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
The 25 is my favorite now for streetshooting--set at 6 ft it's focus free from 3 ft to infinity at f11. It's like shooting an auto A/E P&S, but faster.
 
Bob Helmond said:
The width of the field of view of the lens on the 36mm dimension of the frame is equal to the distance between the film plane and the subject.
Click to expand...
In other words, it has sixty degrees field of view.

Philipp
 
It's definitely 50.

My favorite lenses are the Classic Heliar 2.0/50mm on my Bessa R3M, the SMC Takumar 1.4/50mm on my Asahi Pentax SV, the Pentax FA 1.4/50mm on my *istD and of course the Fujinon SW S 5.6/50mm on my mammoth Fujica G690 (yes, a 50mm lens can be a super-wide... in 6x9).

Cheers,

Abbazz
 
Finder said:
Well, I really like very wide lens like a 55mm. And I like slightly shorter than normal like a 75mm or 135mm.
Click to expand...

Heh. Shoot only sheet film formats? 😉 Though I suppose, 6x9 on 120 would qualify too for the 75 to be shorter than a normal lens. If we're talking about 4x5, give me my 127 & 213 combo. 😀

William
 
Finder said:
Well, I really like very wide lens like a 55mm. And I like slightly shorter than normal like a 75mm or 135mm.
Click to expand...
My most used lenses happen to be 50mm lenses, both on 35mm film and on 6x6 🙂

Philipp
 
I find 150 on 4x5 to be seomewhat too wide. It's funny ... on 35mm I like 40mm or 35mm as my standard, but on 4x5 I prefer 210-240 for normal. Since I only have 150 in that range, it's a bit frustrating, not to mention GAS-inducing.

For 120 6x6, 80 is about right, though 65-70 would probably be more comfortable for me. Strange how the film format and camera type affect me preferences.
 
I can put any lens from 24mm to 85mm on a camera, go out and find appropriate compositions. My eye will quickly attune to the lens field of view so that it seems natural, and those are then the pics I see. But it's easiest with 35 or 40mm I think. I find it least easy with the 90mm lenses, except with the Contax G2 or an SLR where the field fills the viewfinder, then it can be easily "normal" too.
 
marksct said:
As a rangefinder user and photographer, we usually have a favorite lens that we use. One of the reason you have that RF or that lens is because of the length. My question is what is you favorite lens length? Why?

My favorite has been the 35mm world. Though I do love a good portrait lens, I enjoy the storytelling capabilities of the 35mm. Speed of the lens is not as important for me here.
Click to expand...

I prefer a lens in the 75 - 100mm length. It gives me options of head and shoulders yet is short enough to do a full body shot. I think the 50mm ( "normal") lens is useless as is the 135mm. Although I have a bunch of 50s which came with the Russian cameras and a LTM Tair-11 133mm which I like. Makes a beautiful paper weight, all that chrome I also have adapters so I (not) can use it on my F1 and my EOS 300D. Also on my Zenit 3 and my EXA for which I also have a beautiful chrome 200mm lens. I forgot how pretty some lenses look in Chrome.

Only time I worry about lens speed is when I shoot available light although I find that lens speed isn't as important as film speed and how steady you are holding the camera. Another reason I like the wrist strap. Also a monopod helps a lot.
 
Maybe I'm the lone one in this group, but I find 35mm to be a rather compromise-y focal length--50 is nice and tight while 28 pulls in much of the surroundings, 35 gives a slight view of everything but still contains the subject in a small bubble.

This might be ironic as I don't have a 28 for my Leica, and Canon makes it unnecessarily difficult to procure a 28mm equivalent without resorting to body-cap quality lenses...:bang:
 
Well, when I had my Nikkormat, I had the 35mm and 24m with me most of the time. the 50 was rarely used, and the 105 was used now and then. So with my SLR it was 35 1st, then 24 when the 35 could not get it all in.

With my R2, I only have one lens, a CV25. Because while I was trying to decide what will be my 1st lens, I was using the Nikkor 24 more and more. and loving it. So I got the CV25. It is a great lens too.

With what I am shooting now, Old barns, farm buildings, occasional "Street Style" candid's at a few "open air Malls" (not strip shopping centers), The CV25 is a perfect chose for me, right now.

I have a chance to photograph a few chef's at a local Mitchell's Fish Market resturant. during buisness hours. so a fast 50 would be a good lens to have for this. I can't use flash. So I will use Fuji X-Tra 800. ....So I wiill have a 25 and may have a 50 in a kitchen with a RF and no flash and 800 film. FUN.... HUH..

I also like the 35 too. But I have a taste for a fastish 50 now. So I am bidding one a Canon Serenar F/1.9. Hope it doesn't get too close to $100.00.
 
I find this a hard question. Probably have to err on the side of saying its a tie between a 35mm and a short tele like a 90mm. Tho it does depend a little on what my favourite specific lens is at any time. I tend to go thru phases where I will give a particular lens a beating then something else will coome along.
 
I thought I'd never say this, but I'm a 50mm man. The first focal length I thoroughly enjoyed was a 28mm, then later I bought a brilliant 90mm, but one day I had a photo shoot that I couldn't use anything but a 50 and ever since, I've been using nothing but 50mm. That one photo shoot was a pretty dark indoor shoot and I refused to use flash. It turned out the 50/1.4 was about 2 stops brighter than a 90/f2 I was using before, because the 90mm had a lot more glass. Despite the good coating, about a stop of light got lost. And since it was indoor, 90mm was too long anyway.

I love 50mm now as a portrait lens. It forces me to get closer to people, which generally gives much more involved pictures. I'm not going for the 28mm portraits yet, though, 50mm also have a kind of compression that resembles longer portrait lenses. And my Summitar is nicely soft at f2.0 so it's just perfect for the purpose.


Peter.
 
Peter: I share your view on lens choices and preferences. Once you get used to an excellent 50mm lens, it is difficult to accept any other focal length lens except for "fun".

Raid
 
I have never been able to use a 50mm lens. Doesn't seem to cover enough of what I want in the picture. If I'm going to shoot a portrait I'll generally take it off and use a longer lens. The only way I can use a 50 is to leave home with it on a camera and not take any other lenses. Which I was forced to do when I had a Kiev 4AM and its Helios 103 (I know it's not quite a 50, but close enough). Last week I ventured forth with a J8 on my Bessa R but switched it out halfway through the roll for the 35/2.5 Color Skopar.

However, and having said all that, I just bought a Canon 50/1.8 from a shadowy figure living in Uxbridge, Ontario. Why? I'm not sure. But this is my thinking: So many people use this focal length I though, OK, why not get a really good one and live with it for awhile. So I am.

Last week I photographed the interior or a newly remodeled supermarket using a Pentax DSLR and the Pentax 16-45 DA lens at its widest angle (about 24mm). I couldn't have done that sort of job with a 50.

So maybe the answer is to use a lens appropriate to the task at hand. (I'm sure others have said this already).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom