I started taking 35mm photographs around 1979, at 32. I always favoured longer lenses, say 58-135 for ordinary photography. When I bought Leica, I naturally gravitated to an M3. More recently, I find myself drawn to wider angle lenses for ordinary photography. I put it down to two things: generally more self confidence, and the confidently quiet shutter which does not draw attention to me. I must admit to not using the viewfinder for many people shots, so perhaps I am not so confident. Do you think we gravitate marginally toward wider angle lenses as we age? Is long focal length more more emotionally distant and voyeuristic and short focal lengths an indication of emotional involvement with the outside world?

-- James Elwing (elgur@acay.com.au), June 02, 2002

Answers

Maybe I am getting a little too philosophical here, but I think that perhaps the M allows us to be more confident in getting closer to our subject before we snap the shutter -- perhaps because it is less intimidating to the subject than an SLR, or perhaps the VF forces us to do it... For whatever reason, this in turn allows us to "interact" more closely with our subject, perhaps even on a more personal level, which in turn helps generate a photograph with more impact.

If you look at some of Andy's posts where he compares the difference in photograhs taken with different lenses while maintaining subject size, we can easily see the differences. But without those direct side-by-side comparisons, we don't automatically think "That was taken with a 35!" or "Clearly a 50 shot!" Sometimes we study it and can figure it out, but if it is a good photo we simply enjoy it. At least that's how it works for me... Perhaps our brains detect the subtle clues of the persective differences on a more sub-consious level, and this is what adds the "feeling" we get from some images...

IMO only,

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), June 02, 2002.

James, In another thread I mentioned that I noticed the same shift in what you describe as a "personal field of view" when I used a 35mm lens rather exclusively for a time with my M6. I suspect that there is a difference in the psychology of seeing/viewing between the "optical conduit" of the SLR and the viewfinder "window" of the rangefinder systems, or rather that the difference in viewing systems promotes a shift in how the field of view is perceived relative to focal-length and subject matter. Obviously there are a variety of factors that converge to create a particular personal field of view, but I tend to feel that the viewing system exerts a considerable influence.

-- Art Waldschmidt (afwaldschmidt@yahoo.com), June 02, 2002.

Jack, I really enjoyed your insights in the closing lines of your response - I believe that is precisely the "mechanism" involved!!!

-- Art Waldschmidt (afwaldschmidt@yahoo.com), June 02, 2002.

Interesting question, James. I suspect that people select their "standard" focal length (that which they use most frequently, or simply gravitate toward) for a variety of reasons. Among Leica shooters, it may be more a matter of "Leica culture" than age-related visual perspective. My guess would be that most of us think of Leica Ms as being more wide-angle cameras than tele cameras, and the 35mm lens is often considered the "normal" field of view among Leica shooters, resulting in some peer pressure, I suppose.

An interesting side point is that I believe peripheral vision actually shrinks with age, although "youthful" perspective tends to zero in on things, and be less aware of surroundings (akin to the tele perspective). So perhaps the 35mm field of view is more consistent with what "older" people see while wandering about, and the tele field of view more consistent with the concentration of youth. There may also be some subconscious effect of wider-angle lenses being less prone to the decreasingly steady hand of the older photographer. Who knows.

Personally, at 56, I still prefer longer lenses for people, because the extra distance provides a perspective more consistent with how I "see" them, even when close up - my brain never enlarges their noses, for example. In contrast, with landscapes and such, I tend to "see" a field of view more like 35mm or 24mm.

-- Ralph Barker (rbarker@pacbell.net), June 02, 2002.

Personally, I like the 24 because it offers a very natural, unforced perspective while dynamically separating out fore and back grounds. Basically, it makes things look just like I see them, a perfect match for my vision.

 

Shepherds, Khirbat al-Mirkez, Palestinian Territories.

 

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), June 02, 2002.

I think your last sentence is dead on. "Is long focal length more more emotionally distant and voyeuristic and short focal lengths an indication of emotional involvement with the outside world?" Being a priest, I often compare western religion and easter religion in this same way. We like our churches to be big with the clergy far away in the pulpit and we are only spectators. Now walk in an orthodox church and wow! You cannot excape the emotional (spiritual) involvement with all those icons right there face to face with you. Yes, I think short lens are the way to capture the soul of your subject. Well, it's Sunday, what did you expect from the priest???

-- Charles E Cason Jr (cec@vbe.com), June 02, 2002.

I think there might be some value in selecting a field of view which is contrary to one's natural inclination. I think of myself as a very telephoto and macro person. If I'm standing in a field, my first, gut reaction is to look down at some tiny part of a flower's center (and want to photograph it). Meanwhile there is some grand spectacle playing out amongst the sun, clouds and broad landscape to which I'm totally blind! So from the perspective of personal training, I find it helps my growth to go out into that field with my M6TTL and 50mm Summilux. It forces me to (literally) lift my sights. That's one of the reasons I sold my FM2N and macro lens to buy the Leica gear.

-- Ollie Steiner (violindevil@yahoo.com), June 02, 2002.

I think it may have more to do with the nature of the camera. with my R, my 90 is a normal lens and my 180 is a short telephoto. with my M my 50 is a short telephoto. the M gets more street scene work, while my R gets mor portrait and landscape work. at my size, 6'-3" and 235 lbs, neither camera stands out.

-- greg mason (gmason1661@aol.com), June 02, 2002.

I think point of view is what's more important here. Lots of SLR users are drawn to the 20-24-28mm lenses to express their 'thoughts so I don't feel it has anything to do with the 'Leica experience. If you give the rangefinder a chance, then you find out about its strongpoints, accuracy of focussing wide angle lenses and such. I don't think age has anything to do with it - I've known photographers who in their younger days used wides and then found themselves closing in on their subjects as they matured (photographically as well as age-wise). It all has to do with how you see the world - and thankfully we all see it differently.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), June 02, 2002.

My first camer was a Nikkormat FTn with a Nikkor 50mm/f1.4, then it got stolen. Replaced with a Canon 7 and Canon 35mm/f1.8; then a Leica CL with both 40mm and 90mm; then a Pentax LX with (8) Pentax-M lens collection, but the lens I far and away used the most was the 40mm Pancake Tessar design. Then a Nikon N90 with zooms, which I never used, and now a Leitz M6 with the Tessar design Elmar-M. So basically, I've been fairly consistent. But I love the Tessar Design because of it's pure genius. Leitz M6, Elmar-M 50mm 1:2.8, B+W KR1.5 MRC, Fuji Sensia II 200, Polaroid SprintScan 4000:

-- Glenn Travis (leicaddict@hotmail.com), June 02, 2002.

I emphatically do NOT agree with Capa's dictum that "If your pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough." It is not necessary to get in someone's face in order to look into his soul. A longer lens allows for the heightened impact of tight framing while not intruding into another person's space.

My normal lens for people photography is 75-90mm, & sometimes 135. My normal lens for landscape is the 135. My photographs have never been accused of lacking emotional involvement.

-- Dave Jenkins (djphoto@vol.com), June 02, 2002.

YIKES! Magenta skin.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), June 02, 2002.

The only thing - really - that's changed my field of view over the years has been economics!

The first accesory lens I bought for my first camera (Canon SLR) was a $29.95 pre-set Spiratone (remember Spiratone?) 28mm. As soon as I could afford one (8 years later) I bought a 20mm - and have had a 20 or 21 ever since.

I DID go through a period of 'telephoto addiction' in the early 90's - and part of the reason I switched to RFs was to cure myself cold- turkey.

But even in that period I was never without a 20. My vision has been 'wide' almost from the very beginning - and never really changed.

Of course I was influenced early on by Bruce Davidson's EAST 100TH STREET and a host of other photographers who were using wide-angles almost exclusively - in a variety of formats.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), June 02, 2002.

I run two SLR's with 24, 55, 85, and 180 lenses. I use all four lenses pretty much equally. I oftentimes forget which lens is responsible for some images- I believe it equal parts vision and subject at hand. I try not to exaggerate perspectives for the sake of it, and I am happy not always knowing which lens I used for which shot; I interpret this as good selection of focal length and good camera position (perspective). Just IMO-

-- Mike DeVoue (karma77@att.net), June 02, 2002.

I work full-time as a photojournalist, and except for sporting events I very rarely find myself putting a lens longer than 50mm on my camera. I may be the only person on this group who shoots on a daily basis with a 14mm(!!) - though granted, the 1.6x effective magnification of our digital cameras makes it about a 23mm. For a while, the only lens I owned for my RF gear was a 24mm; I didn't feel like I was missing much, either.

I think in documentary work, it's important to be able to put your subject in the context of their environment. To me, a picture of a person loses a lot of its meaning and impact if they're photographed against an anonymous blurred background. That's why I much prefer to use wide-angle lenses, and as Leica is a camera that lends itself well to documentary-style shooting, I think that's why people tend to use it with lenses that are 50mm and wider.

-- Mark Schiefelbein (mas499@hotmail.com), June 02, 2002.

Thanks to all who responded. That seemed worthwhile. Maybe I exaggerate the extent to which I use wide angles. Excuse recently is Voigtlander 15mm. used for B&W landscapes on Tech Pan

-- James Elwing (elgur@acay.com.au), June 04, 2002.