How did I learn to like the 50mm lens?

The answer is easy: when I had to pair it with a new body: an M4.

I was interested in playing with a Leica M4, but the real one, the one that came out before the M4-2.  I was lucky to find one in decent shape... but didn't have the cash for another 35mm lens (which is my favorite focal length), so I took out the bag my very underused 50mm Summicron and attached it to this new body.

It was a revelation...

Here's the proof:

This is Washington Street, in Naperville, at Christmas time (1/60th, f2)

My son on a Santa Claus lap (1/15th, f2).  He got some candy...

This is Washington Street, but in Chicago (1/60th, f2)

Art Institute lion, from Chicago (1/1000th, f8-11)

I must admit now that this same M4 body has been equipped with a nice Zeiss 35mm f2 lens (in silver), and that I fell for another Zeiss lens of the same type but in black, currently attached to my M4-2.  The Summicron will return to the M4, of course.  I learned to like it, but right now... I'm having second helpings and indulging in my use of the 35mm focal length.

What's your favorite focal length?  Do you feel that it's the only creative avenue for you?  Have you "forced" yourself to use something different... just to stretch your creative muscle?

Sound off in the comments!

Composition Heaven or Nightmare?

Welcome to a metering and composition nightmare! The parallel lines at Red Rock Auditorium near Denver, CO.

Making lines and subject work?  Hmmm... easier said than done!  Take a peek at the following shots.  First, above these lines, some runners up the seats.  Below, a graceful young lady who was lending moral support to someone in the crowd (M3, 50mm 'cron, Agfa APX ISO 400, at 1/1000 sec. and aperture between f8 and f11; the second: same shutterspeed, but at f5.6, most likely).

What's your take?  What do the lines do for the subjects? 

And finally, by the stage, an exhausted athlete (same gear and film, but aperture between f5.6 and f8; I like to use my lenses as open as possible, hence the f-stop).

When I was taking these photographs, I was in hog-heaven... or whatever the expression be to say I was in a high...  In the zone, going Zen...  Through the viewfinder, all these shots looked like a million bucks. 

Not so much later.

While I like the one on the top (it has a nice, eerie look to it, and the men look like wild animals climbing the steps), when I was getting ready to scan the negative the lighting, the metering and the grain (something I'm becoming a stranger to) posed a series of challenges.   I won't add that I had to contend with some Newton rings, so there's a few negatives that will need to be re-scanned.  However, these ones looked good only after a second examination (not pixel-peeping).  Now... I like them, but I'd like to hear about your experiences using lines in the composition. 

If the first has a nice, lyric air, what do you make of the second?  Does it need cropping?  Is the human element getting small and buried in the geometry?  How about the tired runner in the bottom photograph?  I perhaps should add that it's the one I like the best in terms of contrast, sharpness and lighting. 

Anyway, I'd like to know about your reactions.  

BTW, I did print these images... and Ansel Adams's famous dictum came to mind: "the negative is the score, the print is the performance."  My negs don't look too good, but the prints have a nice sharpness about them...  I must be a decent conductor. 

Thanks!