Shooting with a 35mm lens vs 50mm

[Ansel]

Is it me or is it a lot harder to shoot with wider angled lenses?

 

[Godfrey]

Is it me or is it a lot harder to shoot with wider angled lenses?

Depends on how you see. Some people find a 35mm lens a lot easier to work with than a 50mm. Others find the opposite.

G

 

[daveleo]

There have been many threads and polls on this exact topic (not that the case has ever been "closed"), and I always go with the 35mm (EFOV in terms of 35mm film).

Have never understood why we don't have lots of small, f2.0ish, high quality 35-50mm zooms (or a step change). Fujifilm should do one for their X100z model (no no, not the TCL concept).

 

[Landshark]

Size matters.
Leica's tri-elmar is on the longish size and relatively slow.
An f2 version may be a heavy and large lens.

 

[rbrooks]

Funny, I was thinking the same thing yesterday. What's needed is a bi-elmarit. Or bi-summarit with 35mm and 50mm.

 

[Godfrey]

I'd rather just have two lenses. 🙂

I rarely ever swap back and forth between 50 and 35 in the same mental session. Some times I see better with one, other times the other. I pick up whichever suits my eye best on a given day and go with it. If I feel expansive, I grab a wider or longer complement to go with it, rarely both unless I'm traveling. I mean much wider or much longer...

G

 

[SolaresLarrave]

Is it me or is it a lot harder to shoot with wider angled lenses?

It's you. In my case, it's harder to shoot with longer focal lengths, like 50mm... 😉

 

[Griffin]

35 wide? Ahahahahaha..

 

[shortstop]

In medio stat virtus: 40 mm.

 

[Samouraï]

35 wide? Ahahahahaha..

Well, it is. Just not super-wide.

 

[semilog]

Depends in part on how comfortable you are working close-in. Lately I've been shooting 28 and 21mm EFOV a lot, and loving it.

 

[CliveC]

I too find it harder to shoot wider and come up with interesting compositions. The key is to get closer to your main subject, which is not always possible. 35mm isn't too bad, but once you hit 28mm, it becomes a lot easier to take boring pictures.

 

[Pioneer]

One of the few zooms I enjoy using is my Vivitar 24-48 for my Minolta. It is an f3.8, not an f2, but it still works very well if I have TriX in the camera.

But it is not small... 🙁

EDIT - I prefer the 50mm FOV but will use wider when it fits. I rarely try to make my composition fit my lens, usually I use the lens that fits my composition. If all your compositions fit in the 50mm FOV, go for it.

 

[tomtofa]

FOV difference between 35 and 50 is a step or two, depending on the length of one's legs. Most of the time not an issue.

Perspective difference may be more of a factor if shooting close - one can fill the frame equally with a subject just as easily in most cases with either length, but may get more distortion with the wider lens in so doing.

Personally I'm more comfortable with 35-40. 50 seems almost like a short tele.

 

[Paddy C]

Is it me or is it a lot harder to shoot with wider angled lenses?

I much prefer 35 for the type of things I like to shoot. Most would not consider it wide. But I do like 50s as well. 35 is not good for those times when you want a portrait of someone. Even a torso shot is going to be unflattering.

Minolta made the odd 35-70 f4 zoom. I've never used it but it seems well thought of especially as they can be had for $40. Interesting range.

 

[mfogiel]

This is a 35mm guy:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/emmanuel_smague/
That was a 21mm guy (mainly):
http://www.pinterest.com/saintpala/jeanloup-sieff/
He was a 50mm guy:
http://www.pinterest.com/tracyene/henri-cartier-bresson/
I am a 12mm to 500mm guy:
http://mondoinbiancoenero.com/

 

[Robin P]

I find 50mm very frustrating to work with - it's either not wide enough or not telephoto enough. Mostly 35mm is fine but then I'll see things that need 85mm.
I can be happy all day with fixed lens 40mm camera but since I gave up on film have yet to find the ideal single lens outfit for APSC digital.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

With 35 it is often not close enough for me, if it is for candids.
With 50mm it is not wide enough sometimes for landscapes.

 

[Ansel]

I too find it harder to shoot wider and come up with interesting compositions. The key is to get closer to your main subject, which is not always possible. 35mm isn't too bad, but once you hit 28mm, it becomes a lot easier to take boring pictures.

Yes, this is what I am finding... and its not always easy to get that close. And yet when I look at images taken by people like Richard Kalvar who used a 35 mm lens I really like what I see. It just seems a bit harder to get right.

p.s. Thanks for the feedback guys. Its interesting to hear others opinions on this.

 

[robbeiflex]

Depends in part on how comfortable you are working close-in. Lately I've been shooting 28 and 21mm EFOV a lot, and loving it.

I'm with semilog on this one. I'm proficient enough after a few years with a 50 to knock off a decent portrait, travel, or street shot any time. It is only recently that I've become more comfortable with both 35 and 28mm, mainly because I've pushed myself to get closer to the subject for portraits and because I've made more of an effort to compose on a way that works for those FLs.

I have to be careful because I'm tall, and have to get down there to avoid top-of-head type compositions, especially since a lot of my photos are of kids (mostly mine, but more and more their friends too). I am also learning to get close, but not so close that the lens exagerrates noses, chins, and other features that people may be self-conscious of. I have even gotten some decent results with my 15mm with people in them, whereas in the past this was purely a landscape and architecture lens for me. Some of the recent results have been very rewarding, so I plan to keep at it.

Cheers,
Rob