts towards the lens that broke the rules award.

Steve
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Leica made the Summicron-C 40mm f/2 for the CL model, it was always one of my favorite Leica M lenses..
QUOTE]

But its a Johnny Come Lately lens in the history of where these ideas started, made for one camera, and hardly counts towards the lens that broke the rules award.
When the Awards Event is broadcast, Leica's not going to be in the front of the line to pick up their Oskar. :)

I do find it interesting, however, that given a specific camera line that was intended to be complete they chose three focal lengths ... 28, 40 and 90 ... as the most appropriate choices. Not 35 and 50, etc.
 

Jerry_R

New member
Indeed interesting question :)

When I was using 5D - 35mm and 85mm were all I needed.
When I was using u43 - ultra wide zoom and 90mm were my favourites.

With M9 - 50mm is my favourite focal. I also use 35mm and 90mm - but less frequently and with purpose in mind.

But 50mm with M9 is most natural for me now.
Both in use (what I see in viewfinder) and in perception of final photograph.
 
Top