How did you pick the focal lengths for your set ups?

[Fixcinater]

EDIT: on the other hand pick three lenses, one for people, one for places, one for dramatic effect. And nuts to any formula.

This. The numbers rarely work out and I don't need all three lenses for all formats, but in 35mm and 6x7 this works for me.

I would like a really nice wide for 35mm but they're all going to be big and bulky and expensive and likely couldn't even come close to the results from my P67 + 45/4.

 

[Ranchu]

All I ever use is a 35 (38, 40) and rarely an 85. I also have a 35-70 zoom.

 

[shortstop]

No it's not !! 50 is rarely "right", either too long or too short, yes you can shoot everything with it but it's usually a compromise. For me a 40mm is "right" I tend to a 35mm FOV by eye but if its a one lens kit the 40mm can do it all. Starting with a 40mm you can go a bit wider to 24mm for the wide end than a boring 28/35mm that everyone shoots and get a "real" wide effect compared to a 28mm or even go to a 21mm then 85mm/105mm becomes the tele, doubling as a portrait lens instead of a usually weighty and ungainly 135mm which is another usually "wrong" lens, more often just too long, for portraits, and not long enough for a "proper" tele effect. For four lenses add a 200mm a "proper" tele. So 21/24 40 85/105 add 200mm if your back's OK and bag's big enough. Not a boring predictable kit and real character choices in the lenses in those groups.

I agree about you say on 40mm. This is why I don't feel the necessity of another lens in my rolleiflex 75/3,5 (this focal lenght is similar to a 40 mm in 135).
Unfortunately doesn't exist a leica 40/1,4 and M leicas haven't 40 frames.
Bessa yes, but I prefer leicas.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

There's this modern invention called a zoom lens (used to be called "zoomar"

I blame the advertising agencies for the lack of public knowledge on this. They really need to start running full page advertisements to inform the public that such things exist. 😱

My Nikons wear 11~18, 18~55 or 55~200, while my M43 cameras are stylish in 14~45 and 45~200, with a rather daring, off the shoulder, 7.5mm for those intimate moments and a 17mm for polite occasions.

:angel:

 

[Pete B]

I seem to spend most of my time with 35 and 50. I rarely feel I want to go longer than 50 so hardly touch my 90. If I want wider than 35 I've a choice of 21 or 24 but I can't seem to get comfortable with them. It's a question of technique I guess, I'm not sure how to use wider lenses other than as a "get all the scene in" lens. I've also got a 28 thinking I'd use it in conjunction with the 50 but I always seem too wide with the 28 and too close with the 50 (which becomes the main lens). You need to try these things. I'm comfortable with 35/50 and having the 21 in reserve.
Pete

 

[--s]

Trial and error! You have to try each focal length over a longer period. It´s not only about the focal length, but there are a number of other factors, not the least important is the body you shoot with. For example, on film Leicas 35 was my most used fl, on the M9 it´s 50.....

 

[kossi008]

It's really about your center focal length. If that happens to be a 50 mm (35 mm film-wise), that's what you have to build your kit around...

Personally, my center is the 35 mm FL, but I can split that up into 28/50 or 25/50 for a two-lens setup.
If I carry an odd number of lenses, the 35 is always one of them.

For the upcoming city weekend (Gdansk with the RFF guys 😀) I'm going for a 3-lens combo with a good spread: 21/35/75. Ifg I could only ever buy three lenses in my life, those would be the FLs I'd buy...

 

[splash_fr]

It depends on what you want to do. For my street set 35mm is my normal lens, 21mm is wide and 50mm is tele on a r4a. and i use them on normal, crowded and empty streets...

for my portrait set i go with 85mm as normal, 55mm as "wide" and 135 as "tele" on a spotmatic...

depends on your habits and subjects i guess.

rgds,
gerd.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

I picked, in the 60's, the outfits as a wide angle and a tele to go with the standard. That meant, due to money etc, a 35, 50 and 135mm.

Later on I settled on the Leica CL as a two lens practical outfit that wouldn't tempt me to buy more for no real reason but the CLE (owned and used for about a week) showed the joys of 28mm.

So experience made me settle on 28/35 and 50 and 85/90mm the M2 had a lot to do with that too.

Of course, with the SLR I've the wonderful Tokina 28 to 85mm AT-X zoom and the f/1.4 standard.

And for air shows a 200 mm but, again, that's not RF is it?

Leica's recommendations for just the 35 and 90 in f/2.8 as a cheap and useful outfit also reinforced my views; I didn'texpect a firm selling very expensive cameras to notice us and offer help...

Regards, David

 

[mnmleung]

Nikon film: 28,50,135 (or 105 f/4 micro)
Nikon D50: 28 AIS

 

[thirtyfivefifty]

Just years of experience. I've shot between 24mm-135mm, but found 24mm too wide and distorted, and 135mm too long and compressed. For the past four years, I shot nothing but 35mm and 50mm, and 35mm is the widest I like to shoot. I needed more compression so I picked up an 85mm (having liked using that length prior).

Today I shoot 35mm (wide), 50mm (standard), and 85mm (medium telephoto). Don't desire anything else!

 

[HuubL]

Depends on wich body has film:
Leica LTM: 28/35, 50, 90
Leica Ms: 21, 35, 50, 90
Olympus OM2: 28, 50, 100
Canon FD: 24, 50

film and dig:
Canon EOS: 24-105

dig:
4/3: Panasonic Lumix 7-14, 20, 45macro, 14-140

Too much, I know.

 

[GarageBoy]

Thanks
I've been using my 50 1.4 a lot on my Nikon FE2/F2, but mainly because it's my fastest lens. Borrowed a 35 1.4 Distagon and photos started coming to my head. 50, to me, is too short for portraits, not wide enough to get the "bigger" picture. It's easy to do group shots of people with it, though

I just turned on step zoom on my Panasonic LX7, so maybe I'll play with different focal lengths on it

 

[css9450]

No it's not !!

50 is rarely "right", either too long or too short, yes you can shoot everything with it but it's usually a compromise.

I agree; I never warmed to the 50 and if I'm travelling light I usually just have a 35 and my 80-200/f2.8 zoom (although the latter kind of defeats the purpose of "travelling light"). If I have room for more I'll add 28mm and 300mm lenses too.

Since going to a crop-sensor DSLR my main lenses are 17-55 zoom and the aforementioned 80-200.

 

[Spanik]

IF I'm using a 50 (80 on 6x4.5) I use it more as a short tele than a normal.

 

[Nokton48]

On my 9x9cm Plaubel Makiflexes I am using lenses as wide as 120mm (Imagon and Angulon), and as long as 360mm (Tele-Xenar and Tele-Arton). And as many in between, as are interesting to me, and I am able to painlessly acquire.

Hand-holdable large format.

 

[Morry Katz]

I shoot with an M3 and an M4 so the bag holds a 35, 50, 90 & 135. The 35 lives on the
M4 and the 50 on the M3.

 

[oftheherd]

For SLR, I started with 50mm, having used 'normal' lenses for a lot of photos prior to getting an SLR. When I started to photograph more, I just 'knew' I needed more lenses. I ran across a kit of 28mm and 135mm. I was happy. Partially from my shooting experiences, and more from reading the many fine photo magazines, it didn't take long to realize I needed more. I thought I liked long lenses, but first was able to get wider lenses for those many shots I wanted in tight spaces. I have tried and have had, primes from 18mm, 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 135mm, 200mm, 300mm, and 600mm cat. They all had their uses. Of course I wanted zooms so I got 5 or 6 of those too.

I have come to prefer primes. I try to take what I think I am most likely to use, with a preference for wide as I seem to see wide. But I do have a kit consisting of a 50mm f/1.4, and zooms from 18-28, 28-70, and 75-150.

All to say I don't have just two or three favorites I always carry with me.

 

[Dwig]

There's this modern invention called a zoom lens (used to be called "zoomar")

:-0

That should be "Zoomar" (capitalized) as it was originally a brand name.