THE lens

If I'm out and about with;

IIIc, 50mm asa 400 BW.
M3, 40mm CV SC asa 400 BW.
M8, either 50 f/2 Cron, Elmar 50mm, Classic Heliar 50mm. Depends on where I'm headed.

My second lens for the M8 is one of these, CV 40mm MC, CV 28, CV 21, CV 15, or the 90 Elmar f/4 90mm col.

Actually my favorite walk around with the M8 is the 50mm Classic Heliar.
 
I have 8 M mount and LTM lenses between 18mm and 90mm but probably use the Hex 35UC more than the other 7 combined. I think 35mm is the lazy photographer's best friend.
 
javimm said:
My favourite focal length is 50. I never liked 35. ...
Click to expand...

alan davus said:
... I think 35mm is the lazy photographer's best friend.
Click to expand...

Two quotes that I whole heartedly believe in! When I was younger, I was a big fan of 50 and 21mm lenses, and hated 35mm! I could shoot anything with those two (with the occasional tele shot thrown in) and it made a much bigger statement than anything shot with a 35.

But now that I have come to terms with my lassitude, embraced my inner slug you could say, I love shooting everything I would have previously been much more particular about, with a 35. And it's better.

Well, sometimes.
 
I've found that a 40mm Summicron-C pancake on my M6 is perfect for cramming into a pocket and being able to get just about anything I come across. If I don't have to travel compactly, then I have my Voigt 35/1.2 mounted.
 
I've always thought that while a 28 is what I can see, the 50 is what I'm looking at. I just can't get along with a wide unless it's a necessary tool in close quarters.
 
I tend to shoot the most with the 35mm focal length. It just seems right to me. Back in my slr days I had lenses that ranged from 20mm to 300mm but the bulk of my shots were probably taken with the 35mm, 85mm and my 180mm in that order. I never shot with my 50s much but I'm on the hunt for one for my Leica. I currently have a 35mm 2.8 Canon and the 35mm 2.0 Canon. With either of those two lenses on my M6 it makes for a pretty compact package I can carry easily. I have a 28mm that I use occasionally.
 
1. 50mm (135) / 80mm (120)
2. 35mm
3. 21mm
.....
4. 90mm

I am in the same boat as Chris101, 50mm + 21mm makes a perfect combination but 35mm is the "lazy" substitute for the other two... :)

Actually, taking photos of landscape I can best survive with 21mm + 90mm, that's why I keep the 90mm.
 
Oddly enough my favorite focal length depends on what type of camera I'm shooting.

I love the 35 on a RF, but hate it on a SLR and I much prefer to shoot a 50 on a SLR, than on a RF.

Try to explain that one...

That said my favorite 35 is the Summilux-M ASPH 1.4/35. Leica really broke the mold when they made this one.
I'm apt to say that this may be the best lens I have ever used, in any focal length. It represents a perfect balance of speed, sharpness, tonality and contrast. If someone put a gun to my head and said 'pick one', this is probably the one I would grab.

When it comes to the 50 things get a little more complicated. My absolute favorite used to be the Summicron-DR 2/50.
But I wanted more speed, so I bought a Summilux-M 1.4/50 (last pre-asph) and it is one hell of a good lens. It must have been a jaw dropper, when it was released in the 1960's. Again, a perfect balance of speed, sharpness, tonality and contrast. Wonderful for b/w work.

My dirty secret is that my most used 50 has become an ancient chrome and black barreled Nikkor-H.C 2/50 on a Nikon F/F3... It's magic on a sunny day. Very sharp, good contrast and it glows. Gorgeous in b/w and it's fingerprint is very similar to the DR.

So, this is what ends up in the bag.

2 x M, 35 Lux ASPH, 50 Lux, 50 DR
(I shoot the DR during the day and the 50 Lux at night)

or

1-2 x M 35 Lux ASPH, 50 Lux
1 x Nikon SLR Nikkor-H.C 50
 
Last edited:
Jason808 said:
I've always thought that while a 28 is what I can see, the 50 is what I'm looking at. I just can't get along with a wide unless it's a necessary tool in close quarters.
Click to expand...

That's a very good observation. I feel the same way about the 35 and 50.
 
i've come to the conclusion that 35mm de-emphasizes composition, and it has opened up new ways of thinking about things.
 
Well, aizan, perhaps. I'll agree that a large-format focusing screen with a grid aids thorough study of composition. And I've noticed that with half-frame and 110-size cameras I simplify compositions, and de-emphasize textures and fine details.

And when out snapping with a small camera I can't help thinking that if the photo is worth the trouble of making it, isn't it worth using a larger bit of film for it? Of course portability is the tradeoff for image quality.
 
I don't think that any focal length de-emphasizes composition. I think that most of us tend to find the coverage of few lenses intuitive. We don't have to think about what will be in the frame and what will be out of the frame. With those lenses we can just raise the camera to our eye, aim, and shoot. Other lenses make us think a bit more about what will be in the picture, it slows us down, and perhaps causes up to consider the composition more, because we have the time to do it. With myself it's always been a 35 and an 85 (or 90). The last few years the 15 has about replaced my use of the 21, which for many years was a favorite.

I think that most, if not all, people who shoot in a journalistic style get to the point where lens choice and framing are intuitive. I guess that composition is also.
 
I take photos of rustic scenes both close up and far off. 35-40mm usually does me well. I'd use a 50 more if I photographed people more than I do.
 
The 35mm Summilux is the one for me. A very close second is everything else, including but not limited to 15mm Heliar, 75mm Xenar(120), 50mm Summilux. 35mm shows a scene naturally, but 50mm is better for composition and detail, and 15mm is just fun. As far as telephotos go, I examine them occasionally to check for fungus.
 
when i switched to contax from olympus om i started with 35/1.4 zeiss(c/y) although it was 85/1.4 which i could test. it was a bit later when i could also purchase the longer highspeed lens. today i am going out with fixed lens canon af35ml 40/1.9 and 400 asa CN. this lens saved me more than once. unfortunately its a fully automatic camera. today i would restart using my zeiss eighter with new ektar 100 or adapted to canon eos dlrs(450d) or hopefully samsung nx.
 
As a recent Leica convert, I have been using the CV 40mm Nokton SC. It is a bit odd on my M6 as the framelines don't match but it is a really swell lens. For me, the photos just look right with something around 40-50.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom