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
I have to say 35mm. Its best for street shooting - wide enough for good DOF / zone focusing but not so wide as to cause too many foreground problems. It is also common enough not to be too over priced. It is also good for landscape and at a pinch can even be used for shooting people although not perhaps ideal for close-ups. My 35s are to be found on my camera as standard lens more often than any other, even though others may be put on for specific shots.
 
As my Fed3 - Kiev 4 - ZI Contaflex are equipped with the "standard" 50mm lenses, I am "forced" to use this lens: but this make me rediscover the power of this focal lenght.
 
50mm and your two feet. Capa said that if the picture wasn't good enough, the photographer wasn't close enough. I personally like my compositions as tight as I can get them.
 
I believe that the 50mm is number 1.
Becose you can do everything with it, and take every kind of picture with it.
/ThomK
 
I'd have to go with the good old 50.
I've got one for nearly every camera I own, including the SLR's. (boo hiss)
My fixed lens RF's are all 50's as well, the ones that use 35mm film anyway.

I have to admit that my next favorite isn't even on the list, 15mm.
A very challenging length, to be sure, but very nice when done well.
 
50mm for me! rediscovered only on a rangefinder.. it seems too cropped on an slr but somehow is perfect on a rangefinder.. gets just the right amount of subject and environmental context and looks pleasing to the eye.. its also hard to screw up a 50mm lens
 
I finally got the 35-70 zoom for my G2, but found most of my shots were at the wide end. So for now, the much lighter 35 is back on the camera and I'll shoot with it for a while to see if I think I need something else. My least used lens is the 90, but I may put it on for a while and see if I can relate to that length for something other than portraits. What I need is another G2 body, but the prices have gone way too high for good ones.
 
The 50.

Certainly a 35 f2/2.8 is the most singularly-versatile RF lens as it combines minimal distortion, lots of DOF and speedy seat-of-the-pants focusing in a small, shallow piece of glass. However, I'm a sucker for the painter-like image of a 50 both near and far. Really a close call and I've occasionally wandered back to a 35 as my sole lens but the sweet 50, particularly in a collapsible, reels me back in whenever I stray.

Different strokes for different folks. just like the poll sez.
 
The 35 got my vote. Wide enough for most situations, but not so wide (like 28 and wider) that it limits style with the obviousness of the perspective change. Course, it's completely subjective - one could shoot a good lansdscape with a fisheye or a long telephoto too - just picking the tool to get what you want...
 
for me it's was either a 50 because it was perfect for the M3 finder and 35 because it was perfect for the M2 but lately i've been doing a lot of 40. I don't know but it seems to be like a go between when I'm not sure what I want. I think for me when I'm shooting to get a dramatic change in perspective i like to double or halve focal length. So that boils down to 3 main lengths, wider than wide, normalish, and a little close upish. For me that's 21, 40, and 85 respectively.
 
With my SLRs, I tend to use almost exclusively 24mm and 50mm lenses. Somehow I've never been able to fully adjust to the 35mm focal length. But now that I got into RF, my main lens is a 35mm, so I voted for that focal length.

It may have something to do with one's favourite subjects, as lately I tend to do more street shooting than ever before. But the 35mm must be the most versatile lens in my opinion: wide enough to include surroundings (wider lenses may get tricky to use well) and at the same time great for detail shots.
 
The 50 is too tight. When I spot a shot and put that camera to my face, 80% of the time I have to take steps back. It really gets to me when I'm already up against a wall. I'm not afraid to move in. I'm personally torn between 28 and 35, but I voted for 35 because it doesn't exhibit wide angle distortion.
 
Last edited:
For me, there's more to versatility than just focal length. The size and speed of the lens is also important. My favourite focal length is 28, but all 28s are either too big or too slow to be versatile for me. My most versatile lens is the 35/1.4 nokton.

However, there isn't a versatile 50 for me. 50 is a tele, and it looks that way; things get compressed. 43 is accepted as the true normal perspective, and I don't understand how 50 has become accepted as normal. It is as far on the tele side of 43 as 35 is on the wide side.
 
I neither understand why some people see 35mm as normal. When I took shoots, composition become too loose. So IT is really no surprise that I see some people shots at 35mm fov much worse than they do with 50mm even if they were unconscious about it. At other words, it is much harder make good pictures with tight composition with 35mm lenses. So 35mm rather remind me of 28mm. Wide angle lenses btw. of course it is one subjective opinion of me which doesnt mean anything. We have different FL thats what is important.

Versatile 50mm is probably the new 50mm Summarit. I dont like that I have to extend the Elmar every time 😛 Plus it is easier design 50mm lenses then you get much better corrections. IT is cheap too 🙂
 
The secret to 35mm is distance to subject. "If your picture isn't good enough, you're not close enough." With proper distance to the subject, a 35 can pretty much look like a 28, 35 or 50. Which is why I like 40. 😀
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom