Film dino
David Chong
... clasrooms
... clasrooms
...highly unlikely to tip your decision in favour of a (fast) 35mm, but I use one for documenting small group teaching events: A niche use I guess; a 28 would probably do just as well but maybe risk a little distortion in the corners
... clasrooms
...highly unlikely to tip your decision in favour of a (fast) 35mm, but I use one for documenting small group teaching events: A niche use I guess; a 28 would probably do just as well but maybe risk a little distortion in the corners
Attachments
lZr
L&M
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
I like and use a 35mm as a general purpose lens not getting on well with the 50mm FL. If you like the look of the 35mm on an M8 then maybe the 35mm is not for you. To me a 50 is neither fish nor fowl being neither wide enough or telephoto enough but everyones MMV.
Bob
Bob
aizan
Veteran
if you switched to a 35mm normal from another lens, or tried to switch from 35mm, what kind of "problems" did you face? was it just a matter of angle of view, how far away you were, or did it bring a new approach to focusing, dealing with foreground/background relationships, or something else? i know i handle my two lenses very differently.
clarence
ダメ
ferider said:
I agree completely.
Clarence
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
lol - Hot water is a strange way to arriving at very uncold water, and the color green is just a poor rendition of blue muddled by yellow, eh?ferider said:
I'd say that 40mm lenses are too wide for people shots, and too short for location shots. I'd say the same thing about a 30mm lens: too close to 28mm, too close to 35mm.
I frame with 50mm in mind, although a 17mm lens is more apt to capture my field of vision. But a 50mm lens is much better to capture my attention of most scenes where rangefinder use is concerned. 90mm simply allows me to reach out, and 35mm allows me to cram more in the frame. 40mm, for me, is an indecision between 35mm and 50mm. Where my rangefinder photography "state of mind" is concerned, that is.
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
ferider
Veteran
Gabriel M.A. said:
Not if you can get close, IMHO ...
Gabriel M.A. said:lol - Hot water is a strange way to arriving at very uncold water, and the color green is just a poor rendition of blue muddled by yellow, eh?
Hey, You can also look at it this way: take a glass of sewer water, and add as much
clean water as you want, you will never arrive at Evian !
Cheers,
Roland.
back alley
IMAGES
25 is perfect!
i love that focal length & it's an ideal partner with a 50.
i like 21 and 28 also but if i had to pick one wa lens it would be the 25.
i love that focal length & it's an ideal partner with a 50.
i like 21 and 28 also but if i had to pick one wa lens it would be the 25.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Again isn't this great to see- we all gravitate toward different lengths- for me a 28 is a great portrait lens. As long as you are in the 'sweet spot' between distortion and reduction I love the way your subject can be apart from their surroundings. Also gets you in closer for a more intimate 'discussion' with them. With the quality of OOF areas in these newer wides at wide apertures (thinking ZM here) I am loving it!
When I shot SLR's my favorite lens for portraits of the kids was the Nikon 28/2.0 Ai'd. This lens had beautiful bokeh and beautiful color at f2. SOme of my favorite shots of my daughter were made with this one. Time will tell, but I think the ZM28 is going to fill this need even better if my initial images are any indication.
When I shot SLR's my favorite lens for portraits of the kids was the Nikon 28/2.0 Ai'd. This lens had beautiful bokeh and beautiful color at f2. SOme of my favorite shots of my daughter were made with this one. Time will tell, but I think the ZM28 is going to fill this need even better if my initial images are any indication.
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Last edited:
aizan
Veteran
does anyone have photos taken with a 35 that resemble a 50? i've found ones that look like they were taken with a 28, or simply a 35, but not a 50. maybe i should upgrade to faster 28+50 lenses.
ferider
Veteran
This is a 35:
I'm posting it because somebody commented on it looking like a 50.
This is a 40
You just need to get close enough.
Roland.
I'm posting it because somebody commented on it looking like a 50.
This is a 40
You just need to get close enough.
Roland.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
That last one is starting to do what I like about wides for portraits Roland (see my earlier post), yet retains some of what a more 'classic' portrait lens does to background detail.
I think you can make a good portrait with any length lens if you work at it.
I think you can make a good portrait with any length lens if you work at it.
ferider
Veteran
I've shown this before, one of my favorite portraits taken with 28. Confirms your point, I believe, but they have to be fast ....
I have not taken myself but seen good portraits taken with 21 even.
Best,
Roland.
I have not taken myself but seen good portraits taken with 21 even.
Best,
Roland.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Yes fast is a must- 2.0 seems ideal- 2.8 if you can get close enough without distortion mucking up the head. 21 is tough- distoriton is the party killer with mine. Well, for party portraits the wider the better eh?
internet discussions. the eternal kind.
This one, maybe, with a 35mm f/2 Planar on Contax G2...aizan said:
back alley
IMAGES
nice shot doug.
aizan
Veteran
i wasn't expecting portraits, but those do look 50-ish. the 40 especially, with a sparse background. the foreground has a bit of looking up and down the length of the subject in the vertical 35 shots. maybe horizontals would have more of a 50 flavor?