Most Versatile Focal Length

Most Versatile Focal Length

  • 21mm

    Votes: 3 0.4%

  • 25mm

    Votes: 7 0.9%

  • 28mm

    Votes: 34 4.6%

  • 35mm

    Votes: 323 43.2%

  • 40mm

    Votes: 151 20.2%

  • 50mm

    Votes: 223 29.9%

  • 75mm

    Votes: 5 0.7%

  • 90mm

    Votes: 1 0.1%
  • Total voters
    747
A 50 does nearly everything for me. I'll use a 35 for a bit more width when travelling, my 35 is also lighter than either of my 50's.
Anything wider than 35 = boring wide open spaces in my hands so I tend to avoid them.
 
i found myself using 75mm more often than the 35mm, mainly because I can get a tight frame, while the context is important, personally I think cropped subject leaves open imaginations.
 
35mm is probably the most versatile but I favor 50mm myself for probably 80% of my work.
 
When I use 50, I love 50, when I use 35, I love 35. I used to use 28 and I loved 28. If I had to pick 1, I would pick 35, but I would hate to make that choice.
 
No question 50.28.35.135 in order of preference currently. But this has a lot to with Roland's suggestion that I obtain the ZM 28/2.8. I love my ZM 28 almost as much as my 50/1.4; but the nod does go to my 50/1.4 for versatility. I should add that soon I hope to try out the CV 40/1.4, which should be a sweet FL to use for me, being a 50 FL fan who likes the 35 FL but only has a CV 35/1.2 currently. I love my CV 35/1.2 but it is not as portable as the 40/1.4 looks to be.
 
FrankS said:
50mm for me. If I back up far enough I can usually get most of what I want, and its long enough to use for a portrait lens if you're careful. It's also long enough to isolate details and be rid of distracting background elements that distract from the main idea/subject of the photo. Sometimes a 35 is perfect, but usually it's a 50 for me.
Click to expand...

good point. I shot with 50mm lens for 20 years until I discovered the Leica M and its 35mm Summicron III in 1991.

The last year I've re-discovered the 50 and now have 50mm Lux pre-asph and 50 Elmar M. They are simply fabulous but I still use the 35 alot.
 
My most-used rangefinder lenses are 21mm through 90mm. It's interesting that when I take the geometric average of 21mm and 90mm, I get 37.5mm. That's halfway in-between 35mm and 40mm; arguably making either of those a valid choice as the best general walkaround lens. I have long felt that 35mm is the best single focal length (I don't own a 40 to compare it with). Others have said 40mm is best. So I thought it interesting that the geometric center point fell halfway in between those choices.
 
Even though I have always preferred the perspective of the 50mm, in terms of "most versatile focal length", objectively I'd probably say 35mm and that's what I voted for.....
 
Jack of all

Jack of all

Master of none(?) but 50 is the one for me.

I've been using a 55mm f1.6 Fujinon (hazy at 1.6, divine at f2) on a an old Fujica screw mount slr and that just feels natural. T'is how the world looks but maybe I'm a tad miopic.

Been without an rf for 18 months but I'm about to rectify that, likely as not with a ZI and a 50.
 
I currently have 28, 35, 50 and a 40 fixed-lens rangefinder. In terms of "more versatile", 28 is certainly too wide for me as a general purpose lens and 50 is often too long, while 35mm frames quite the same as my own eyes. But my best shots are taken with the 50.

Said that, obviously there are great shooters around which mainly use a 28, or a 50, etc...
 
Would be interesting to analyse correlations between preferred focal lenghts and subjects/styles the respective groups focus on.
Or is it as simmple as 35 for city boys and girls and 50 for country girls and boys?
 
It is easier for me to shoot with 35, but I somehow prefer 50. Wonder if my most versatile could really be a 40 🙂
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom