Do you need a 35mm when you have a 28mm and a 50mm?

Life begins at 35(mm)!

Life begins at 35(mm)!

Like most people I started with the 50mm and later added a 28mm.

I then somehow acquired a 35mm. What a revelation!
Finally I had a lens that looks at the world the way I do.

I now seldom use the other focal lengths, so for me the question is reversed:
If you have a 35mm lens, do you really need 50mm and 28mm lenses? ;)

Chris
 
Last edited:
My RF kit started with 21/35/90 and has evolved into 15/40/105 on my M4-P. I like the large jump between lenses, though at 25 some times makes it's way into the bag. It's just too good a lens to leave home.

I never went for about 35 years of photography, I never really went for a 50mm lens. After falling in love with an S2 and changing to an S3-2000 this kit is a bit closer 25/35/50/105.

Each kit has a very different range of steps but I am at home with them equally. Perhaps it's just my way of justifying keeping two different systems. Making a decision like yours would depend upon the speed of the 28. If it were a fast lens I would be less inclined in getting the 35. If it were slow, I would want something fast and wide that I could use in existing darkness. My gut tells me that your 28 does not make heads into footballs (some do) when you shoot something like an environmental portrait. If it did (which is not always a bad thing) I might go with a 35.

The only place I have a 28 in on my SLR system. The 24, while a great lens, loves to make footballs. I'd take the money and go with a 15mm and have what I think would be more fun. 15/28/50 is a great three lens spread!

B2 (;->
 
I like the 28/50 and 35/75 combos, but I'm going to try the 35/50/75 to see how I like it. Agree the 35 is "normal" and a 50 is a short tele. At least that's how I see things! :)
 
I tend towards a 35mm/50mm/90mm combo partly because 28mm tends to be a pricier option (especially with Leica brand gear) and also because it has more of a WA look than 35mm which precludes it from being used as a normal lens.

I especially like having a 35mm lens as my street shooter as it gives good depth of field when stopped down a bit. This alleviates the need to worry too much about focussing. And because it is not an ultra WA I do not have to worry about having acres of foreground to fill with something interesting.

Having said this there are those times when 35mm is just not wide enough. But unless I were REALLY treating myself, or unless my shooting style evolved to something different, I do not think I could justify buying a 28mm in addition to a 35mm

I would probably use 35mm more often than 50mm as my standard, just because of the sort of photography I do.
 
Last edited:
Jokes and silliness aside (of my part, mind you), whenever I can, I carry one body with a 28, and the other with a 35. To top it all, I load the body with the 28 with B&W, and the other with color. I may switch lenses in both (to a 90 in color or a 50 in B&W), but, back to your question, yes, I do carry a 28 AND a 35mm lens.
 
35 mm is the most versatile

35 mm is the most versatile

Although the Leitz 50mm summicron is one of the best lenses I've used, it stays home a lot simply because it is not compact enough. The 35/2.8 black Canon I use with my M7 because it is compact and gives me good depth of field. On a trip to Santa Fe NM I found the 35 to be really all I needed both for street shooting and landscapes. In the end, convenience, portability and your subject matter are what determines what you carry.
 
For overseas travel, I like to use one of the following:

A. Definitely a 50mm lens first. Then, a 25mm/4 and a 90mm/4.
B. Definitely a 50mm lens first. Then, a 28mm/2.8 and a 90mm/4.

I find the 35mm focal length less important. It is to me a compromise and not a "perfect lens" as some people state it is supposed to be. A classic design, such as the Biogon, would be interesting to me from a historical perspective and also for a touch of class. For these reasons, I doubt it that I would ever buy a CV 35mm lens. [Don't be offended; I prefer vintage lenses]

The 50mm lens is used about 75% of the time (3 out of 4 occasions). It is for me the lens that makes RF photography exiting. It is classyand timeless. Since I like the 50mm lens so much, I find other focal lengths not worthy of spending much cash on. On the other hand, I have several beautiful 50mm lenses.

For local photography, I try other options too. The 135mm lens is a great lens that is often put aside by RF photographers. Why? I also use faster 90mm lenses when I take local photos. The Elmarit 90mm/2.8 is a wonderful lens and so is the Canon 90mm/1.9 and the old Summicron 90mm/2.0.
 
Last edited:
In my case it was 28 + 50 or 35. Now it became 21 + 50 or 35. Additionally, I have the 90/2.8 TE but rarely use it, with a 0.72x VF (M4-P) framing is more estimating but with the M3 it is OK.

I am going to an over-seas trip next month and so far my kit will be M4-P + 21 and 50 and the Rolleiflex.
 
When it comes to RF, I carry two lenses. A 50 and a 25. If I really need a field of view corresponding to 35mm and there's no way to move closer/further, I'll have the 25 shot printed bigger and cropped. But most times I just zoom with my feet..
 
My first lens was 50Cron.
to Skip the 35, it was 28 secondly.

Now I use ZM C-Biogon 21 with 40% of the time.

the 4th lens could be 35/1.2 this year. Plus a M3 for the 50CRON.

the 5th?? Maybe CV15 :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom