Favorite Lens length

Favorite Lens length

  • 20mm

    Votes: 26 2.4%

  • 24mm

    Votes: 33 3.1%

  • 28mm

    Votes: 80 7.4%

  • 35mm

    Votes: 353 32.7%

  • 40mm

    Votes: 124 11.5%

  • 50mm

    Votes: 400 37.1%

  • 75mm

    Votes: 29 2.7%

  • 90mm

    Votes: 28 2.6%

  • 135mm

    Votes: 5 0.5%
  • Total voters
    1,078
I think I voted a 50 however I find my self using 35-40 more. I picked up a couple of fixed lens rangefinders, both with 38mm lenses and find it very easy to work with that field of view so im thinking maybe 40 is my ideal.
 
A 35 lux is my favourite RF lens, although I love my 75 lux for its ability in low light as a stage lens. On a SLR, my favourite is the 180 summicron, which is just awesome.

Charlie
 
Tom:

I didn't know the focal length DECREASED on an M8. Usually it's the other way around with a DSLR. 35 becomes 52.5, 50 becomes 75, etc., on DSLR's with sensors smaller than 24X36. Just got eddicated.
 
tedwhite said:
I didn't know the focal length DECREASED on an M8.
Click to expand...

It doesn't. The M8 has a crop factor of 1.3, which means that you should multiply the lens length by that number to get the actual FL. So, for example, a 35mm is about 47mm on an M8.

Ian
 
After years of single use of my 50 Summicron i switched to the 35 Summicron. Yet, for quite some time now, 21mm seems to me to be exactly how i perceive my surroundings. Love my little Skopar!
 
Favorite Lens

Favorite Lens

I use the notilux for the indoor existing light photographs. It can capture the images that need low light.
 
For street work I like the 35mm on a rangefinder. Its wide enough to give good depth of field without being so wide as to give you great areas of foreground that need something in them. I have just been out shooting with one of mine and stopped down to f 8 and using hyperfocal distance, everything from just under 3 meters to infinity is in focus while still giving me 250th of a second in fairly bright light. That should translate to good sharpness. To top it off the lens I am using is a low contrast early 1950s Summaron. This helps fill in shady areas with some detail. On the other hand, if I were to go for wider lenses I would then have the problem of (a) much greater cost as these are harder to find (b) lots of foreground that can create problems when shooting and (c) early 28mms were not really as good as the 35mm lenses. So 35mm is for me the best compromise for my type of photograpahy.
 
If I'm using one of my old Spotmatic SLR's, the Super Takumar 105/2.8 is my favorite.
 
I had been using my 35 a lot last year, but I'm really getting into the 50 again. It just depends on what and where I'm shooting. If I'm shooting street and in a tighter, more crowded area, the 35 is the obvious choice. Otherwise I prefer the 50 to get a tighter crop when possible.
 
50mm just seems to be a magic length for me, it can work for landscape and portraits.

For landscape one is forced to look for angles and move around the space one is working in and it makes me really engage with the environment.

But I have to honestly say I've never really worked with a 35mm prime, only as a zoom length. I think I could live with a 35 but I'm not too keen on the distortion on close portraits.

Also with the rangfinder I really like that I can see more in the finder than the frame lines cover. Helps with timing that "decisive moment". Even with my Canon 5D though I use my 50mm f1.2 90% of the time.
 
That's why you need both a 35 and a 50. 35 is not an ideal focal length for portraits. 50 is just barely. 85 or 105 are best.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom