"35mm lenses are ideal for ________"

[Film dino]

... 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

 

[lZr]

I like 35 mm and 400 ASA film indoor

 

[Nikon Bob]

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

 

[aizan]

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]

35 is a poor approximation to 40.

When I look at the world with one eye I see it with a 40mm FOV,
with two eyes with a 28mm FOV.

Roland.

I agree completely.

Clarence

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

35 is a poor approximation to 40.

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? 😉

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.

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[ferider]

I'd say that 40mm lenses are too wide for people shots ....

Not if you can get close, IMHO ...

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]

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.

 

[sepiareverb]

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.

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[aizan]

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]

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.

 

[sepiareverb]

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.

 

[ferider]

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.

 

[sepiareverb]

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?😎

 

[Photog9001]

internet discussions. the eternal kind.

 

[Doug]

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.

This one, maybe, with a 35mm f/2 Planar on Contax G2...

 

[back alley]

nice shot doug.

 

[aizan]

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?