35 or 50?

35 or 50?

  • 35mm

    Votes: 292 53.0%

  • 50mm

    Votes: 259 47.0%
  • Total voters
    551
BobYIL said:
Is this with your G28 please?
Bob
Click to expand...

I am reasonably sure this was shot with a ZM 28mm Biogon. The photo is only a few months old and that is what I have been shooting with.

But I did pull out my ContaxG 28mm when all my Zeiss M mount equipment was stolen. I had forgotten just how sweet the Zeiss ContaxG glass is.
 
Robbie Bedell said:
I have always loved and preferred the 50, but when I go back and look at my photos I am surprised how many are with a 35. I think Leica should make a 'Bi-Elmar', just a 35 and 50. It would be a very popular lens!

http://robbiebedell.photoshelter.com
Click to expand...

That was what we were expecting from Leica since half a century; a 35-50/2 Summicron; not to come with the size of the Noctilux though..
 
Bob Michaels said:
I am reasonably sure this was shot with a ZM 28mm Biogon. The photo is only a few months old and that is what I have been shooting with.

But I did pull out my ContaxG 28mm when all my Zeiss M mount equipment was stolen. I had forgotten just how sweet the Zeiss ContaxG glass is.
Click to expand...

Thank you. The G28 should be sweet enough as Zeiss has repeated almost the same formula for the ZM28 too.
 
I prefer the 35. In most situations in a place like India, you just don't have the option of stepping back to increase the field of view. You miss a lot of shots that way.

But then again, only M mount lens I have is a 50 Summicron.
 
Well I suppose I am the one that saved up all those 35mm Summarons and Summicrons. Why prefer them over 50mm lenses: since they are more compact, and I like the view of the 35mm lens better than the 50mm since I am more into land-, sea- and cityscape than portraits.....

oh and since I prefer the 35mm....I dislike the 28mm (although I very much liked the Orion I had once for its compactness) and for real wideangle work prefer the 25mm Biogon (I got also rid of the 15mm and choose in the end for the widest)

My main setup last 3 years: 90mm, 35mm, 25mm, 12mm (still have one 50mm and one 20mm but hardly ever use them)

iso 200 film, summicron 35mm asph:
test%2030%20LeicaM2-2.jpg
 
Last edited:
I say 50. To me, the 35 is a neither here nor there lens. I find myself constantly backing up and moving in to get the shot. The 50 lets me be more lazy, as does the 24.
 
Well, I like a few semi wides..... 28/35/40
I have a 28mm and 40mm FOV for my m4/3 G3 (14mm/20mm) so I picked 35mm since it close to 28mm, but not quite 40mm

But, the 28mm is my preferred general photography wide angle lens..
 
I voted for 50 although like others I too like the 40. (and 80mm on 6x7, 60mm on 645 in film days and now 20mm on my Panasonic GF1 and 28mm on the Nikon D300)

Ahhh, to have been in Paris in the 1960s a 35 Summicron on the M2, 50 'cron on the M3 ... running into Doisneau and HC-B from time to time... !


btw, a 35mm lens does not have "more depth of field" than a 50. DoF is a function of subject magnification, not focal length.
To get the same subject size w/ a 35 you need to move closer and when you do DoF is the same (although the perspective is different)

Yes, from equal distances the 35 has more DoF but the subject is smaller than with the 50. Back up the 50 until magnification is equal and, again, DoF will be same as the 35.
 
Canyongazer said:
I voted for 50 although like others I too like the 40. (and 80mm on 6x7, 60mm on 645 in film days and now 20mm on my Panasonic GF1 and 28mm on the Nikon D300)

Ahhh, to have been in Paris in the 1960s a 35 Summicron on the M2, 50 'cron on the M3 ... running into Doisneau and HC-B from time to time... !


btw, a 35mm lens does not have "more depth of field" than a 50. DoF is a function of subject magnification, not focal length.
To get the same subject size w/ a 35 you need to move closer and when you do DoF is the same (although the perspective is different)

Yes, from equal distances the 35 has more DoF but the subject is smaller than with the 50. Back up the 50 until magnification is equal and, again, DoF will be same as the 35 .
Click to expand...

LOL, Yes, a difficult reality for many to grab hold of..
 
I use 35mm now just because it's my only lens on the Leica but I have a 50mm on the Olympus OM...which I haven't used in a while.

I don't particularly miss shooting anything 50mm to be honest!
 
I chose the 50 because it's the only lens I have for the M :( but it is getting too tight for me now.

Although I have used a 35 before (j-12) I loved the field of view and could be the next step for me or the 28.
 
For 25 years my answer was 50. But in the last five years or so I have been seeing "wider" -- so I chose 35 for this poll. Last weekend I was photographing my brand new nephew. I took at 35, but mostly used a fast 50. I get the wishy-washiness of adding an "it depends" vote.
 
50mm is the thing for my shooting style! With 35mm I'm getting to much undesired information in the shot. First thing I do before I fire is to scan quickly the background. The wider I go the more time I lose making decision on aperture and composition...
I also prefer to fill the frame but also to keep some distance from the object (mainly people), giving him/her a small private space for any kind of natural emotions, not only surprise of me being in to their faces with my 35... And of course I have a 35mm lens too :D
 
Voted for the 50mm since I have four of them and only three 35mm!

. . . . . . the truth is I love them all, and the lens can change like New England weather.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom