Why HCB uses a 50mm lens

I'm with HCB. When I take a 35mm camera out just because I may come across something interesting to photograph I take only a 50mm lens. When I think I might be photographing in close quarters I sometimes take a 35mm as well as a 50mm but I leave the house with the 50mm on the camera. When I think I may not be able to get close enough to the subjects I sometimes take an 85 or 90 as well as a 50mm but, again, I leave the house with the 50mm on the camera. I estimate that 90% of my pictures are taken with a 50mm. [I also own a very good 28mm and a very very good 135mm but I can't remember the last time I used either of them.]
 
sjones said:
For urban candids and such, I actually like the “shouting” effect of the 35mm or, more so, 28mm, but I only use a 50mm largely because it corresponds with my visual ‘constriction’ of pertinent elements. The last time I used a 35mm was probably around 2013, and even then, I would use it for about one roll of film per year. Some good photos taken, but it just never felt instinctive.
Click to expand...

I concur with you. I get HCB's point, and actually it makes a lot of sense. However, where I disagree with him is in who's doing the "shouting." He says it as if you as the photographer are the one shouting for attention, but I actually think using something like a 28mm allows you to reflect what's "shouting" in the photo. Say shooting someone with a Ricoh GR up close, so they fill a lot of the frame: if you capture a gaudily-dressed character, or someone in distress, or just someone who reflects the frenetic characteristics of our modern world, I think the shouting effect works very well. HCB shot in a more dignified time, and shouting didn't fit many of his subjects. Now, though, the calmness and order of a 50 can actually seem out of place when shooting candid photography in public.
 
CameraQuest said:
I think he was just saving money on camera lenses

so he could buy more paint, paint brushes, and canvas.
Click to expand...

He really didn't care for money. His family owned one of the largest factories of sewing thread and embroidery silk in France. It was a very wealthy family. "Cartier-Bresson" was a well-known brand name for sewing threads. In France, people really didn't think of a photographer when they heard the name "Cartier-Bresson". Later he married the also very wealthy Antwerp banker's daughter Martine Franck.

Erik.
 
An interesting parallel would be Eggleston. Though shooting at a much later date, he pretty much sticks to a Leica and a 50mm (he's particularly fond of the Canon f/0.95, and is sufficiently well-heeled to afford it). Certainly, he's had access to a full range of lenses, unlike HCB in his day, but prefers the "normal" lens regardless of his choice of format. And his identification with color, exclusively, is somewhat parallel to the identification with B&W that exists for us with HCB's work.
I think that both, along with photographers like Evans, Sander, and Arbus to name a few, understood that photography is perhaps at its most powerful when it seems most transparent, free of any extremes of lens perspective, printing, exposure, etc. They well illustrate the quote, attributed Winogrand, that there is nothing more mysterious than a fact clearly described. Personally, I agree. "Self-expression" has always seemed to me to be a rather boring self-indulgence. The world "out there" is far more interesting than I am.
 
The great magicians, especially who work "in close" seem to do nothing while doing magic. Grimaud and Kissin and Ma do magic with music. Seemingly transparent and subtle differences make the magic happen. To watch Picasso paint his imitation of a Lascaux cave painter saying he wished he could paint that well is magic. People who are really good at what they do make it seem effortless. We do not see the endless iterations it took to get that way. Lang-Lang is said to have practiced 14 or more hours a day and to watch him play is to see effortless magic happening. School figures in figure skating.

The magic seems transparent. Watch ballet dancers practice to see how magic is achieved. As that Danish photgrapher says, "Always wear a camera." And never forget the Jesuit motto of learning, "Repititio, repititio, repititio." HCB did not just pick up a camera, walk out his door and start clicking. You can be sure he threw away a lot of his early work. Like the old vaudeville joke. "How do you get to the Paramount?" "Practice."
 
Well, 35mm rangefinders were built around the 50mm focal length. Every other focal length on them is a compromise.
 
agentlossing said:
I concur with you. I get HCB's point, and actually it makes a lot of sense. However, where I disagree with him is in who's doing the "shouting." He says it as if you as the photographer are the one shouting for attention, but I actually think using something like a 28mm allows you to reflect what's "shouting" in the photo. Say shooting someone with a Ricoh GR up close, so they fill a lot of the frame: if you capture a gaudily-dressed character, or someone in distress, or just someone who reflects the frenetic characteristics of our modern world, I think the shouting effect works very well. HCB shot in a more dignified time, and shouting didn't fit many of his subjects. Now, though, the calmness and order of a 50 can actually seem out of place when shooting candid photography in public.
Click to expand...

I believe Cartier-Bresson was simply referring to the more dramatic effect that a wider angle provides in comparison to longer lenses (assuming the subject roughly fills the same FoV in the compared lenses), and that this different perspective itself “shouts out” to the viewer. Others might counter that the operative word is “engage”, not “shout”; again, it’s a very subjective issue.

As I noted in my first post, I actually like this dynamic effect, particularly in street photography, but for my own photography, the 50mm comports with my visual preferences. Can’t help it; and that’s fine, I’m a hobbyist. If it’s “out of place”, that’s fine too. And really, in today’s world, the vast majority of urban pedestrians are simply walking to and fro, heads tilted down towards their smartphones, nary even a jaywalker.

So as for the issue of ‘different times’, this is a bit more complicated, as certainly Brassaï photographed his share of colorful characters, as did Weegee. Or back to HCB, “Coronation of King George VI, 1937” is worth a look when considering what actually defines ‘dignified times’, never mind that brewing problem in Germany.

By the way, the 35mm lens that I do own is the Voigtländer 35mm f/2.5 Color Skopar, great lens. I don’t know if I’ll ever use it again, but I ain’t selling!
 
In those years people had no choice wich lens to use on their Leica. Cartier-Bresson bought his Leica in 1932. Only Leicas with a fixed lens were available. Maybe Leicas with an interchangable lens were made at that time, but they were not available. It was simply not known by the public that those cameras existed. Leicas were extremely expensive objects made in small numbers. Don't forget it was a time of crisis. So the few Leicas that were around all had a 50mm lens.

The number of Cartier-Bressons camera was 20502. He used a VIDOM viewfinder. He bought the camera from the French importer, Tiranty.

Erik.
 
I cut my teeth on a 50mm, when they were considered and often sold as standard lenses, and thus I have alway leaned towards and have a fondness for the fifty.
 
First of all here is huge difference on almost everything HCB was saying and what he did in practice. He used 90 and 35 for sure and not just once in a while. Later HCB is known to be using 90 a lot more.

And it is not written in stone. 50mm is useless lens indoors for groups and even on busy streets of these days. This is why Winograd ditched it at earlier stage and has grown to be able to use 28mm. Modern 28 RF lens doesn't give much of distortion. 21 was his distortions limit, just as 35 for HCB.
 
Ko.Fe. said:
First of all here is huge difference on almost everything HCB was saying and what he did in practice. He used 90 and 35 for sure and not just once in a while. Later HCB is known to be using 90 a lot more.

And it is not written in stone. 50mm is useless lens indoors for groups and even on busy streets of these days. This is why Winograd ditched it at earlier stage and has grown to be able to use 28mm. Modern 28 RF lens doesn't give much of distortion. 21 was his distortions limit, just as 35 for HCB.
Click to expand...

Winogrand has been dead for almost 40 years. He is hardly a good example of modern photography. Who did Winogrand look at photography wise and which lenses did they use? Walker Evans, HCB, Robert frank? A 50 can easily be used on the street. It is silly to state otherwise. Not sure why group photos inside matter here.
 
It would be interesting to know when HCB said that and then we could see what was available for comparison...

Barnack's prototypes had several focal lengths; I'd like to know why 50mm was decided upon by Leitz.

I found a magazine article about focal lengths on 35mm cameras and that was what started the "natural" theory going. I was published in the 30's. I like a lot of lenses on 35mm film between 40 and 50mm; I have both Summicrons of that FL. And there are millions of P&S's with 40-something lenses on them; no one has ever complained.

Regards, David
 
Koudelka has said he used a 25mm for his early photos in the Prague and Gypsies books. First it was all he had so...and secondly because a lot of his work with the gypsies was indoors in close quarters and the wide angle worked well here. Later he used longer lenses...last I read, he was using a panorama digital built for him by Leica. Eggleston has used just about everything in 35mm, medium and large format as well as shooting video but he also collects Leicas and uses them a lot...or he did when he was more active. HCB was known for his love of the 50mm but he also used 35mm and 90mm on occasion. In the photos done by David Douglas Duncan of Bresson in a cafe, HCB was using a small Leica pocket camera with fixed lens. I dunno the model of camera or the focal length.

Photographers get identified with a certain camera and lens but many of these photographers use multiple camera models and formats as well as focal lengths when necessary. Friedlander didn't always use a Leica and a SW Blad, Gibson doesn't always use a 135mm on his Leica, Penn and Doisneau didn't always use a Rolleiflex and, personally, I've used many different cameras and lenses over the past nearly 50 years.

But I really don't rank in this group of photographers--just fantasizing.
 
Fascinating, I’ve used a 50mm in, among other places, Bangkok (not 50mm, but normal FoV with crop sensor), Tokyo, New York City, and currently Chicago, but I guess “busy streets” are elusive in these parts. But true, a 50mm is “useless” when you need a longer or wider lens, just as a longer lens is useless if you need a normal or wider lens, and just as a wider lens is useless if you need a normal or longer lens. So?

True, Cartier-Bresson used 90mm and 35mm (and maybe some others), but he certainly found exceptional use of the 50mm as have other photographers. And folks, HCB did not die in 1939; he had access to lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of different focal lengths before he called it quits.

And remember, Cartier-Bresson is expressing an opinion; his personal preference. A quote from a moment in his life that is allowed to fluctuate and change, and one that, given its lack of actual gravity in contrast to say, war, natural disaster, and mass starvation, is even allowed to be hypocritical or flat out fictitious.

Also, to return to this “modern” issue of frenetic or busy streets. F-that. Streets are actually tame and orderly these days; the plutocratic and corporate shaping of the structural landscape, the displacement of much of the middle class, the loss of ‘ma & pa’ stores, and the suburban exodus have in part emptied streets and kept people in line (almost literally). When it comes to dynamic public interaction, I’ve seen photos from 1960s Omaha that put modern-day Manhattan to shame.

I know, it’s crazy, it’s downright radical, but, but, but….use what you want, use what you like, use what you need. There’s lots of choice these days, and that’s a good thing.
 
As he was a street photographer, it would make sense to use the 50mm as it/they retract and no extra viewfinder is needed. Perfect for putting in your pocket and pulling out quickly.

Regards, David
 
jsrockit said:
Winogrand has been dead for almost 40 years. He is hardly a good example of modern photography. Who did Winogrand look at photography wise and which lenses did they use? Walker Evans, HCB, Robert frank? A 50 can easily be used on the street. It is silly to state otherwise. Not sure why group photos inside matter here.
Click to expand...

You keep on trolling without even understanding what you are trolling about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top