Stuck in a jam: 35mm, 40mm or 50mm

[BNF]

Like nearly everyone, I am well experienced with 50mm lenses. They come and go, but I always seem to have one or two around.

Now, I am hoping to simplify, to minimize. I have always found myself shooting at the "extremes" of rangefinder focal lengths: 21, 28, 90, 135. So, this time around, I would like a good solution for that middle range.

I am considering the 35/1.4, the 40/1.4, and one of the two 50s 1.5 or 2.0. I have zero time with a 35 or 40 (yes, zero time with a 35). In practice and in reality, does it make sense to group these three together and just choose one? I can see an arguement leaving the 35 out of the group... Instinct and experience tell me that this time around the 40 is the most usable of the group...

Any thoughts or suggestions for this recreational, travel and travel documentary amateur (hack really ;-) )shooter?

 

[Roger Hicks]

You'll never know unless you try it. Quite small differences in focal length can make a major difference, and it's totally personal. I certainly wouldn't lump 35-40-50 together and I regard 40mm as neither one thing nor the other (apart from needing a separate finder, or guessing around another frame).

My wife's normal 4-lens set is 18-28-50-90. I use mostly 21-35-75-135. In both cases I've highlighted the ones we use most. We shoot the same kind of subjects -- see the web-site -- but we prefer different lenses.

Cheers,

R.

 

[rover]

Hey, I am a hack too.

Let's talk.

For me, 35 and 50 are very different and 40 is sorta....lost I guess.

So I went with the 2 lens theory and actually have been tending wider liking 28 actually. 50 is a tele for me on a RF, and 35 pretty normal (now). If I want to photograph someone, or what they are doing, 50 is the lens. Specific. If I want to photograph something, and what is around it, 35. General. If I want to photograph what is around me, 28. Wide.

Does that make sense?

 

[like2fiddle]

I've owned a couple of 40's over the years, but have always gravitated back to the 35's because that focal length seems to be more able to capture enough of a scene to perhaps begin to tell a story. For example:



A city street, someone walking by seems to have been shopping, there's a guy checking something out down the street as he enters perhaps a pub where the person closest to the camera may be sitting at a sidewalk table?

or:



A crowd of people at what appears to be a boring soccer game since most of them are just looking around aimlessly.

I just can't seem to do the same thing with a 50. And with a 25 I never seem to be able to be close enough to show good detail.

 

[Tim Gray]

It seems like a lot of people gravitate to (rough) doublings in focal lengths. Either 25-50-90, 28-50-90, or 35-75. Makes sense to me. I have a 50 and a 35 in RF, and a 28 and 50 on my SLR. Sometimes I think the 28-50 combo is better, but in M mount, I personally like the offerings in 35 more than 28, so I'll stick with 35-50 for now. Specifically, getting a good f/2.0 28 lens that's not huge is tough. That might have changed with the new CV 28 though...

I find 35 is a great lens for general use, especially for groups of people or portraits of people in their environments. After using my 35 almost exclusively for a year, I'm starting to gravitate back to the 50 (which I used exclusively for the year before that) at times because sometimes you just need a bit more closeness in a picture. I really like taking pictures of my girlfriend with the 50 - hanging out with friends, the 35 is perfect.

 

[deepwhite]

As much as I don't want to live without any of my 35s and 50s, I could just take one lens out with me and shoot with it for the whole day.

If I come across a scene that I could've taken with another FL I left home, it'd be fine that I just miss that shot.

I would, of course, take those "special lenses" with me sometimes, like the 12mm, the 21mm and the 90mm. Yet for "prime lenses" like a 35, 40 or 50, I rarely use more than one for one specific day. For me, changing prime lenses kind of ruin the groove of the day.

So, stop thinking. BUY AS MANY PRIME LENSES AS YOU CAN!!! ;-)

 

[Steve Bellayr]

The 35mm is good because the throw is small & easy to focus quickly. I also like the field of view. As far as an f1.4 I do not think that it is worth the extra cost. In daylight one never gets to f1.4 and the depth of field is very narrow; and, because of the low light it is difficult to focus accurately. Also, check the quality of the image at f1.4 some lenses are better than others wide open. If the image quality drops off considerably....but, I know that you did not ask that question, just thought I's add it in.

 

[oscroft]

35 and 50 are very different beasts in my opinion. Either could vie for my most used focal length, and I could never choose just one of them - I often walk around with one of each (though I also often go out with a 50/28 combo).

40 is strange, and I'd hesitate to lump it in with either the 35 or the 50. I do have one, a Summicron-C 40, and I only really use it on my CL, usually with no other lenses with me. But I also often go out with only a 35. And sometimes only a 50.

If I was just starting with this range of FLs, I'd have to get both a 35 and a 50. And I'd leave the 40 out of the equation to start with - I do like it, but if I had to lose one of the three that's the one that would go. (But, perhaps perversely, if I could absolutely only have one lens, I might choose a 40).

So I guess I'm not much help really.

Have you thought about maybe picking up a cheap 50 and 35 (eg a Jupiter-8 and Jupiter-12 - the latter if you have a body it will fit) and having a play to see which FLs you like best, and then selling them on when you've decided and bought more expensive ones?

 

[maddoc]

I have used all three FL but sold the 40mm recently. For me it is either 50 (the Noctilux) or 35 + 90 or 21 + 90 (landscape stuff). The 40 was a little bit to tight compared to 35 and a little bit to wide compared to 50mm. If it wasn`t the Noctilux, I could live without 50, on the other hand I have two 35mm (Summilux pre-ASPH and Summicron IV). 35mm seems to fit best to a 135 rangefinder camera (Leica), IMHO.

 

[javimm]

I use 28-50. Planning to buy a 90 and then a 15 or something that wide. I own a Jupiter 35 mm.
I have some kind of mixed feelings about the 35 focal length. Too wide for a normal lens, but not as wide for a WA lens, so it's not that good for my tastes.

In my DSRL I own a 10-22 (16-35 eq), and 22 is still too wide for me so I change lenses for a normal zoom ala 17-70.

My 50 is attached 65 % of the time, and the other 35% I use the 28.

 

[Rogier]

The doubling of focal length makes most sense.
For all these smaller steps in between; use your feet ;-)

I vote for 28 - 35 - 75

 

[dazedgonebye]

40 works for me as a single lens. On the other hand, 35 would work as well, I just don't have framelines for it.
I don't love 50.

I also don't love thinking too much about whether or not I have the right lens on once I'm actually out taking pictures, so the idea of carrying a 35 and a 50 doesn't work for me.

 

[kxl]

Don't like the 40 -- it just doesn't seem wide enough or long enough. These days, it seems like I only use the 35 on my R-D1S. Love the 50. When I want to go wide, I use a 25.

 

[Bill Blackwell]

After reading your post I first thought you would be most satisfied with a 35mm lens. But after thinking about it and reading the other responses, maybe a 40mm lens is your ticket. I would also encourage you to modify the mount so the 35mm framelines are activated; the results will be on the tight side, but you get used to it quickly. Plus, if you are looking at only CV lenses, IMHO the 40mm f/1.4 is the best performer in the group (particularly wide-open). The 35mm f/1.4 is somewhat soft at f/1.4 and f/2 (similar to the pre-asph Summilux). I think the 50mm FL would ultimately be either too long or too short for you.

BTW, you can ad me to the list of hacks in the goup.

 

[wallace]

Buy a cheap Olympus 35 RC (everybody should have one anyway) to try out if 40mm works for you (the Oly has 42mm)!
Maybe that saves money and will be the start of a new friendship.

Wallace

 

[payasam]

Unlike you, BNF, I've stayed away from extremes. My widest has been a 28, my longest a 135. Both of those were little used, so I now have only the focal lengths for which the M2 has finder frames. I agree with Bill B that you may be best off with a 40.

 

[35mmdelux]

the 35 is one I cannot be without -- indoors or outdoors. of course, much of it depends on what your subject matter is.

 

[nikon_sam]

Any monkey can shoot with the 35 or 50...

Most (not all) start with the 50...it's a great lens to learn with and one one should master...(I love the 50)
Earlier this year I finally got a 35...Having a blast using it...Last weekend I shot our church picnic with a 35 & 180mm (SLR) even though I had other lenses with me I stuck with these two...
I have an Olympus 35-S and it has the Zuiko 42mm fixed lens on it...It's not a 35 and not a 50...it's somewhere in between but so different from the other two...(I need to get that one back in my line-up)

I would go for the 40...

 

[rover]

Any monkey can shoot with the 35 or 50...

Only if he has thumbs.

Anyone see my banana? 😉

 

[35mmdelux]

Any monkey can shoot with the 35 or 50...

I would go for the 40...

Any monkey can shoot w/ the 40 as well. I guess we're all monkeys...

As I have written so often: its not about the gear, its about capturing a compelling photograph. Flowers are pretty but not compelling.

Consider Sabastio Salgado -- what put him over the top was the being at the right place, at the right time. His photo of Pres Reagan getting shoot by the idiot Hinckley could have been captured on a cell phone (if they had existed at the time).