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

BNF

BNF

Established
Local time
11:00 PM
Joined
Jan 3, 2008
Messages
99
I admit it - I've never owned a 35mm M lens. I always skipped it going from a 28 directly to a 50.

Now, I have the chance to add a 35. (Biogon 2/35 ZM)

The thing is, as I rebuild my system, I assumed that I was going to go for a 50 again and skip the 35. (28, 50, 90, 135) I assumed that the 28 and 35 were "too close".

That said, I found/find, that the 28 and 90 do the majority of my work. 50 felt a bit confined to me most of the time.

So, do you carry a 28, 35 and a 50? Or, what combination?
 
It will depend on what you need to do. Generally for me:
1 camera+1 lens= ZI+35 Biogon
2 cameras 2 lenses= R4A+28ASPH, ZI+50 Planar
3 cameras+ 3 lenses....
etc...
 
One of the nice things about the M system is going simple and compact. I have never been a fan of 35mm lenses. When using 35mm lenses years ago, I went for 24mm, 50mm and 105mm. Only took a 20mm, or longer when I specifically felt I needed them. With the M8, I have a 15mm CV, left home unless I feel I need it, a 21mm ZM[ carried], a 40mm CV, carried and on most of time. A 50mm 'Cron out for coding etc, and a 90mm 'Rit carried all the time. Jmho. It all comes down to how one sees and shoots. Others will tell you that they can NOT live without a 35mm. No magic here, just one uses what seems the most natural. I feel that if I am going to carry all the lenses with me, I might as well just use my D300 and 18-200mmVR and be done. JMO...
 
I really like both 28 and 35, but I don't carry them together - I often go out with either a 28/50 combination or 35/75, depending on my mood, location etc.
 
Do you have an XA? Might be a cheap way to find out if you like the focal length - 35mm. And its a great little camera in its own right.
 
With 35mm the distance from camera to main object (focus distance) is exactly the frame width. So you can skip framing with viewfinder in hurry, or you want to shoot at a low camera position.
 
28, 35, 50 most of the time, with most bodies. IMO, these focal lengths (including the 40 and 60) are the main reason to shoot with an RF. Go wider and add a 75 or a 90 to round the kit out, but for me those three focal lengths are prime RF territory.

.
 
I used to think 28/50 is enough, and 35 or 40 is good for a single lens kit only.
Nowadays I carry all three, since 35 is better for many people shots and gives
you easier OOF when you need it. Kind of the shortest "normal" wide angle for me.

Also, a fast 35 is typically much smaller than a fast 28. Except for the Nokton :)

Roland.
 
BNF, on grounds of economy (both of money and of bulk), I'd say that a 35 is unnecessary if you have a 28 and a 50. I confess to an old habit of carrying as little as possible.
 
I do use all three. Of the three, if I could only carry two, they would be 28 and 35. In practice, the Tri-Elmar gives me all three. Since I use 50 less than the wider choices, I will often leave the separate 50 home when I have the TE along. I might carry just the TE and the 28/2 or 35/1.4 in order to have a faster lens when the light gets low.
 
I am a 50mm guy. The 50mm is on my camera 95% of the time, when I have need of a wider lens I go with the 28mm. I tried the 35mm for a while but it just isn't the focal length for me. Therefore i went with the 28/50mm combo. It all depends on your favorite focal length, maybe you could pickup a used 35mm and try it for a while - the CV35/1.7 is a good one.
Cheers,
Nick
 
bacxk in the misty, long ago past as a photographer (early 60's - truly a misty decade) a veteran news-shooter explained it to me as "You want to be comfortable, carry a M2 with the 35, you want to be somewhat comfortable carry a 90 (and remember the 90 of that time was the Big Bertha, the Summicron) and if you want to be REALLY comfortable, carry two M2's, a 35 on one. the 50 on the other and the 90 in the bag. He was less of a wide shooter than me, so my kit became the 21/35/50 and even today, that is my preference. If I take one camera, these days it is the 40/1,4 Nokton that goes on it. It can substitute for a 35 (a step back) or a 50 (a step and a bit forward).
I have always regararded the 50 as a "short Tele" and the 35 as my "normal". The 28/25's are lenses that come along if I know I need that angle (less "wide" look than the 21).
I am trying to "wean" my self to a portable kit (one that you can carry for a whole day without listing dramatically to the left). A travel kit would be a 15/4,5 or 18f4, the 25/2,8, the 35f2 and the 50 (either the 50/1,4 Asph or the Planar 50f2). Depending on where I am going, the 75f2 Summicron could be included too.
As for 90/135 - I dont use them anymore. Dont know if it is a change of perception or the fact that I have two vertebraes in my back that are cracked and collapsed and that gets extremely painful if I haul too much around!
 
I have always regararded the 50 as a "short Tele" and the 35 as my "normal". The 28/25's are lenses that come along if I know I need that angle (less "wide" look than the 21).
Click to expand...

Tom's description of the 50mm mirrors my own. I used to carry a Ricoh GR-1 when out and about and the number of times I went to take a shot only to find the 28mm lens too wide convinced me that a 35mm lens is my natural preference.

As others have said, we all seem to have slightly different preferences.

Peter
 
My first Leica outfit (mid-80's) included 28, 35 and 90. Less than perfect. I seldom used the 90 and it was always a toss-up with the other lenses.

My outfit now includes 21, 35, 50 and 90. The 50mm is my most used lens by far but the 35 also gets a lot of use. I wouldn't consider not having a 35mm lens for the Leica. I consider the 35mm to be an alternate normal lens. If I want to use a wide angle lens, I like to go wide. The 28mm is just not wide enough for me. I could live with a 24/25 but the 21 is just a perfect wideangle when a wideangle is needed. I still don't use a 90 very much. I have an Elmar-C. It's very sharp, small, doesn't weigh as much as a Summicron and I don't notice it in the bag or a pocket. I may use it twice a year. Rangefinders just seem to be made for normal to wide lenses.
 
For me lenses between the 21 and 50 are mostly about how they render space. I find in my shooting the 35/50 combo most often suits what I'm doing in town, and the 21 or 25/35 combo works when I'm in the woods. In both cases it's the way these lenses render the spaces I'm working in- in the woods I want to be within the space, getting close to the subject and feeling enveloped by it and environs. For the town stuff, I prefer the more flattened or distanced/seperated feeling these lenses bring to the pictures. When in town, I do find the 28 often wide enough for cramped quarters, but I'll more often bring the 25 to fill this need, as sometimes the 28 isn't quite wide enough.

To your question, I find there are clear differences between the 28/35/50 lenses, where the 35 most closely reproduces the space as seen by my eye, the 50 somewhat flattens and the 28 begins to allow for that enveloping feeling to happen. I don't hesitate to carry these three lenses- today in fact I had two bodies .58M7 & .72M7 with the 28/35/50 in the bag, and shot with all three lenses.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom