Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/05/30

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Digital cropping
From: "Peter A. Klein" <pklein@2alpha.net>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 10:32:17 -0700
References: <200105300701.AAA19258@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>

I like 50mm lenses. I've used a 35 more lately, but often I wish I'd
taken the shot with a 50. Added bonus: on a Leica, a glasses wearer can
see the whole frame.  With a 35, I can't, and sometimes it shows!  A 35
is easier to default to--you can always crop.  But when you shoot 400
speed film, do you really want to throw away half the frame?

It's funny how as the last half-century has progressed, people's concept
of a "normal" lens has gotten wider and wider.  First the 50 was normal,
then the 35, then 28.   Until now, when we have people for whom a 24 is
normal, a 21 is a moderate wide, and a 50 is a telephoto!

Maybe a lot of this is a simple case of "because I can."  New tools
became available, so we use them.  And certainly a new lens can force
you to start over and redefine your vision.  I'm thinking specifically
of Ted and his 'Victoria through a 15 and 400' project.  (Aside: So Ted,
when can we see some of that?)

In news and documentary photography, wides let you see a person and some
of their surroundings in a small space.  OK.  But, careful--it also may
mean that to get enough of the person into the picture, you have to
practically stick the lens in their face, turning the session into a
confrontation rather than a recording of what's there.  Or you end up
with an oversized foot, knee, or nose.  It's like the Heisenberg
principle: by "measuring" the subject, you've changed the outcome.

There's another trap.  The perspective distortion of really wide lenses
can make striking images when used well. But in many wide images I see,
the only statement is the weird look of the lens itself. Or the conceit
of "see, I'm avant-garde, I've broken all the rules."  So often you get,
as Mark says, "itsy, bitsy little nothings" on a huge foreground.  Or
chihuahaus that look like daschunds.  People's noses that look like
Barbra Streisand's.

I was really glad to have a 25mm lens in Italy.  All those skinny
streets and tall arches and bell towers.  But I still regard it as a
strong spice, not the main course.  And I'm beginning to wonder if an
SLR is not a better tool for lenses wider than 35mm.

- --Peter

> SthRosner@aol.com wrote:
> > 
> > In a message dated 5/29/01 5:27:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> > mark@rabiner.cncoffice.com writes:
> > 
> > << Lots of very strong shots you've passed over becuase of loose framing.
> >  ...not getting close enough.
> >   >>
> > 
> > Mark: a reason to return to the 50mm lens?     Seth    LaK 9
> 
> Return?
> never left it!
>         a minute ago i posted:
> "The sand bag is my black and white bag. It has my black M6 TTL in it with a 50
> Summicron on the camera"
> 
> I agree the wides - a 35 can make you sloppy. 
> A 50 must be used which much more care and precision and it's too easy to be too
> lazy and just put on a 35. 
> 
> At least I'm not walking around with a 24 glued to my camera like i used to like
> everyone i knew.
> long long ago
> far far away
> itsey bitsey little nothings
> Mark Rabiner