jgrainger
Established
I tend to find that 35mm is my least used FL, with 85 the most used, then 135 and 50 taking turns equally.. mostly shooting landscapes/ outdoors.
35mm is wide enough to "get more stuff in", but that's not a good reason to use it, not to forget, it also takes more care to avoid unnecessary stuff getting in shot around the edges.
It feels like I'd know how to better use a 21mm (which I don't have) than 35mm. While not carrying it means less to distract from taking pictures, I wouldn't mind seeing some inspiring shots with 35mm, or hearing from other people who just don't really like the FL.. Or how other people find it - does it just fall into an alternative to 50mm depending on how wide streets/ dense areas are/etc?
On 4x5 I tend to use the equivalent of 40-45mm a lot.
35mm is wide enough to "get more stuff in", but that's not a good reason to use it, not to forget, it also takes more care to avoid unnecessary stuff getting in shot around the edges.
It feels like I'd know how to better use a 21mm (which I don't have) than 35mm. While not carrying it means less to distract from taking pictures, I wouldn't mind seeing some inspiring shots with 35mm, or hearing from other people who just don't really like the FL.. Or how other people find it - does it just fall into an alternative to 50mm depending on how wide streets/ dense areas are/etc?
On 4x5 I tend to use the equivalent of 40-45mm a lot.
das
Well-known
I prefer a close-focusing 35mm lens (like down to 0.2 or 0.3m, rather than 0.7m of most rangefinder lenses) to almost any other focal length. It is wide enough for photos to provide some context, can focus closely enough to imitate a 50mm lens (although you will have to get closer to your subject), and can produce decent pseudo-macro shots. There probably is not a more versatile lens in 35mm photography than a good close-focusing 35mm FL lens.
21mm, at least for me, is actually one of the most difficult FLs to master. Not only does one have to deal with the crazy perspective distortion if the lens is not kept level to the subject and the barrel distortion that almost every 21 has, but it has a tendency to create flat images, which may be fine for landscapes and architecture but not for people. Because older 21mms (especially SLR ones) often have wavy (mustache?) distortion that is difficult, but not impossible, to correct digitally, for critical use, a modern (1990s or after) 21mm is necessary. 21mms are used for great effect when they are used extremely up close, but that is a skill unto itself.
21mm, at least for me, is actually one of the most difficult FLs to master. Not only does one have to deal with the crazy perspective distortion if the lens is not kept level to the subject and the barrel distortion that almost every 21 has, but it has a tendency to create flat images, which may be fine for landscapes and architecture but not for people. Because older 21mms (especially SLR ones) often have wavy (mustache?) distortion that is difficult, but not impossible, to correct digitally, for critical use, a modern (1990s or after) 21mm is necessary. 21mms are used for great effect when they are used extremely up close, but that is a skill unto itself.
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
For me, 35mm is kind of a take-to-NYC lens. It's wide enough for what I want and long enough for a portrait. That said, I have other preferred focal lengths, 21mm and 28mm being among them. I really love 50mm, and longer lenses up to about 200mm. I have two 35mm lenses and very rarely use them, but I'm not getting rid of them either.
Phil Forrest
Phil Forrest
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
85/135 on RF is odd, to say at least 
.
.
I’m pretty much a 40mm to 75mm user these days.
css9450
Veteran
I'll prefer a 35 over a 50 any day of the week.
D
Deleted member 65559
Guest
A 35mm on a Leica is my standard set-up. To me a 50 is a short telephoto. Even with portraits, i favour including context. Like any other focal length though, there's a lot of preference involved in the choice.
I can completely add context with a 50mm. Are you guys only photographing in tight spaces?
B-9
Devin Bro
A good fast 28 is my do all wide.
(28/2.0 Nikkor)
I prefer 50 or longer for most things.
It’s just the way my eyes like it.
We are doing this for fun after all?
Edit: Obviously not the greatest feedback for a RF but you know... SLRs RULE! Haha
(28/2.0 Nikkor)
I prefer 50 or longer for most things.
It’s just the way my eyes like it.
We are doing this for fun after all?
Edit: Obviously not the greatest feedback for a RF but you know... SLRs RULE! Haha
AlwaysOnAuto
Well-known
I really like 24mm.
Does that make me odd?
I fell in love with the old Nikkor 24 when I first put it on my digital. Perfect for shooting cars as I never could get far enough away from them with a 50mm. Only lens I have two of the same make of too.
Does that make me odd?
I fell in love with the old Nikkor 24 when I first put it on my digital. Perfect for shooting cars as I never could get far enough away from them with a 50mm. Only lens I have two of the same make of too.
jgrainger
Established
I figure the perspective distortion makes it an obvious FL for some photos which aren't easy to create other ways. 35mm feels like a really wide 50mm - could be that I've just gotten too comfortable/far down my path with the 50's.
Might have to visit some historic towns with really narrow streets.. have mostly been using it to get forward of low-hanging tree branches when outdoors.
85/135 on RF is odd, to say at least
I just find those lengths long enough to focus in on something.. have tried longer but didn't keep.. an SLR would make sense for those FLs, but see it as a simple manual RF of relatively small size vs taking something which is really beneficial with accessories and starts to weigh the same as a simple MF / LF setup, yet doesn't have movements.. maybe time to consider another zoom.
Modifying a G 45mm to rangefinder was appealing until checking the prices and thinking of other priorities.. it may be possible to slightly enlarge the 50mm FOV on a Kiev - noticed it's appears slightly restricted by an insert behind the chrome front.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 65559
Guest
I guess part of it is where you've become accustomed to seeing the image from. I prefer not to back up to add context. Likewise for aerial photos. Streets in European small towns are narrow too.
Flickr Leica iii / Elmar 35mm
Flickr M4 / 35mm Summicron
Flickr Leica MP / 21mm
dof
Fiat Lux
In my experience, this sums up precisely what makes the 35 so useful. I've long thought that 35 and 50 represent the wide and long ends of the "normal" perspective.
35 is wide enough to take in more of a view than a 50 and like the 50, it doesn't call attention to itself like wider focal lengths do. Longer than 50 focal lengths have a noticeable signature as well.
Some might find it boring, but I view its lack of obvious effects to be a plus.
jgrainger
Established
Funnily enough, this is sort of what prompted me to try taking the 35mm out more..
Getting a FTn a while back, fancied getting a period-correct 24 or 28mm, read some reviews and considered whether it was really sensible to get an SLR wide from an era not known for great SLR wides vs just sticking a wide on my RF, or at least dragging the 35mm back out to burn off some GAS..
Fancied 24 (or 28mm), and know what you mean about cars. I just couldn't see a model I fancied and could financially justify buying to hack to another mount - in this FL.
jgrainger
Established
D
Deleted member 65559
Guest
I think you've nailed the issue there. It's the old 10,000 hrs rule. The 35mm either brings something to your photography or it doesn't. Many years ago, I had a friend in art school. She owned a Pentax with a 28mm lens. That was all. She had complete mastery of that lens & her series photos had great variety and she was never constrained by the one lens.
raydm6
Yay! Cameras! 🙈🙉🙊┌( ಠ_ಠ)┘ [◉"]
Not sure I'll grow to like 35mm
What is weird for me is that 35mm feels normal on my .72 M6 and the 50s - Summitar and Collapsible Summicron - feeling normal on my IIIfs.
What is weird for me is that 35mm feels normal on my .72 M6 and the 50s - Summitar and Collapsible Summicron - feeling normal on my IIIfs.
dof
Fiat Lux
I completely understand that. I was in the "35 is the lesser cousin of the 50" camp for decades. The 50 was the focal length I found most useful by a wide margin. I just didn't see the point of using anything wider until you hit 28.
It took a long time to ease up on my bias against it and perhaps just as long in use to appreciate the 35 as I do now. We're all unique of course, but that's been my journey.
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
When I was shooting on an aircraft carrier, one early assignment, which all the FNGs got, was to get a Nikon F3 with a 300mm f/2.8 and go shoot a day in the life of the boat on two rolls of film with no flash. Chief only allowed one or two flight deck images in the set as well. It's not my preferred way to work, but I can get it done. I've done plenty of old towns with narrow streets as well and not "blamed" my gear on not getting a shot.
Phil Forrest