Most Versatile Focal Length

Most Versatile Focal Length

  • 21mm

    Votes: 3 0.4%

  • 25mm

    Votes: 7 0.9%

  • 28mm

    Votes: 34 4.6%

  • 35mm

    Votes: 323 43.2%

  • 40mm

    Votes: 151 20.2%

  • 50mm

    Votes: 223 29.9%

  • 75mm

    Votes: 5 0.7%

  • 90mm

    Votes: 1 0.1%
  • Total voters
    747
I mostly shoot with 50mm, or 42mm when I'm using an Olympus 35 RC or SP. Both of these feel very natural to me. Can't get on with 35mm at all, have done some experiments with 21mm and quite like it as an occasional length, although I suspect 28mm would be more useful. But for versatility it's 50mm for me.

Edit: blimey, this is an old thread!

Ian
 
Last edited:
A write in vote - 45mm for small format and 80mm for medium format.

Focal length
Indicates the magnification and angle of view of a lens. The human eye sees things roughly the same as a 45mm focal length of a lens for a 35mm camera. Anything shorter is classed as a wide-angle, while longer focal lengths are telephoto.

http://tinyurl.com/27olok

Never used this focal length or thought it was available or would be inclined to purchase it for my SLR before using some 45mm fixed-focal length rangefinders - specifically the Yashica Lynx 14 and the GSN. I really like this focal length and find it quite natural. I agree with the posted description, above. It's a subtle but noticeable distinction from a standard 50, and it's why I'm not very compelled to purchase an interchangeable lens camera; why I like my Yashicas so much. 70% of the time a standard lens would be on it anyway. Second place would be a 35. Third place - in terms of usage, would be a portrait lens opting for the 85mm range since they're more compact than the 135's.

Film camera bodies are so cheap now I've considered dedicating bodies to my favorite lenses. My M42 SLR is dedicated to the Jupiter 9 for the most part, making it a "fixed-lens by choice" portrait camera.
 
Last edited:
I voted for 50mm. Altough I also like my skopar 21 and orion 15 (my latest purchase) I feel much more comfortable with my Nokton 50 ... but I must admit that I never tried to shhot with a 35mm lens...
 
rover said:
35, step forward and it is a standard lens, step back and it is wide.
Click to expand...

I don't use 35mm because I don't have it( 40mm Rokkor is good point of view, too) ... rover gave us very nice definition, I have to say one more thing : when I saw bokeh test on 35mm f2 lenses + zero distorton I can only agree with Zeiss conclusion :


The Powerful All-Rounder

P.S. Next to that, I like 28mm 😀
 
It is funny, when I look in the camera the point of view I like the best is that of a 35mm lens (I am speaking of the 24x36mm format) but all the best pictures I got were taken with the 50mm, that's why my vote goes with the 50mm.

GLF
 
My most versatile lens is the so called "normal" lens, wether it is either 35; 40; 44; 45 or 50 mm, or even as long as 58mm. As I´m getting used to a fixed lens camera since I bought a Yashica Electro35, I felt compelled to get the most out of the lens I have in the camera I´m using.
This forced me to think (and learn) a lot about composition and to explore the limits of the lens, which is a side beneficial effect of having just one lens to play with.

Then my vote will go to the normal... it is 40 mm (the closest average from 35 to 50 mm).

Ernesto
 
i haven't gotten a new lens in ages, being a 28/50mm guy since the beginning. someone describe what the 35mm does best, rather than being the "second best lens for everything". i'm thinking about getting the 35mm summilux asph. not sure about the flare suppression, but i'd like the extra stop and smoother fingerprint over the 35mm summicron asph. one lens and one body does have its appeal.
 
Last edited:
I like 35 and 50, but my favorite is 40, which also is a good compromise between 35 and 50. The problem I have is that there seem to be almost no 40 LTM lenses. There's the Rollei 40mm/2.8 Sonnar HFT, but it's around $500 new and there seem to be no used ones anywhere. Someday I may have to give in and get the Rollei.

Richard
 
My favorite street photographer was Garry Winogrand. He used 28mm almost exclusively. I was drawn to his work before I learned that little lens tid-bit, so I guess I just lean toward wide as the more pleasing format to my eye.


Tom
 
Looking at the distribution curve, I think it should peak at 40mm. The reason it doesn't is probably because manufacturers chose to put the most effort into developing fine 35mm and 50mm focal lengths. There just isn't a lot of glass to choose from in 40mm. The usual arguments against 40mm are that it is too long for landscapes and too wide for portraits (or something equally as relative). That's like the pessimist's view of the half-empty/full glass. I guess I'm an optimist. 40mm is an excellent compromise between 35 and 50mm, and serves quite well in that capacity.

Richard
 
I really like the 40mm length best in general, but IMHO, it is no substitute for a 28/35 and 50. If I'm carrying one lens away from home, It's a 40, but perhaps only because I don't have anything wider for my rangefinders right now. The drawback of a 50 is you have to back up so far to get a building facade that you can't identify your friends in pictures, while the drawback of a 35 is you have to get so close to your subject for a portrait-type shot that it's kind of annoying to strangers 🙂 A 40 solves both these issues acceptably, while not giving up too much in FOV or distance to subject.
 
If I had only only lens, it would have to be a 35mm focal length. Very clean, undistorted images. Simple lens design (eg. Tessar), compact and light.

Having said that, I prefer focal lengths of 28mm and shorter. This is driving me bonkers with my dslr.

So, I voted 35mm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom