What is a 35mm lens good for?

Redridge said:
try shooting at some cars at a show when people are around, space can be limited... you will see the difference of the 35 and the 50. Standing at the same distance, the 50 will get you details, while the 35 will get you the whole car.
Click to expand...

I would even go as wide as a 28 at a car show. Actually I like a super-wide at a car show, because exaggerated perspective plus classic automobile finishes = awesome shot.
 
C'mon! Kim Il Jun in a halter isn't worth the price of admission to 35 world?

When I had a Leica, a 35mm Ultron was my only lens. I loved it like none other. I also loved 35mm on a D100 and a Mamiya 645. It's the focal length for the masses.

iViva la 35!


dave lackey said:
...
attachment.php


...I am still stuck with the question...what is the strength of a 35mm lens and where does it really fit for everyday use? Snapshots?:confused:
Click to expand...

Well, the snap shot is the highest and best use of photographic technology.
 
Last edited:
... and there is always the "compromise", the 40mm focal length ;) It fits ideally when 50mm seems to short and 35mm seems to wide. With the M3, just cover the frame-lines illumination window with some tape and you have the perfect 40mm fov VF. :)
 
I hear the other question: what's a 50 good for?

I like fast 50s because of the strong focus isolation capability they offer wide open.

35s are good for all the rest: almost everything.

Cheers,

Juan
 
Juan Valdenebro said:
I hear the other question: what's a 50 good for?

I like fast 50s because of the strong focus isolation capability they offer wide open.

35s are good for all the rest: almost everything.

Cheers,

Juan
Click to expand...

Indeed, the 35mm for the frame of the story and the 50mm for some selected details. :)
 
A 50 & 35 are always in my bag. When the 50 is too tight the 35 covers it all. MOF at the moment I've been shooting with the 35. I realised right quick I needed to get closer. It is a challenge but one that can be conquered.
 
I primarily use a 35mm so I'll try express what I think.

35mm is a compromise focal length, a great general use lens. The problems arise when you have a specific idea in mind or situation encountered. Often too narrow for traditional wide angle settings, but also too wide for photos of human sized subjects after around 3m (Your images can start to look like you are just scared of getting close at that distance); this all really does depend on a case-by-case basis, but from what I've seen this holds true.
I can't classify a 35mm as a wide angle lens. To me it is a true normal lens, even if 50mm just feels like putting a frame around my natural vision. It is a jack of all trades in a way, but it is a master of some.

I would never pop anything wider than a 28mm or narrower than a 50mm on my camera as a walkabout lens, simply because the trade-offs would be too much but even within that range it's hard - I mean, how am I going to catch that moment happening 10-30 meters away from me with a 28mm? They'll be tiny pinpricks in a sea of context. How am I going to shoot that interaction between two people quickly? If I step back and have to focus because my in-built skull rangefinder is pretty inaccurate at times, then I'm likely to lose the moment and stand out.

35mm is a compromise focal length, but I love it
 
For me, the 35 mm is my central lens, just like 50 mm seems to be for you. The 35 mm is my "subject plus background" lens.

When I bring two lenses, I make them 28 and 50 mm, but to me, they are a short and a long 35 mm... :D

I mean, the question is basically silly. If 35 mm doesn't work for you, then it doesn't. It's purely a matter of preference. You probably asekd this question because you have the impression that a majority likes the 35 mm, and you might be right. But would you ask the same question about a musician you don't really like, just because they are very successful?
 
kossi008 said:
For me, the 35 mm is my central lens, just like 50 mm seems to be for you. The 35 mm is my "subject plus background" lens.

When I bring two lenses, I make them 28 and 50 mm, but to me, they are a short and a long 35 mm... :D

I mean, the question is basically silly. If 35 mm doesn't work for you, then it doesn't. It's purely a matter of preference. You probably asekd this question because you have the impression that a majority likes the 35 mm, and you might be right. But would you ask the same question about a musician you don't really like, just because they are very successful?
Click to expand...

No, I have no impression of what the majority likes as it is of no relevance to me. I simply do not love the 35mm perspective. Never have. I have found it useful in the past and I respect those that do love it and was curious as to why a 35. Why the question? Simple.

I used a Leica X1 for a test drive of sorts last week and tried to come to terms with that effective focal length. I was impressed with the camera's results, not with the perspective as such. The first thing I wanted to do was to crop to get in close.

I have used 18mm lenses, all the focal lengths up to and including super telephotos...In the past 30 years, I have covered sports, motorsports, done macro work and everything in between. So, 35 is not new to me even if my long experience was when using quality zooms for all kinds of tight situations. As I said, I am not new to photography having started as a freelance motorjournalist for a car magazine 30 years ago.

I asked the question as to whether I could stick with a 35 mm prime lens for even a single roll on the M3, or a day of shooting with a fixed lens digital cam.

Hence, what is a 35 prime for? Certainly not macro, not thin dof, not bokeh unless I can afford a Lux, not for portraits in studio where I would use upwards of 105 to 300mm lenses, etc. It has just been too limiting to me and that is why I never used a 35 prime before. I admire a lot of of wide-angle shots from 18-28 perspective and have had great results on those less frequent occasions when I used the wider focal lengths. My DSLR's are gone now and I am looking at the feasibility of a high quality lens for the M mount or a fixed lens digital compact camera. I have been using a Minolta Freedom Zoom for a while and even tried out the XA2 for 8 months but find these only good for snapshots.

So, the adventure begins. Sometimes it is nice to stretch some and may well wind up with a 35 prime some day in the near future. We'll see. I am not opposed to trying something new like a different prime, I just don't see a 35 being the all day one lens answer for me, just another tool in my box. I can still use my Nikkor zooms on the Nikons when I need tight quarters flexibility.

I still do not have an answer if it will work for me except to say I am open. I may wind up with a nice zoom for the R bodies instead, who knows? Time will tell and the comments received are helpful and very much appreciated.:angel:
 
The random gallery just threw a lovely portrait on my screen that immediately said 35 to me. Sure enough, it was taken with a Chinon Bellami. If you want to see what a 35 excels at, take a look at the member gallery for TimSki. He didn't stay long with us (post count of 3) but left behind some great portrait work in his gallery.
 
Simple question, no simple answer

Simple question, no simple answer

Hi, Dave. I think in the end it is about how you see and what you are trying to accomplish. If a 50 is your go to lens, then there's your answer. It is better for isolation and say, chest-up portraits. I'm sort of like Helen Hill, the 35 is a 50 with more context wrapped around it, and to me the DOF difference is also important. If I need a smaller FOV, I go to a 75. Similarly, I never warmed to a 28mm FL. It's not that different from a 35. So for me, its 21 or 24/35/75.

I think you know I'm definitely a RF guy - whether small or medium format. But I did try a Canon 5d for a while. Great images but waaay to big for me. I had a their 35/1.4 USM on it which is one helluva lens, not just for the FL. But that is what works for me...

If you'd like to borrow my 35 'cron for a weekend, I'd be glad to lend it to you.
 
samuelphoto said:
Hi, Dave. I think in the end it is about how you see and what you are trying to accomplish. If a 50 is your go to lens, then there's your answer. It is better for isolation and say, chest-up portraits. I'm sort of like Helen Hill, the 35 is a 50 with more context wrapped around it, and to me the DOF difference is also important. If I need a smaller FOV, I go to a 75. Similarly, I never warmed to a 28mm FL. It's not that different from a 35. So for me, its 21 or 24/35/75.

I think you know I'm definitely a RF guy - whether small or medium format. But I did try a Canon 5d for a while. Great images but waaay to big for me. I had a their 35/1.4 USM on it which is one helluva lens, not just for the FL. But that is what works for me...

If you'd like to borrow my 35 'cron for a weekend, I'd be glad to lend it to you.
Click to expand...

Sam...we need to talk.:angel:
 
I have never bonded with 35mm either and have always been a 50mm guy. Recently picked up a 28 and for whatever reason it worked for me immediately. 35mm always seemed a bit in between for me. In fact have a guy coming to pick up my 35 Summarit shortly, it was sacrificed to pay for 28 Summicron.
 
Dave

Do you even know what you don't like?

Is the angle of view too wide compared to where you are used to standing?

Or do you feel the perspective is unnatural?
 
dave lackey said:
Hence, what is a 35 prime for? Certainly not macro, not thin dof, not bokeh unless I can afford a Lux, not for portraits in studio where I would use upwards of 105 to 300mm lenses, etc.
Click to expand...

I think a lot of people use a 35mm prime lens in conjunction with their feet and linked by the thought that 'I need to be nearer' or 'I need to be further away'. This solves a lot of problems associated with the 35mm as a prime lens. I suspect though it is the standing away from the subject that is your worry.

Move closer and you become engaged with the subject, move further away and you can combine elements around the frame to balance the image. Combining elements around the frame (even to the edges) in a wider view by necessity means that it is difficult to simply plonk a vaguely interesting item dead centre in the frame and call it a photograph. The whole image needs to be part of the composition, and this can be achieved as much with tone shadow and light as well as, or instead of, a 'thing' or 'things' placed telephoto like dead centre.

You may baulk at the idea of 'street' photography, but look at the work of Joel Meyerowitz to see how the frame is filled with things going on in seeming chaos but ultimately they are resolved as a balanced composition. That is how to approach using a wide angle lens, but it doesn't have to be so complicated as that.

So your task is to look as closely at the edges of the frame and areas of tone and light within the frame and resolve the composition that way, indeed ignore whatever is happening in the centre of the frame. That way you begin to appreciate the wide angle view a 35mm lens gives you and how to use it creatively.

Steve
 
For me 35 (and 28) is perfect when I can get close, either because you know the people, or because there is a lot of them. I think DAH picture illustrates this (he seems to ride with the guy at the foreground)

But drop me in a small US-Midwest style town to shoot streets with a wide, and I think I'm in trouble (unless I'm after buildings of course but I'm not)
 
878 snaps...

878 snaps...

It's got nothing to do with being engaged with the subject.
Who cares about that ?
It's about conveying an image to the viewer.
A 50mm or equivalent does it best.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom