VinceC
Veteran
I've never owned a 75mm lens. But I have shot a 50mm on a DSLR with a 1.5 crop factor, and I really liked the result.
PhotoMat
Well-known
"What's my least favorite focal length?"
Probably that of a lens I don't own.
Probably that of a lens I don't own.
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
I like the wide view, and I also like the long view. Given that circumstance, I rarely use my 50mm lens. However, every time I have used it I also say to myself "This is a really nice short telephoto! I should use it more often"
Then I switch to a 35 or 90.
I should have sold it, but just those moments in which it has come in handy that are so pleasant make me keep the lens.
Then I switch to a 35 or 90.
I should have sold it, but just those moments in which it has come in handy that are so pleasant make me keep the lens.
mike goldberg
The Peaceful Pacific
I'm one of those that helped the "yellow" 135mm bar get longer. I have no 135 frame lines, don't like a turret, and 135 is too long to be a portrait lens.
principe azul
Ian
135mm?
"Now vestigial, like a male’s nipples."
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-august-04.shtml
"Now vestigial, like a male’s nipples."
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-august-04.shtml
Creagerj
Incidental Artist
Well I checked 135mm as well. I don't like it on either SLR or Rangefinder. I rarely use anything but 50mm.
ferider
Veteran
135 is a great focal length - in particular when using the M3's 90mm framelines ....
When I was 14 I bought my first SLR, an OM2. It came with a 50, and the
normal 2nd focal length to add was 135. Ever since then I like it and only
got used to 85/90 with my Leicas.
From the entire list above, the only not-so-useful hybrid for me is the 75.
Roland.
When I was 14 I bought my first SLR, an OM2. It came with a 50, and the
normal 2nd focal length to add was 135. Ever since then I like it and only
got used to 85/90 with my Leicas.
From the entire list above, the only not-so-useful hybrid for me is the 75.
Roland.
eli griggs
Well-known
For me, the 28 is a pain. If I'm going wider than 35, then 28 is too small a step; I'd like a 24 or even better, 21 out front. I don't mind converging lines or other 'distortions', that's part of the beauty of those lenses and many of my favorite documentary shots carry that footprint.
I know it'll be quite some time before I am able to add a 21 or 24 LTM to my bag, but the day I do, I'll be doing little happy dances around the yard; hope the neighbors don't call the police again...
Eli
I know it'll be quite some time before I am able to add a 21 or 24 LTM to my bag, but the day I do, I'll be doing little happy dances around the yard; hope the neighbors don't call the police again...
Eli
Gary Cox
Member
I checked 135mm, but should have checked 90mm as that is the longest I have. For my purposes and style, it just seems too big, too heavy, and cumbersome. I have a 28, 40, 50, 90, but feel that I would like to get down to one lens with my one body (M4). In reality it will probably be the 28 and 40 if I can even afford to hang on to this expensive of a set up. ;-)
Gary
Gary
BillBingham2
Registered User
I would have voted a 21, but it was not even there. From the list, I'd have to pick 135.
B2 (;->
B2 (;->
Berliner
Well-known
50mm. Probably because it was the only lens I owned during my 'learning photography' years. I had an instructor that only allowed the class to use 50mm. In hindsight, it was a great learning tool, but I don't own one now--35 is my normal lens. Actually, I only own three M-mount's--35-75-90--and the 90 is hardly ever used...
kshapero
South Florida Man
I checked the 135 just because I felt like I had to pick on someone.
thpook
Squawkbox Delux
My travel kit is an M2 with a 35 or 40 and a 90mm. I hate the 90, because it's used just often enough to justify bringing it with me, and heavy enough to give me a nice sore shoulder at the end of the day.
I wouldn't use a 135, not out of hate for it, it just doesn't suit how I shoot. The 35 annoys me a bit, and the 40mm is my favorite lens ever.
I wouldn't use a 135, not out of hate for it, it just doesn't suit how I shoot. The 35 annoys me a bit, and the 40mm is my favorite lens ever.
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
A year ago I would have said 135, but I've found my Elmarit with goggles to be very useful on an M3!
I have no strong love for 90s - I prefer 75 for a short tele.
I have no strong love for 90s - I prefer 75 for a short tele.
Ronald M
Veteran
This is like asking the starving family which child they need to eat first
DougK
This space left blank
Of the choices listed, I'd say I like 135mm the least, mostly because I just don't work with long lenses that much anymore.
EDIT: When I do need a telephoto lens, though, it's a good length.
EDIT: When I do need a telephoto lens, though, it's a good length.
Last edited:
fbf
Well-known
135mm for sure. I don't see any advantage of 135mm on RF, that's why I'm still carrying around my 135L with canon sometimes.
W
wlewisiii
Guest
I went with 75 over 40 but both are about equally annoying for me - neither fish nor fowl being either too long or too short for my tastes.
William
William
Dr. Strangelove
Cobalt thorium G
Actually, in P&S cameras 38 mm (or its equivalent on small digital sensors) seems to be more common than 35 mm. 38 mm is closer to 40 mm than 35 mm.VinceC said:
I think you summarized pretty well the reason to use 35 mm. It's sometimes called "wide normal" lens. It is pretty much the jack of all trades. For example it's possible to take decent portraits with a 35 mm lens, but nearly impossible with anything wider.
oscroft
Veteran
Assuming the question is about RF focal length, I went for 135 - I really can't handle trying to frame using such a tiny little viewfinder frame (and with an external VF, parallax problems make it unusable for me). But on an SLR, I really like a 135.