Changing lenses

R

Roger Hicks

Veteran
Local time
12:20 PM
Joined
Apr 15, 2005
Messages
23,920
Have your lens preferences changed as you've got older? If so, why do you think this might be?

For around 30 years, a 35/1.4 Summilux was my 'standard' lens. Now it's more likely to be a 50/1.5 C-Sonnar. Why? Dunno. Maybe I like it better in colour. Maybe I've just grown more shy and want to be further away. Has anyone else any thoughts on this?

Addendum: I don't buy the '50mm is the natural field of view' argument, because too much depends on the size of the enlargement and the viewing distance for this to be even half-meaningful nowadays. See also the 'Magic Window' piece on my site: http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps magic window 1.html

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
Well, I've gone the other way. I used to standardise on 50mm but now it's likely to be the 35mm and I often use 28 or 21 mm whereas years ago i didn't even own one that wide.
 
I've gone from 35mm to 50mm too, no idea why.

It's probably a self fulfilling prophecy as much as anything, if you see 50mm framelines in your mind's eye then you will naturally look for things that look good at that f.o.v., and it will be self-reinforcing.

No real inspiration about what made me change from 35 to 50 as my main FL though.
 
I've gotten closer, having fallen in love with the Super Angulon over this last year. While 35 used to be a go-to lens for everything, I usually only carry it if I'm walking around with the M9. One camera and one lens. Other than that, I prefer the 21mm and a 50mm but the 50 usually only comes out for low light and closer portraiture.
I'm thinking if I had a 28mm, it might take the place of the 35mm focal length.

Phil Forrest
 
I do not know why, but when I shoot Leica )or generally RF) I prefer the 35mm . When I shoot SLR (usually my FM2) I prefer the 50 mm. As said I do not know why!
robert
 
I always preferred the 28mm when shooting on my old Pentax SLR (er humm 20 years ago)..Now I use a 50mm more than i ever did when it was a standard lens. Perversely though my second most used lens is a 21mm ..now I'm confused
 
Before getting used to wides, normals had little purpose to me, other than small size and speed. Now, they feel like short-teles and I can compose better with them.

I think you learn to 'get close' with wides and that helps define the role and use of normals better.

- Charlie

.
 
I've gone wider and wider, but that C Sonnar is like a girl you can't stop thinking about, beautiful, agile, a lovely voice. And smart. The pictures at any aperture have something extra. I have some shots at f5.6 that just look great.
 
I started out in photography with a simple Retina Ia and thus with a fifty mm lens about fifty years ago. In the meantime I have moved on to a variety of cameras and lenses. If I were limited to one lens, as I was when I was young and quite poor, I would choose the fifty. I love its versatility, sharpness (most decent makes), small dimension. For me its the ideal lens. When I put together my Leica bag for a shoot the fifty is always included and most used.
 
When I started with a camera I got a 50mm with the camera and for a few years thats all I had. I got a 28mm and a 135mm for my 18th. Though I quite enjoyed the new lenses and the options I got from them I found I still used the 50mm most of the time. In time I used a lot of zooms and so on, but for some reason I never got a 35mm prime Equivalent until a few years ago. I can live with both and am happy to walk around with though I still end up going back to a 50mm so I don't think I have really changed in 30ish years.
 
I started with a 50 on a Welta Welti. Later a 50 on a Yashica and Fujica. I found I liked wides when needed, but usually walked around with a 50. I also tried zooms, but have become less enthralled with them. I am back to using primes more. I still don't care for 35mm, but a 135, 28, 24 and 18 are always welcome, even though I will still prefer the 50 as my walk around these days. And I prefer wides over teles most of the time, but use what gets me the shot I want. That's all in SLR. In 35mm RF, all I have is 35, 50, 80, and 135. I use the 50 most of the time. I only use the 35 as it is the only wide I can afford at the moment. In the not to distant future I hope to have a 21 or 24.

My reason for coming back to 50 is that I never really left it, only experimenting with zooms and realizing I didn't really care for them.
 
When asked what my base focal length is, I have often said that it is 35mm. And for a long time it has been. And I might still say that. But I use wider lenses often. In fact I have progressed wider and wider in an orderly fashion over the years. First I added a 28, then a 24; a 21; and now I have (for the Nikon) an 18 and a 15. The older I get, the wider I go. I also have a 40mm Distagon for the Hasselblad, and the 38mm SWC/M CF. Here's a shot with the 15mm Nikkor on the D700:
 

Attachments

  • 15mm Nikkor for web.jpg
    15mm Nikkor for web.jpg
    179.7 KB · Views: 0
Definitely, I use to think I wanted a 600mm lens for 35mm, now I use my 20mm more than anything if I don't use my 50mm. I do have a portrait lens for both 6x7 and 35mm, but don't get a chance to use them much.

But I find with the right subject you can even use a 20mm for a portrait:

6353626873_f8834c6806.jpg
 
Last edited:
For the past 30 years I have regarded ~35mm as my normal and prefered focal length, but my secondary prefered focal length has changed from short tele 90-105mm to wide 21-25mm. I don't find any joy in using anything longer than 50mm anymore.
Not sure when the change happend but I do know that I now strongly prefer context to subject isolation.
 
I used to be mostly 35mm and now I'm more into 50mm. Still use 35mm often and like 28mm on LCD VF cams.
 
I considered a 35mm my 'standard' lens for many years. But I haven't used one for more than two or three exposures since 2003. The change came about because it dawned on me that it was too neutral, neither one thing nor another, and it made me lazy, always with a temptation to stand in the same spot (metorphorically speaking).

So it is in the drawer, and a 28mm and a 50mm have taken the most used title. They both keep me thinking harder, in a more concentrated consideration of 'what if' I used one or the other. They can both be used close in, or to stand back, each showing a stronger dynamic character than a 35mm. Equally I have moved well away from an older opinion that the photographer is himself simply an observer, a recorder that makes no impact on what is being photographed. Just by being there the photographer has an impact on whatever is in front of him, even a landscape he is editing in the viewfinder. So the 28mm and 50mm force more of an opinion from the photographer (myself) because they each leave a stronger footprint on the image than a 35mm.

Steve
 
On film, I was always a 50mm guy both with RF and with SLRs. I was more interested in going longer than wider.

Now I'm using an M8 (with 1.33x crop factor). I mostly use a 35mm, which is a 47mm equivalent. I like it better than a 50-on-film in some ways--it's just a little bit looser. The funny part is that I find that I like the 50mm on the M8, too, where it becomes a 67mm equivalent. It's become my most-used medium telephoto.

So I guess I just prefer a "normal-ish" lens, regardless of what I shoot.

Reasons for my preference? Who knows? It might just be my neural wiring. It might be that I'm nearsignted and wear glasses, and can't see the full 35mm frame on a Leica without moving my eyes about. Or it might be that I'm very tall (6 ft 3 inches, 190.5 cm). Which means that close-up with a wide lens, I angle the camera down more than the average person, creating distortions which I then don't like.

--Peter
 
I go for extended trips with a fast 35, a 28mm and a fast 50mm.

The 35mm is usually in use 99.9% of the time.

No real 'rule' to share, just a preference i suppose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom