C&C 25mm (50mm equiv) is just not for me

[ooheadsoo]

I've never been competent with the 50mm full frame equivalent field of view, and I just don't have time to practice with it and get better. When I envision something and try to arrange elements into a photo, they invariably require either a shorter or longer focal length, or space for maneuvering that I don't have available. Sometimes, I think a good cell phone camera like the pixel 2's camera, is all I need for deep depth of field shots in good light.

I think I'm done with this PL25mm. It's not versatile for enough for the limited way my little brain works, and I don't see myself swapping to this lens when I'm traveling and want to shoot portrait, because I would choose a longer fl for that, and it doesn't work for me as a walkabout lens. I only have myself to blame...I knew that idiosyncrasy of mine before I bought the lens, but GAS got the better of me anyway.

On full frame, my 35mm has been my favorite prime, and I often would want something a bit wider as a walkabout lens. But I don't know that I could spring for the O17 1.2 pro...no that wouldn't be a good idea at all.

Here are some shots I took with the PL 25mm. RAW edited to taste in LR. Please feel free to C&C.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[wjiang]

I can definitely understand where you're coming from. The PL25 was my first and for a long time only fast prime. These days I mostly use my O25 f/1.8 for environmental portraits - it's a great focal length for that.

It's a very... normal... focal length. You see roughly what your eyes would normally see in detail, when you are not scanning around. You really do have to pick out framing that is just so, showing no more and no less. That's probably the main comment I have about these shots - they either have too much or too little in the frame. Everything else is pretty spot on.

 

[fransglans]

One neat trick when you are using the pl 25 is to switch to 3:2 aspect ratio, it makes the pics feel wider than they are , give the amazing lens another try!

 

[rezatravilla]

on contrary, my favourite FL is actually 25mm (50mm on full frame) and PL25 perform well.

From still using EM5 Mark I

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Until using Pen F

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[magIBIS]

If the FL does not work for you, you don't have to practice or try enough, you need to change the tool. This lens is nice in rendering and all, but it is not a sin to swap it for something you will enjoy more, even if it is not that a hyped lens. You got the p20, o17 1.8, the sigma 16 1.4 and the pl15 all within reach if you sell your pl25. Don't stick to it - use it as good it can for you by giving you the funds you need to get happier.

 

[TNcasual]

IMO, a little more practice in composition and/or framing would make for a little more interesting snapshots.

#1: tilting the camera down slightly would have kept from cutting off the feet. Taking a step backwards, could have given a better framing of the men and the bright window through the bars.

#7: taking a step back and to the right would have made the image more of a portrait of the security guard(?). You could have framed her on the left third and had the leading lines of the building fading to the right.

That being said. I think everyone has a FL that they feel the most comfortable with. Some people do well with 35mm equivalent, some 50mm, some 60mm. I actually prefer my Sigma 30 1.4 and it's 60mm equivalent. It is a little more narrow, but I think makes it easier to frame around a subject. The larger aperture may help with that as well.

 

[ooheadsoo]

Appreciate all the feedback. I will consider using it for environmental portraits, although I prefer the 35mm equivalent field of view for those kinds of shots of members in my own party, which makes either a PL15, Sigma 16, or O17 1.8 tempting. If I was more comfortable with street shooting, where I actually asked people permission to take their photos, I agree the 50mm would be great.

#1: tilting the camera down slightly would have kept from cutting off the feet. Taking a step backwards, could have given a better framing of the men and the bright window through the bars.

Agreed, though I just didn't have time. The moment came and left. Now if I had had a 35mm equivalent on...

#7: taking a step back and to the right would have made the image more of a portrait of the security guard(?). You could have framed her on the left third and had the leading lines of the building fading to the right.

That was the original intent, and I should have done that. The guard was eyeing me and I didn't want to obviously point the camera at her. I know it's no excuse if I really was intent on getting the shot.

 

[pdk42]

Well, since it's C&C...

- Firstly, there's nothing wrong with not liking a particular focal length/field of view. It's a personal thing and that's just fine. I also don't find 50mm EFL a particularly useful FOV for how I shoot, but it can be useful sometimes.

- Regarding your shots, I think they are too "snapshot" like and lack sufficiently strong visual elements to lift them above the mundane. They are not striking striking images that make me want to linger. This has nothing to do with the focal length.

- To take them in turn...
1) It's two guys near a gate. There is nothing to hold any interest or suggest any story. What are you trying you achieve?

2) What's the subject? The meat?, or the guys? Neither alone is interesting and together it's just confusing.

3) What's the subject? The sign or the water tower? Either way, there's nothing to inspire here IMHO.

4) That's a nice food shot. It would be good to illustrate a menu, but it's not art!

5) & 6) Potentiality interesting subjects, but the lighting is uninspiring and again, I'm thinking "so what'? Are these SOOC JPEGs? I'm guessing they are. Even a bit of processing might have improved them.

7) Again, multiple potential subjects. Is the objective to capture the person on the left?, or the vanishing point of the buildings?, or the people coming up the stairs? I find myself jumping from one to the other but there's no common theme. Remember that photography is the art of exclusion. We need to exclude distraction to ensure the intended subject is right at the fore.

8) I like this shot! Lovely textures and the eye can wander to find interesting detail.

9) I like this one too. A little post processing, such as vignetting and some color tweaking, would draw the eye more quickly to " the end ".

I would suggest reading some articles on composition. Classic composition rules can be a little cliché, but OTOH they provide a good starting framework that will immediately lift your pictures and will, once learned, give a launch pad to your own style.

Anyhow - that's my 2c worth. Hope it was helpful!

 

[ooheadsoo]

Thanks. Actually,they've all gone through some processing although I try to keep the hand light.

Perhaps it's a bit embarrassing to note that I've studied, researched, and practised elements of photography for over 20 years. On the one hand, some things just never sink in or I fail to grasp fundamentals. On the other hand, part of the struggle i have with this focal length, as I alluded to in the op, is that I struggle to compose, balance, identify foregrounds and interesting backgrounds, and otherwise frame elements and subjects when viewing through this lens.

Ok, I confess, I'm not much better using other focal lengths, either!!

 

[Replytoken]

Thanks. Actually,they've all gone through some processing although I try to keep the hand light.

I think you seriously need to lighten up on the photo manipulation in image #3 - California BBQ?

I love California and I love BBQ, but those are two words that I would not have expected to see together on a sign. It surely must be photo manipulation.

Just kidding around.

In all seriousness, I feel the same way about the 28mm AOV that you do about 50mm. I tried to get myself "in the habit" with a Ricoh GR, but it just did not stick. It's just not how I normally see things. And it is a shame because the GR has an amazing lens/sensor combination.

--Ken

 

[ooheadsoo]

hey now, we may not have a legacy of pitmasters like the Midwest and South, but things are unimaginably better than even 10 years ago. Bbq has upped its game in LA (at least in my opinion.)

 

[mike3996]

If the FL does not work for you, you don't have to practice or try enough, you need to change the tool. This lens is nice in rendering and all, but it is not a sin to swap it for something you will enjoy more, even if it is not that a hyped lens. You got the p20, o17 1.8, the sigma 16 1.4 and the pl15 all within reach if you sell your pl25. Don't stick to it - use it as good it can for you by giving you the funds you need to get happier.

Agreed. For a long time I thought that one must grok the 50mm fov because "the internet pros say so". Always preferred 35mm and now even wider. 50mm could be a portrait lens for me. The point being, everyone's got their preferences what to compose in a picture and sometimes 50mm doesn't fit into that picture.

All focal lengths are FF equivalents.

 

[speedy]

I personally don't get too hung up on exact focal lengths. It was actually my Canon crop cameras that taught me that. There's nothing small and light to give you 50mm FOV. So I used the 40mm STM pancake. Lots of drama and wailing from the forumtographers that it was just plain "wrong" One of my most used lenses.
I also loved 28mm on my FF camera. So I acquired the14mm f/2.5 for my GX8. Lovely, lovely little lens. I liked what I saw from the PL 15 f/1.7 & decided I "needed" one. I've seen quite a bit of complaining on various forums that15mm is an odd, in between, non traditional focal length. Once again, one of my most used lenses. In fact, I'd defy any of the experts in a blind test to pick the 15 out from 14 to about 20mm.
My point is, use whatever makes you happy, and don't get too wound up on absolute specifics. Go out and break all the "rules" of photography. You might find you like what you end up with. Forget tradition. Try new things. Have fun

 

[gnarlydog australia]

... Lots of drama and wailing from the forumtographers that it was just plain "wrong" ....

Forumtographers: I think that is the best word after Measurebators

 

[alex66]

I personally don't get too hung up on exact focal lengths. It was actually my Canon crop cameras that taught me that. There's nothing small and light to give you 50mm FOV. So I used the 40mm STM pancake. Lots of drama and wailing from the forumtographers that it was just plain "wrong" One of my most used lenses.
I also loved 28mm on my FF camera. So I acquired the14mm f/2.5 for my GX8. Lovely, lovely little lens. I liked what I saw from the PL 15 f/1.7 & decided I "needed" one. I've seen quite a bit of complaining on various forums that15mm is an odd, in between, non traditional focal length. Once again, one of my most used lenses. In fact, I'd defy any of the experts in a blind test to pick the 15 out from 14 to about 20mm.
My point is, use whatever makes you happy, and don't get too wound up on absolute specifics. Go out and break all the "rules" of photography. You might find you like what you end up with. Forget tradition. Try new things. Have fun

Well Winogrand used a 28 a lot so your in good company. Not many of the lenses we but are dead on the focal length stated on the case anyway, the makers will round up or down, not sure you would notice the difference between a 50mm that measured 48mm or 52mm anyway.

 

[Dinobe]

The 25mm (50mm FF eq.) is considered 'a normal lens' which gives more or less a field of view that we see with our own eyes. That makes it much harder to take interesting photos. Using a ultra wides, macro's, fish eyes, ... allow us to see things we normally can't see so it's easier to take interesting shots.

It's hard to describe, but the 25mm (50mm eq) forces you to pick a subject, it forces you to frame something. I find it a creative process and my O25 has become one of my most used lenses even though I didn't like it at first. The 25mm was an "emergency purchase".

I find longer lenses make it easier to pick a subject, esp. people or portraits, wider lensen make it safer to pick. Fit it all in and crop later, with the risk of having no subject at all.

 

[jyc860923]

totally agree with the op, 50 isn't for everyone, for me, the 35-40 plus a telephoto is all I want.

 

[fotoppi]

Each time I have a new lens, I keep it on for several days and try to shot only with that one.
I love the 25,but you really need to bend down, step forth and back and move. (shoe zoom).
My fav walk around lens is the 17/1.8. Makes the Pen-F really "small".

P.S: 3:2 sometimes really helps.
And you can get pretty close with that lens.

 

[martinkuipers]

I like to think in kits when going out to help me focus on what I want. My Olympus 25mm f1.8 for low light and portraits to join the allround pl 12-60mm zoom. And the pl 15mm to join with Olympus 45mm f1.8 because I love both the focal lengths.

For me this gives me peace of mind. On its own, I dont like to bring the 25mm because then I keep thinking I need something longer or wider.

 

[PakkyT]

Since we are reviving old threads might as well add my two cents in.

Often the complaint with a lot of focal lengths of certain primes are that they are often about what you can not do versus some other prime or a zoom lens. But to quote @Dinobe above...

It's hard to describe, but the 25mm (50mm eq) forces you to pick a subject, it forces you to frame something. I find it a creative process and my O25 has become one of my most used lenses even though I didn't like it at first.

and I 100% agree.

I have always had wide zooms (12-60 SWD in 4/3rds days, then the Panny 12-35/2.8 with m43 and now the 12-100 PRO) but one problem with them is they kind of get you in the habit of taking a lot of big wide "get it all" shots that can tend to be a bit boring. You walk up to a building, statue, stall in a market, fountain, etc. and the first instinct is, OH I need to capture it all and immediately go to 12mm and then slightly zoom to get the tighter but all encompassing shot. Which is fine of course especially if traveling and seeing famous sites and things for the first time, you of course you want your own shot of the view you have seen countless times. But the mistake is many times we then move on to the next subject.

Back in the 4/3rds days I had the Sigma 30/1.4 and now have the 17/25/45 f1.8 Oly lenses and there is something to be said about having the 25mm mounted, with nothing wider in your pocket or bag and now having to make a shot the represents the thing you want to capture even if you can only capture a quarter of it. It makes you really look at what you are seeing to find that angle or feature that is going to represent the subject.

Since I started using primes a lot more and because I had to really think about what I was going to capture and later often being really pleased with how it came out, even when walking around with the 12-100 after I get that de rigueur wide shot, I will pause and really look at the subject and try to come up with a couple additional shots really zooming in on some feature or unique aspect of what I am shooting. Those close up shots often end up being what I like best.

So yes, ANY prime focal length is going to be limiting by definition. Part of the fun and artistry of the science of photography is seeing what you can do within those limitations.