Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 37 of 37

Thread: why is the 50mm so perfect on M9?

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    354
    Post Thanks / Like

    why is the 50mm so perfect on M9?

    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?

  2. #2
    Not Available
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    1,864
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: why is the 50mm so perfect on M9?

    Because a 50mm is the "standard" lens for shooting 35mm (e.g. full frame) for a reason.

  3. #3
    Administrator Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona
    Posts
    4,492
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    367

    Re: why is the 50mm so perfect on M9?

    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

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    449
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: why is the 50mm so perfect on M9?

    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

  5. #5
    Subscriber Member kit laughlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Two suitcases and the latest MBA
    Posts
    1,334
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: why is the 50mm so perfect on M9?

    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!

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    354
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: why is the 50mm so perfect on M9?

    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.

  7. #7
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,673
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: why is the 50mm so perfect on M9?

    Quote Originally Posted by 250swb View Post
    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)

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    449
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: why is the 50mm so perfect on M9?

    Quote Originally Posted by D&A View Post
    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

    Steve

  9. #9
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,929
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: why is the 50mm so perfect on M9?

    Quote Originally Posted by 250swb View Post
    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

    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 ...

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    102
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: why is the 50mm so perfect on M9?

    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.

  11. #11
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,673
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: why is the 50mm so perfect on M9?

    Quote Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
    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 by D&A; 18th May 2011 at 07:31.

  12. #12
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: why is the 50mm so perfect on M9?

    Quote Originally Posted by gooomz View Post
    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

    Just this guy you know

  13. #13
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,929
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: why is the 50mm so perfect on M9?

    Quote Originally Posted by D&A View Post
    ... 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.

  14. #14
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,673
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: why is the 50mm so perfect on M9?

    [QUOTE=Godfrey;317343]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)

  15. #15
    Senior Member Per Ofverbeck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    503
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    5

    Re: why is the 50mm so perfect on M9?

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    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!

  16. #16
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,929
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: why is the 50mm so perfect on M9?

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

    ---
    Quote Originally Posted by D&A View Post
    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.

  17. #17
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,673
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: why is the 50mm so perfect on M9?

    Quote Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
    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 by D&A; 18th May 2011 at 13:59.

  18. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    449
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: why is the 50mm so perfect on M9?

    [QUOTE=Godfrey;317260]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

  19. #19
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,929
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: why is the 50mm so perfect on M9?

    [QUOTE=250swb;317445]
    Quote Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
    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.

  20. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    519
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: why is the 50mm so perfect on M9?

    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.

  21. #21
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,929
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: why is the 50mm so perfect on M9?

    Quote Originally Posted by D&A View Post
    ... 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 agree: Pentax' best cameras were the 645 and 6x7 line, which had a deep following in the professional community.

    I came to the 645 somewhat late in the game and didn't use it as much as I had my other medium format film cameras (Rolleiflexes, Hassleflatz, Mamiya, Fuji, etc), but it was a real sweetheart of a camera. I waited and waited for a digital 645 to appear but realized at some point that I just didn't need the format and sold out on the lenses and other equipment.

    I tend to prefer smaller formats these days. And a normal lens always has a place in my kit and proves to be my most used lens, most of the time, just to get back to the topic.

  22. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    519
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: why is the 50mm so perfect on M9?

    Best Regards!

  23. #23
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    OC/LA County, CA and Austin, TX
    Posts
    146
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: why is the 50mm so perfect on M9?

    I agree that FL between 40 and 50mm offers approximately the same angle of view of our eyesight and a natural perspective rendition, making it the natural choice to start with that focal length first. Later on after using it a while you warm up more and more to that lens and you enjoy the images it generates. However, things changed in my situation. I wanted the new 35mm lux ASPH II badly. It took me awhile to get one and deliberately, I started using my new lens more over the 50mm lux ASPH. Originally, I simply wanted to justify the cost of the new lens but later on, I started enjoying the images of the new lens and it has become more used than the 50mm counterpart. So, a possible psychological effect may play a role, at least with me in my decision. Don't get me wrong, I still enjoy the 50mm lens even now but I just prefer 35mm right now and things may change in the future. It is just whatever you feel comfortable with and enjoy, I guess.
    Joshua - M9: Leica-M & Zeiss ZM lenses + Canon DSLR

  24. #24
    Jeff Day
    Guest

    Re: why is the 50mm so perfect on M9?

    In a recent trip to Turkey I took my Leica 50/2 cron, 18/3.8, SEM, and my 90/2.8 Elmarit. I ended up using the 50/2 cron exclusively on my M9, the images just looked 'right' to me. The only thing more I could have asked for is a faster 50, so perhaps there is nocti or sumi in my future.

  25. #25
    Senior Subscriber Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    1,306
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: why is the 50mm so perfect on M9?

    I think the difference has to do with the larger viewfinder compared to a DSLR. It feels more intimate.

    Personally, I prefer a 35mm in that it allows me to get in a little closer and the images become more intimate, with a connection to the subject. But occasionally I wonder if I should get a 50mm so I don't have to get in quite so close.

    I also feel 35mm is a more natural focal length (being equal to the width of the frame). But for most practical purposes the difference is rather minor.

  26. #26
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    32° 31' 37.06" N, 111° 6' 0.9" W
    Posts
    4,333
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: why is the 50mm so perfect on M9?

    I've found myself using my 50 more and more
    Don Libby
    Iron Creek Photography
    Blog
    Tucson AZ

  27. #27
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,673
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: why is the 50mm so perfect on M9?

    What I also find interesting is that the 50mm for a while, fell out of favor with SLR (DSLR's) users for a variety of reasons. The zoom lens had taken over covering this focal length with amateurs and also when DSLR's were first introduced, the 50mm essentually became a 75mm.

    The 50mm with RF users was very popular (next to the 35mm) but when the Epson RD1 came on the scene, the 50mm once again became a 75mm and on the original M8, became a 65mm. Those that regulary used a 50mm with their film RF bodies, found the 50mm wasn't used as often. Once the full frame M9 came on the scene, the 50mm has slowly picked up where it left off. Some of the same thing has happened with full frame DSLR's although I believe not to the same extent.

    It's a great focal length that can add a bit of intimacy to a subject, yet take in the surrounding "variables". Just some personal thoughts.

    Dave (D&A)
    Last edited by D&A; 19th May 2011 at 05:24.

  28. #28
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    iiiNelson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    3,187
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: why is the 50mm so perfect on M9?

    I suspect it has something to do with the "Trinity of Leica Photography" - Pixie Dust, Unicorns, and a Red dot... I love my Zeiss ZM 50/2 Planar. Best value in a M-mount 50 and "best" 50mm with the notable exceptions of the 50 Summilux and Noctilux IMO.
    Sony Visible Light & IR Photographer
    http://www.iiinelsonimages.com

  29. #29
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: why is the 50mm so perfect on M9?

    Quote Originally Posted by HiredArm View Post
    I suspect it has something to do with the "Trinity of Leica Photography" - Pixie Dust, Unicorns, and a Red dot...


    Love it - thank you, you've brightened my morning!

    Just this guy you know

  30. #30
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,929
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: why is the 50mm so perfect on M9?

    Hey, that pixie dust and the unicorns make a big difference. :-)

  31. #31
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: why is the 50mm so perfect on M9?

    Quote Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
    Hey, that pixie dust and the unicorns make a big difference. :-)
    Quite right Godfrey - even I always knew that the red dot was just a status symbol! Pixie dust - now, that's something different!

    Just this guy you know

  32. #32
    Subscriber and Workshop Member MGrayson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    1,575
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: why is the 50mm so perfect on M9?

    Am I the only person who can't use a 50mm? A 28mm lives on the M9 by default with rare use of the 75mm. My eye is caught either by a detail, or by a wide sweep.

    Matt

  33. #33
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,929
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: why is the 50mm so perfect on M9?

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    Quite right Godfrey - even I always knew that the red dot was just a status symbol! Pixie dust - now, that's something different!
    Yeah but it's the red dot that costs money... :-/

  34. #34
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: why is the 50mm so perfect on M9?

    Quote Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
    Yeah but it's the red dot that costs money... :-/
    I bet one could sell the pixie dust and unicorns off for at least enough to pay for the red dot.

    Just this guy you know

  35. #35
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,929
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: why is the 50mm so perfect on M9?

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    I bet one could sell the pixie dust and unicorns off for at least enough to pay for the red dot.
    This is getting a little too deep ... There's a metaphysical issue to deal with that will take too long to write up!

    BTW, I ordered the A12 50mm f/2.5 Macro camera module for the GXR today...

    :-)

  36. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Northampton, Ma
    Posts
    532
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: why is the 50mm so perfect on M9?

    "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."
    I agree with Per. With the .69X rangefinder, the 50 mm framelines are
    very nice, leaving enough "out of frame" to allow the moving into frame aspect of RF shooting to work well. In fact, if I could get an uncluttered 50 frame, without the 75, I'd be tempted to go a la carte, (even though I love my 75 lux). best....Peter

  37. #37
    Not Available
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    1,864
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: why is the 50mm so perfect on M9?

    I just wrote Choosing Focal Lengths which explains a bit about the 50mm (among others) and why it's popular. Maybe it'll help.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •