THE lens

[oftheherd]

I started out with cameras with normal lenses, whether folders or my first SLR. My first RF was the Super Press 23, and my first lens was the 100mm, again, a normal. I have just gotten used to seeing a lot that way. But in SLRdom, I soon realized I like wides more that teles if I was going to something different than normal. I'm still that way.

I used to be very puzzled reading how people loved the 35mm on RF. I still don't know why. If I want to go wide, that is what I want to do. 35mm isn't really wide to me. 28mm or wider is wide. Now I have the Kiev, I quickly got a 35mm, as well as an 85mm and 135mm. I'm still not crazy about teles, but not about the 35mm either. It isn't wide to me. Even the Orion is more than I want to spend right now, much less a respectable 25, 21 or 15.

I don't mean to hijack your thread Mr. Pierce, but along with your question, I would be interested if those who prefer 35, could they say if it is really that focal length, or are they like me, lusting after something wider, but not ready to lay down the bucks yet?

 

[Ken Ford]

90% it's a 35. That's just how I usually see.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

ZM 28mm Biogon. Great for street AND landscapes, AND architecture...not especially fast, but that seems to matter less than I might once have expected. Plus it's lightweight and super sturdy. Renders with appealling coolness on the RD-1 and is sharp on film.

I just got the 25mm Snapshot Skopar, which may nudge the Biogon aside a bit, but that remains to be seen.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

90% 50mm (or 80mm on my medium format cameras). Followed by 35mm (I use 50mm second most on my bigger cameras), then 85mm (150 on the 120 film).

 

[marke]

Lately my favorite on the RF has been the 50/1.4 lux pre-asph, because I'm working on a cafe project of musicians. But for street my favorite is usually the 35/2 cron asph.

When shooting digital it all depends what I'm shooting, 18 all the way to 400.

 

[Livesteamer]

Before I had a kid it was a well used 35mm Summilux. Now with kid it's a 50mm 90% of the time. I don't use it often but my 28mm Summicron is wonderful. Just a lucky amateur. Joe

 

[MCTuomey]

i've come back to rangefinders over the past few years for shooting film, gravitating to the fifties. but i'll happily shoot a 28 or 35 in tight spaces. or a 90 for candid portraits and walk-around details. if i could have only one lens though, it'd probably be a fifty.

a fifty can do so many things well.

 

[Merkin]

Until recently, I had been a 50mm shooter all my life, but when I bought my leica, I chose the CV 35mm f/1.4 as my 'normal' lens. This was, initially, a purely practical decision. I can reliably shoot at one stop slower shutter speed with a 35 than I can with a 50 without getting shake, so in terms of EV, I can shoot handheld in low light as reliably at f/1.4 as I could with a noctilux in the same light. I also like the small size of the lens, even with the hood on it. However, I like the fact that I get more in the frame with the 35 than the 50, even though the perspective is still 'normal,' since 35mm is only as wide as 50mm is telephoto. At the moment, the only other (m mount) lens I own is a 90mm f4 elmar, which I only bought because it was 70 bucks, but I absolutely love it for close portraiture, as well as for the fact that it goes to f/32, which is a smaller aperture than I have ever had on a lens. Over the next six months or so I plan on picking up a 50mm f/3.5 elmar collapsible, or a russian copy thereof, mainly for use as a 'useable body cap,' since I don't like keeping my most expensive lens on my camera in the bag all the time.

With all of that said, if my m4-2 had 40mm framelines, I definitely would have gotten a 40mm lens.

 

[Bill Pierce]

The 75, 90 and 135 are not doing well.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

The 75, 90 and 135 are not doing well.

LOL. I'd like a 75 or 90 for my Bessa. I mentioned using 85mm a lot because that is what i have in that range for my Olympus SLR system. Oly didn't make a 75 or 90, it went 50, 85, 100 in their system. Something in the 75, 85, or 90 range is great for portraits, and i use my 85 Olympus lens for that a lot.

 

[kipkeston]

Sorry, I'm in the 35 camp. It unpretentiously says "this is what I see, isn't it awesome?" I love a 28 or 50 however.

 

[thomasw_]

I use 50s and 35s as my "go to" focal lengths. The 50 slightly more than the 35s. I have a 75 and I like the lens a lot for portraiture, but it is too narrow to be an all-round focal length. I have a 28 and I like the lens for landscapes, events and stage performances, but I am not a fan of the 28 for streetwork.

 

[filmat]

A UC-Hexanon 35/2 on my Epso R-D1 makes it approximatively a 50mm equivalent. I use 50mm almost all the time with exceptionally a 25/4P skopar when i want to go wider (becomes a 38mm) or a canon 50/1.4 for portraits or closeups (becomes a 75mm)

Whenever i use the 50mm focal length i feel like capturing what i see, the moment (the epson has a 1:1 viewfinder). When i go wider i feel that "extra stuff" is going in the frame. But then most of the time i will crop a lot afterwards.

In a way a 1:1 viewfinder plus 50mm equivalent is great for fast street shots, it help you capture what you see.

Philippe
www.flickr.com/photos/pmat
http://streetphoto.free.fr

 

[projectbluebird]

50, 50, 50, and... 85. Between all my rangefinders, I own 7 50's of various speeds mounts and makers, I also have at least 1 for each SLR too. They always seem to catch my eye when browsing for new equipment. (watching 6 as I write this.)

My second most favorite lens is my SM canon 85/2, one of the sharpest lenses I own, and a nice performer all around. For the sake of balance, and a really sweet deal, I also picked up a SM nikkor 85/2.

 

[peterpan]

35mm. Really flexible and a good compromise. 28, 50 and 21 are the others I like to have about, but if I had to stick to one, 35mm would do 75% of everything.

 

[yanidel]

35mm Summicron IV on M8. The corresponding 46mm FOV is my favorite : close but no too close and enough wide to include various subjects.
Summicron because it is a balanced package between size, weight, IQ and speed.

 

[semrich]

I seem to have them all, and now that I'm shooting mostly film, IIIf and M's, some MF I tend to shoot mostly 50's and experiment with others on camera days (one body one lens).

When traveling I take a bunch so I can play around if time allows.

 

[javimm]

My favourite focal length is 50. I never liked 35. I have the feeling that it's too wide for street/people and too long for landscapes/building (for me). I just can't find the confort zone with a 35. I also use a 28 for the architectural shots and landscape, and now that I have a 90 I use it for portraits and works great, but it's mainly 50 for me.

 

[Ronald_H]

I believe it was Stephen Gandy who somewhere one his site commented that he didn't like the 40mm focal length. Also, being used to zooms I didn't give it that much thought really.

But the simple fact is, my first RF was a Canonet with, you guessed it, a 40mm lens. Revelation is too much of a word here, but that camera makes pictures the way I percieve the world. No step closer, no step back.

On the M2, I have an excellent 35 and 50. But still I am contemplating buying a 40 with a seperate finder for it. Let's make it a fast one too.

 

[spysmart]

I'm in agreement with the consensus that 35/50 choice is a difficult one for the 24x36 film format : as Merkin says, at the limits in low light the 35mm 'lux pulls in better shots than the 50 'lux by virtue of the slightly lower magnification, for this reason 35mm would be my THE lens.

Outdoors the 80mm lens of the 6x6 hasselblad etc. seems more pleasing to me than either 35mm or 50mm on the Leica.