50mm focal length for street?

[oneANT]

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]

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]

When did a 50 become a telephoto?

Yesterday at about 2:38pm!

Jeff

 

[Brian Legge]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I use 180mm on 6x7cm (85mm equiv for 35mm) and the shots look great!

 

[Athiril]

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]

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]

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]

Raymond Depardon just published a book called Manhattan Out, it's totally done by a superangulon 21mm 3.4. BUY it.

 

[2F/2F]

Too bad the longest focal length on the Sigma is too short for me! I had a 17mm lens and found it hardly useful, especially on the street. Even my 24mm Nikon lens (which was made in the '60's and does not have any barrel distortion that I can see, not to mention that it is tack sharp) is too wide for me most of the time. I can't imagine I would ever have a use for that lens, and definitely not for street photography.

The only wides I have seen any noticeable barrel distortion on have been zooms or vari-focal lenses. But as I said, I am not comparing to lenses in the 12-24mm focal length range, but to more standard wides like 28's and 35's. And one example does not disprove my general point.

 

[white.elephant]

For me, the best street lens is a 50mm when used with a Rangefinder which allows me to see a significant amount of info outside of the frame. That combination of field of view and 'advanced notice of interesting possibilities' is my ideal.

 

[slight]

White elephant, now that you mentioned it. Yes indeed the ability to see outside of the frame is wonderful

 

[luvi]

my favourite street lens is a 35mm, going closer to subjet

 

[yeknom02]

I have two approaches - a 45mm fixed rangefinder and a 24mm lens on my Nikon SLR. The rangefinder is super-sharp and quiet, while the 24mm lets me shoot without even looking through the viewfinder. The latter is probably an approach that will get me criticized by some, but my guiding philosophy in photography is "whatever works."

So any fixed focal length from 24mm to 50mm is good. If you have interchangeable lenses, there's no reason not to gradually build up an arsenal.

 

[semi-ambivalent]

is a 100mm lens on 6x9 ie 44mm, or a 50mm on a 35mm an ideal street lens? 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.

There's the usual gear quotes of course (and I'm guilty of that too), but the number of great shots I've missed because I didn't have the right lens is dwarfed by the number of shots I've missed because I wasn't out taking pictures: Too hot, too cold, too dark, too bright, too tired. Too lazy. That's a poisonous one; too lazy.

s-a

 

[Colin Corneau]

Winogrand used a 28mm and got close. I like a 35mm on 35mm. 50 is too much of a telephoto.

ymmv

What Don says...has been my experience over the years too.

I don't like the idea of stifling peoples' potential -- someone approaching this type of photography with a 'clean slate' and no preconceptions may well love a 24mm (for example) and make truly original images that way.

 

[benjiboy]

Some of the Worlds best street photographers only use 50mm lenses, it's "different strokes for different folks", if the OP has a 50mm lens use it, the widest lens I personally like for shooting street is a 35mm, I don't like anything wider, and there isn't an enormous difference between the 50mm and the 35 mm in the final results, and fast 50mm lenses that are usually at least f1.8 and sometimes f1.4 are a lot less expensive than fast wide angle lenses.

 

[freax]

I like 50mm most, but sometimes I'm forced to use 35mm due to small streets in Portugal where I can't frame well with 50mm. My 35 (1.4) is faster too when I need speed. ()'s

 

[blockend]

As a rule I carry two 35mm SLR bodies, with 24mm and 50mm lenses. They cover most shots and I rarely feel lost for a perspective. However a 24 demands the photographer gets really close and even modest distances can make the subject appear far off and uninteresting. It's biggest advantage is DoF which is almost total, especially with fast film. Looking back I get more good shots with the wide but the few really good ones are on a 50mm.