Not sure I'll grow to like 35mm

I hear you on your feelings on 35mm. If there's a single focal length that embodies all of the compromises between all the focal lengths, it's 35mm. It can do it all: it's wide enough for landscape, narrow enough for portraits and tighter shots, but it can be really tough to make it work well. Aesthetically you either get too much extraneous detail in the shot or you find it hard to get it all in, sometimes. The way I look at 35mm is as a competent all-rounder, and honestly some of the shots I've taken I still really like aesthetically, but it takes effort to wrap my mind around it. I'm only landscape shooting a small percentage of the time.
 
Neither here nor there

Neither here nor there

I have always found the 35mm fl to be neither here nor there. Not wide enough to get it all in while on the street and not great for portraits or closer up work. My combo both for rf and slr has been 28-50-85. There is no right or wrong - everyone has to find what works for them.
 
I've had a few very nice 35mm lenses over the years, optically speaking. But I gotta say I didn't really bond with any of them. For about ten years now I've been a 28mm, 85mm shooter primarily. And occasionally a 50mm. So I can see why you're not nuts about the 35mm.

Best,
-Tim
 
Pretty much gimme whatever and I’ll make it work unless it’s tight spaces. Then I’ll take my 28 every time. After all, it’s just putting the right shapes inside that little box
 
I've never felt completely at home with the 50mm on a 35mm camera, even with a lot of practice. I can use it and get pretty good shots, but 35mm just feels more natural to me so I've stayed with it. My favorite MF camera also was slightly wide, a Fuji GA645 with a 60mm (about a 37mm in 35mm terms, if I remember correctly). I've got a 35mm-equivalent hanging off my Canon EOS M50 right now, and it probably won't come off anytime soon.
 
I always thought of myself as primarily a 50mm guy. Then a few years ago I picked up a point-and-shoot with a fixed 35mm lens and took to it like a duck to water. The 35mm angle of view just felt completely natural—I look at a scene, bring the camera to my eye, and the viewfinder frames the scene exactly as I had envisioned.

I have since acquired a couple of 35mm lenses for my manual focus SLRs and really enjoy those as well. The greater depth of field compared to a 50mm makes them much easier to focus. In fact, during the day I often just use zone focus/hyperfocal and shoot my SLRs like point-and-shoots. Great fun.
 
Last edited:
I just took a quick trip to Virginia (Staunton area). First I considered just taking the Retina IIIc, but since April is Zeiss Contax Month, I took the Contax iia. I probably could have taken just the CZ 35mm f2.8 Biogon, but I wanted to take the 21mm, plus I wanted a faster lens for later in the afternoon, so instead I took the Voigtlander SC Skopar 21mm f4 and the Zeiss Opton 50mm f2 Sonnar. I took 90% of the shots (maybe more) with the 21mm. The 50mm went on when I needed to get a bit closer without using my legs or when light started dropping. I like the feeling with 21mm of being in the scene (rather than standing back and recording the scene from outside the scene). Here is one shot (extreme example):


envelope by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr
 
Andrea Taurisano said:
A thread like this would be so much more interesting if many who shared their 2 cents also had shared an image that illustrated what they meant..
Click to expand...

A couple instances of when 35mm equivalent really worked for me for landscapes:

P1000830-2 by Andrew Lossing, on Flickr

img464-2 by Andrew Lossing, on Flickr

And a couple of 35mm working well for street-type/people photos:

img980 by Andrew Lossing, on Flickr

Untitled (11) by Andrew Lossing, on Flickr

But I still prefer 40mm for street, as it's a bit more "focused" on the subject but still gets context:

P1040512-2 by Andrew Lossing, on Flickr

28mm works well for landscapes a lot of the time, but you have to remember that it "pushes away" distant subjects, increasing the feeling of remoteness from the landscape, whereas I feel 35mm sort of pulls you in or gives a bit more sense of the immediacy of the landscape. See the previous mountain picture with the Olympus 17mm versus this Ricoh GR shot:

R0001609 by Andrew Lossing, on Flickr
 
Here are a couple more examples. This was of an abandoned sanatorium on the outskirts of Staunton. First a 21mm shot then a 50mm from the same position, followed by a different perspective using a 21mm (plus cropping). Again, I probably could have used just a 35mm and gotten good shots.

Voigtlander SC Skopar 21mm f4

Spooky Sanatorium by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr

Zeiss Opton 50mm f2 Sonnar

Sanatorium by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr

This is the shot I really wanted, and the 21mm worked best (I should have moved closer and cropped less). With the 35mm, I may have stayed further back, not cropped and gotten a similar shot, but there may have been other things in the foreground that I would not have liked (don't recall, but this is a utility of the 21mm).

Sanatorium and Trailer by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr
 
jsrockit said:
You want to see images that support a purely subjective opinion? What would they show that would be useful?
Click to expand...

Of course I didn't suggest to share images as "evidence" that one's subjective opinion is better than someone else's. But rather than simply stating a preference for any focal lenght because it enables this or that, it woud be nice to see some images where the given focal lenght is uses as described.

Example: if I'm to make a case for using a 28mm with good close focus capabilities as an occasional portrait lens, I may share this (Ricoh GR1) portrait of a Russian farmer that I took some years ago. It may show that even though most would consider the wide angle perspective unflattering, it can very well be used with acceptable results.

dec13020.jpg



Edit: Or this other "portrait", also 28mm from close distance.


afgtrix2014-10.jpg
 
Most of us surely do. And most of us have our believes and preferences. But many of us also do get inspired to trying new approaches by looking at other people's results. That's IMO what makes RFF great, more than the tons of technical information it contains 🙂
 
Andrea Taurisano said:
Of course I didn't suggest to share images as "evidence" that one's subjective opinion is better than someone else's. But rather than simply stating a preference for any focal lenght because it enables this or that, it woud be nice to see some images where the given focal lenght is uses as described.

Example: if I'm to make a case for using a 28mm with good close focus capabilities as an occasional portrait lens, I may share this (Ricoh GR1) portrait of a Russian farmer that I took some years ago. It may show that even though most would consider the wide angle perspective unflattering, it can very well be used with acceptable results.

dec13020.jpg



Edit: Or this other "portrait", also 28mm from close distance.


afgtrix2014-10.jpg
Click to expand...

Yes, these are good examples of how 28mm also has the capability to "pull in" close subjects. I find it so versatile because you can both "push out" and "pull in" elements depending on how far or near to the lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G
Which rangefinder to get for 35mm lens
2
Replies
26
Views
1K
WJJ3
WJJ3
CandidChronicles
Alternative to Voigtländer 35mm 2.5?
2 3
Replies
46
Views
2K
filmtwit
filmtwit
Rob-F
Glimmerglass: Who is using it? How do you use it?
Replies
1
Views
554
Dogman
Dogman
MNS
Is this repairable - Summicron 35mm ASPH
Replies
1
Views
488
weatherproof
W
J
35mm Still-Picture Photography: It began with scale focusing cameras! Back To Basics. Part 1, From the first to half-frame 35s of then and now.
Replies
10
Views
859
Jason Schneider
J
Back
Top Bottom