PDA

View Full Version : 50mm focal length for street?



Pages : 1 [2] 3

6x9
08-29-2010, 07:30 PM
is a 100mm lens on 6x9 ie 44mm, or a 50mm on a 35mm an ideal street lens?

Sure.


Longer than 50mm and the shoots look bland, not showing enough of the environment, and any wider than 50mm and you will have to get near in their face, then people tend to pose or object to the camera.

Incorrect.

spencewine
10-28-2010, 12:39 PM
Alot of it is personal preference. 50mm allows you to isolate your subject a little more, but you don't have a wide-berth on the scale focus. A 35mm and 28mm allow you to show your subject in their environment and allow for a greater DOF when scale focusing. Anything Wider than a 28mm forces you to get really close which can make for some really interesting shots,. I like a 21mm in crowds where I'm close by default. So currently, I use a 21mm, 28mm, and 35mm, and a 50mm. I use them for different applications in the street.

bblhed
10-28-2010, 12:47 PM
It's like buying a pair of shoes, it has to fit you and what you want to do with it.

brucemuir
10-28-2010, 01:00 PM
For 6x9 try a 65mm or 75mm lens.
Perspective, of course, has nothing to do with the lens one uses. It is only related to subject distance. The different focal length lenses only change the field of view.

yes but wider glass usually has a closer MFD so you can get closer to objects/subjects to use perspective to your advantage...


or
disadvantage depending

2F/2F
10-28-2010, 01:06 PM
You should use the lens you think works best for whatever situation you happen to be in. There is no reason to decide what lens to use based on predetermined absolutes. All focal lengths from 17mm to 300mm have provided me with what I would call successful street photos. The lenses I use most for street photography are the same lenses I use most for any photography: 28, 35, 50, 135, and 24 and 200 every now and then. Occasionally 17 or 300 in the past, though I have now sold or traded both of these lenses. I would say that I use the 28, 35, and 50 equally most. I usually use the 35 instead of the 28 and 50. I use the 135 about half as much as either of these shorter lengths. I will use the 200 mostly only if I also have a 28 or 50 on another camera ready to shoot. I generally will have 35/135 or 28/50 on two cameras.

100mm on 6x9 has a wider angle of view than a 50mm lens on 24x36mm format. It is almost identical to the AOV of a 40mm lens on the smaller format, so is actually closer to a 35mm-focal-length-like AOV than to a 50mm-focal-length-like AOV. A 127mm lens on 6x9 will be closest to a 50mm lens on small format. A 65 on 6x9 is a little wider than a 28 on small format.

oneANT
02-28-2011, 02:31 AM
I don't understand this thread at all....are you sure we are all street photogs here.

You use everything and the close up mfd of wides is ...????

28 or 35mm are regarded as the classic or golden age FLs and away from these wider or longer is up to the photographer and the requirements of the scene.
Street comprises; portraits in environment or isolated, buildings and architecture, groups or individuals, human or animal ...vegetable or mineral.

Are we catching on?

I shoot in 21, 28, 35, 50 & 100 but could easily incorporate wider and longer
I'm not the biggest fan of 50mm but for some shots I couldn't have done without it. My fav is 21mm...its so general purpose

I set myself a limit of 100mm but the decision had nothing to do with the subjects or scenes

dnjl
02-28-2011, 04:34 PM
I used to have a 50mm as my standard lens (on 35mm film), but I haven't used it much ever since I got a 35mm. I like the natural perspective: looking through the viewfinder is almost the same as normally viewing a scene. What you see is what you get = easy framing.
Regarding speed: since I can handhold a 35mm one stop slower than a 50mm, they're about equal. The greater depth of field makes it easier to focus in low light, too.

Jeff Kubach
02-28-2011, 11:54 PM
When did a 50 become a telephoto?

Yesterday at about 2:38pm!:laugh:

Jeff

Brian Legge
03-01-2011, 12:22 AM
At least on some other forums I frequent, Bruce Gilden became the reference answer for 'what is street photography'. This tends to build a bit of machisimo - 'get within a few feet, hit them with a flash, if you aren't in peoples faces it isn't street photography'. This often goes along with 'everything most be totally in focus so you have to stop down., etc.

These shots have a place, but the they are just niche within street photography. Most of HCBs worth was with 50s as I recall, often with faster glass in case he was in a lower light situation. I'm sure many would attack his work as too far away, too blurry, too cropped and so forth.

I am not arguing that this is what people are saying here. In general though, I've found those with the strongest opinions tend to prefer more aggressive, invasive styles. Big surprise, right? :)

Instead of asking about focal length, I'd suggest looking at a lot of street photographs. Figure out which you like the most and see what focal length they were shot at. If there is a lot of consistency it may be worth giving that a shot yourself.

Colin Corneau
03-01-2011, 12:56 AM
I have a problem with absolutes in creative pursuits. There are answers that are more common, but everyone has to answer this sort of question for themselves. That takes time and lots of effort.

My answer is 35mm, but I can understand how a 50 would do it - just enough to isolate a subject, not too much to lose the environment. I like having a touch more of the surrounding area in, so a 35 feels right for me.

Dogma is bad for your karma.

theoria
03-01-2011, 03:44 AM
I quite recently bought a smc-m 40mm 2.8 "pancake", mostly for its compactness (great pocketable combination with a me/me super/super A body). But I found myself using it most of the time, as it seems to hit some sweetspot in tems of angle of view, at least for me. I found the 50mm a bit too narrow-fielded for street photography (at least for the streets of the city I live in). I also use a 28mm, which is quite compact (smc-m f/2.8). I take it with me most of the time, as it fits well in a jacket pocket. The 28mm is my default option when the environment isn't that crowded or when I can get close to the subject. But most often the interesting, fleeting things I spot on the street are some meters away, where a 28mm lens would introduce too many undesired side elements in the composition. Anyway, this is the pair of lenses I take with me 90% of the time when shooting 35mm street. Occasionally I use a 17mm (tokina), as it goes past that focal length where people still realize they are in the picture, so they don't modify their attitude. But for really wide shots I use a 14mm samyang. Its problem is that it is comparativelly large and cumbersome, so I leave it at home almost every time.

bobwysiwyg
03-01-2011, 06:53 AM
I'm surprised nobody has suggested a zoom. I find a 28-70mm pretty handy for most scenes you stumble upon. Often you really don't have time to change lenses and I hate carrying much for this kind of shooting anyway.

markbarendt
03-01-2011, 07:44 AM
But 50 would give the viewer that perspective of seeing it as it is.

Well sometimes.

It depends on the planned print size and viewing distance. These two factors create a very specific angle of view.

An 8x10 print to be viewed at arms length indicates the use of what most people call a "normal" lens.

To get a 16x20 to look "normal" at arms length a wider lens is needed.

A 5x7 print would "need" a longer lens to make it look "normal".

This effect is easiest to see on very large prints from wide angle lenses but true of any lens. As you move closer to the print the perspective distortions disappear and the view becomes "normal".

Saw a huge print of O'Keeffe by Karsh in Santa Fe at the O'Keeffe museum. I was with a group at a workshop. As a group we naturally found the "normal" viewing distance, i.e. we stopped at roughly the same place on the floor to view it. Most of the other people there did the same thing.

benjiboy
03-01-2011, 09:23 AM
[QUOTE=bobwysiwyg;1146276]I'm surprised nobody has suggested a zoom. I find a 28-70mm pretty handy for most scenes you stumble upon. Often you really don't have time to change lenses

Speaking personally I find that shooting people in the street with short zooms that by the time I've put the camera to my eye and zoomed the image to the optimum size before you shoot the picture has gone, I much prefer the 35mmf2 that if left focused on about 15ft and using the lenses hyperfocal distance you don't need to focus just point and shoot.

2F/2F
03-01-2011, 10:19 AM
I'm surprised nobody has suggested a zoom. I find a 28-70mm pretty handy for most scenes you stumble upon. Often you really don't have time to change lenses and I hate carrying much for this kind of shooting anyway.

I think zooms are most useful when you are stuck in one spot; when you are free to roam, their biggest advantage is lost. And you pay with size and weight (and expense, if they are a very good quality zoom, which one needs to come close to the quality of even the fixed-length lenses that are not necessarily high-end glass). Wide zooms are often an exception, as they are not too huge or too heavy. However, they are still larger than fixed-length wide, and good ones are expensive. They are also not available in very fast versions (f/2.8 is as fast as they get TMK), and I think fixed-length wides are generally optically superior. Having something small, light, fast, cheap, and simple trumps the ability to change focal lengths on the fly IMHO.

Athiril
03-03-2011, 08:53 PM
I use 180mm on 6x7cm (85mm equiv for 35mm) and the shots look great!

Athiril
03-03-2011, 08:54 PM
I think zooms are most useful when you are stuck in one spot; when you are free to roam, their biggest advantage is lost. And you pay with size and weight (and expense, if they are a very good quality zoom, which one needs to come close to the quality of even the fixed-length lenses that are not necessarily high-end glass). Wide zooms are often an exception, as they are not too huge or too heavy. However, they are still larger than fixed-length wide, and good ones are expensive. They are also not available in very fast versions (f/2.8 is as fast as they get TMK), and I think fixed-length wides are generally optically superior. Having something small, light, fast, cheap, and simple trumps the ability to change focal lengths on the fly IMHO.

Sigma 12-24mm is SEVERAL leagues better than any wide prime lens. Had a look at the distortion tests, and all the primes in that league are terrible.

Having a zoom when you're not stuck is great though too, because you can move around, it allows you to alter perspective easily.

lxdude
03-03-2011, 09:27 PM
Sigma 12-24mm is SEVERAL leagues better than any wide prime lens. Had a look at the distortion tests, and all the primes in that league are terrible.

Any? Any 20-24mm ever made? I mean, it is an admirable performer in that regard, but...
Anyway, it doesn't have an aperture ring, so I can't use it.

slight
03-07-2011, 04:58 PM
I used 28mm (nikon 28ti, minolta tc-1), 35mm (nikon 35ti), 40mm (role 35 classic ti, plaubel makina 67 which is equivalent to 40mm), 50mm (summicron rigid DR) for the past 300 rolls and find the 28mm most useful for street photography.

28mm has the all rounder competence in street, the key is, get close to your subject and don't shoot from far away. It gives good wide view, powerful composition. When used at close distance, it's exaggeration will render the scene captive to the eye; when used from a distance, it's great for scenery shots.

40mm is a bit narrower, but role 35 has a great distortion that could give architecture shots an overwhelming power.

50mm for me is only good for urban still life shots. This is disappointing.

I just posted in another topic my experiences with several lenses, I'd like to cite it here:

In fact I forgot to mention that a good part of the My Angst serie is done by a role 35 classic titanium edition. It has the most competent lens I've used: fabulous contrast, very dark toned render of the scene, etc. I totally love it's 40mm lens, and I find it rendered the achetecture shots with mighty and powerful distortion. I know we usually don't use these terms when talking about distortion - we usually look for NO distortion. But this 40mm lens's distortion, when used properly, can give the architecture shots an overwhelming power.

I'm having a love hate relationship with summicron 50. The thing is, it's a bit narrow for me, and also this lens has its own character which is hard to control. I don't want people look at my photography and instead of praising the photography itself, keep on talking about how this summicron contributed to the aesthetics. So I find myself constantly, intentionally shooting things totally out of focus or with very slow speeds, because if in focus and tuned, the lens just come over me and render MY photography like other millions of summicron users. Also, I work a lot in post production: unconventional developing, usually very high push to gain grain and contrast to ensure people don't see that it's a summicron.

Also,I recently sold the mikon 28ti because I find it too big and clumsy. Now for wide angle I use a minolta tc-1. I did a search on this forum but didn't find any related topic on this machine. For the record: it's the camera of the greatest value I've seen (lens sold in leica m mount for over 1500 usd), and at the same time, a most fragile & expensive camera. It's lens totally surpassed anything in 28mm range, I abused mine with 100 rolls in the two month ownership. Now it's in japan waiting for repair (300 usd I presume including shipping fees). But I love it so much that I will totally pay this repair and (ab)use it again.

slight
03-07-2011, 04:59 PM
Raymond Depardon just published a book called Manhattan Out, it's totally done by a superangulon 21mm 3.4. BUY it.