THE lens

[Twigs]

The 25mm is my favorite. I like to get very close to the foreground subject and still show its environment. (The 50mm is always in the pocket, but it rarely gets used.)

My second favorite is my TLR, but that's because the format and operation slow me down to really think... quite often it goes back into the bag without taking the picture.

 

[Roger Vadim]

the Kodak 127mm Ektar on my Speed Graphic. translates into a 35mm in 135, but with a much more shallow DOF😉
Else 35mm -but I tend to use that postwar coated 50mm Sonnar lately more often, might be in a transitional mood...

 

[Frank Petronio]

40 on 35mm, 135mm on 4x5, and now a 35mm on APS dslr (wish it was a 28 but it can be the "portrait" lens lol).

 

[Sonnar Brian]

A Fast Fifty. Speed, size, and Bokeh. I find it the most natural to compose with.

 

[raid]

With a 50mm 1.5 there is a lot of versatlity in photography possible. Add a 19mm lens, and you have a perfect travel kit with two lenses.

 

[Todd.Hanz]

I like the 28/1.9 VC, plenty of sharpness and I like the FOV when close up. If size is an issue then it's the 35/2 asph., not the smallest available but the smallest I have available.

 

[rbsinto]

My favorite (most frequently used) rangefinder lenses in order of usage would be CV 21, followed by CV 35 and then Nikkor S 105.

 

[Hilm3]

Well, it depends on the camera!

The M3 is nearly ideal with a 50 Summicron pre-asph - the one with the detachable hood. The M5 wears the 50 Summilux so nicely, I never take it off. The M6 is perfect for me with a 35 Summicron, also pre-asph, especially on vacation.
The M7 and the R7 have their own 50s, too. So do the F2AS and the Nikkormat FT3.

The other lenses stay in the closet until a blue moon comes around.

Truth is that for the first almost 20 years after I got my first camera, all I had was a 50. Later I started accumulating stuff and my photography went to hell. There were long periods when I did not shoot. One day, going back through all of the pictures from the early days, I realized that my best work was with a 50, no matter what it was. These days, when I travel I take 2 bodies and 3 lenses - 35-50-90, and mostly never use the 90. At home, it is always a 50.

Hilm3

 

[Keith]

35mm and probably my Nokton. I don't care about the size of the thing at all but the little bit of barrel distortion it exhibits bothers me at times ... but not enough to make me reach for my 35mm Hexanon which has tab focusing ... I hate tab focusing! 😛

I'd like a 35mm Summilux one day when I grow up ... or grow rich! 🙄

 

[LeicaVirgin1]

Bill-

It's a 50mm Summicron f2.0 rigid, (current). I wear spectacles & though I own and use a 35mm lens, the 50 just seems to work better for me. With the 50, (when using a .72x finder), I can see what is outside the frame so I make fewer mistakes. Bresson can't be wrong!

LV1

 

[kkdanamatt]

28mm is the standard "long" lens for me. I'm always very close to my subject, and on the street I prefer the 21 or even the 15. I usually set the aperture at f/5.6-11 and zone focus. This technique frees me up for creative rather than contemplative photography.

 

[clicker]

With age the 50mm , in my youth the 35mm.

 

[maitrestanley]

Throughout my life of shooting 35mm film, I've used 3 focal lengths: the 28, 35, and 50. Each I used exclusively throughout different periods in my life. Never did I change lenses on the go - it was always 1 camera, 1 lens.

When I first started out, I was shooting with a Contax RTS w a 28/2.8 yashica attached to it. I was young and wanted to 'include everything.' To me, it was an easy focal length to use because I just pointed, shot, and would capture what I wanted in the frame...

Then I started to shoot more and more street and started to desire a faster lens - so I stuck the Zeiss 50/1.4 onto the Contax. It was 2 stops faster and I loved it - but i didn't like focal length at all. It felt so much tighter and so much more difficult because now I actually had to frame my shots properly. But after about 6 months of using it, i grew from a hater to a lover of the 50mm focal length. I loved its intimacy and how natural it felt.

Then I purchased an M6 and it came with the 35 summicron. I stopped shooting the Contax completely so I stopped shooting the 50mm. I had to learn to adjust. I continued to shoot street and suddenly, I could fit a lot more into the frame again. But it felt like too much. It felt too wide. Indoors, however, it was wonderful. Eventually, I need a dSLR set up for work so I sold the M6 and 35summi.

I shot digital for a while. A long while. I used a variety of lenses. A variety of zooms and a variety of primes. The dSLR taught me a lot. I shot a lot. I learned how to light - something that would be SO much harder if I was shooting film. I also learned how to shoot colour (i only shot bw film in the past). It was fast, it was convenient. It was instant and it was cheap. There were no film or processing costs so it made sense to work with digital.

However, the dSLR just lacked when it came to bw imaging. I don't know how to describe it other than to say it looked like plastic. I missed my Leica. I missed my tri-x.

I bought an M7 and a 50 M-hexanon. It's like reuniting with old buddies - film and the 50. It's the only lens I have for the M7 right now but I plan on getting a 35 in the future.

What I learned is I am a 50 and 35mm shooter. For the street, the 50 is the way to go. For indoors, the 35.

Guess it's time to start saving up for that 35/1.4lux : P

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

A 50. Otherwise, stuff leaks out of the frame.

I like that.

Until about a year ago, i would have said "50," as well. Never could get used to anything wider, even a 35, although i love pictures shot with 35s.

But, recently, i saw pictures shot by a friend who bought my G2 and 28mm, and also a series by "stpiduko" on flickr, and i had to try it. Now, the 35 doesn't seem nearly so wide, and i'm used to the 28. So used to it, that i bought a 24....

But, if i'm at home in NYC and just walking around, it'll be a 50 on an SLR, or a 50 or 35 on a rangefinder. If i'm traveling, it would be a 28 or 35, with a 50 in the pocket.

Someone, probably here, said it before me: stuff around home is ugly/boring, so i want to exclude it. Stuff in other places is more interesting, so i want to keep it.

 

[lawrence]

Eventually, I need a dSLR set up for work so I sold the M6 and 35summi.

That's no excuse for selling an M6 -- you should starve first 😉

I don't know how to describe it other than to say it looked like plastic. I missed my Leica. I missed my tri-x.

The problem with digital is that it's too smooth, to my eye unnaturally so. Maybe I'm just used to the look of film but there is no acutance in digital -- the boundaries between things look different and one thing merges into another. And also often there is too much information compared to a fast b&w film. I don't necessarily want a perfect description of the subject, I'm more interested in how it feels (but then I always did prefer Frank to Adams).

 

[Pavel+]

I must be strange. My brain tend to hone in on details and does not like extraneous stuff ... just one point to a photo ... my brain says. So I bought a 50 for my M8 ... but it still includes all this "stuff" in photographs, so I think that soon I will get a 75 ... or more likely a 90.

Perhaps I need more time with a rangefinder to appreciate a new way of seeing. I bought a 25 as well .... but the brain keeps rejecting it.

 

[notturtle]

35mm all the way because you can can just about give images the wide feel when you want to or a very normal perspective. I like to get in close and sometimes use the 28/21 when doing so. 50mm is for when I have been unable to get nearly as close as I would like. I feel like a distant voyeur with the 50mm, although it works for shots of individuals more isolated from their situation. I love context and longer lenses do not allow me to bring the subject and context together so easily.

In order of usage: 35, 28, 21, 50, 90.

 

[thomasw_]

I still like the 35mm focal length, but the 50 has become my favourite focal length as I have aged. Someone else wrote much the same. Not sure why other than that the 50 gives me the precision and breadth in composing that forces me to be very perspicacious about that balance. I use the 35 and 50 lengths as my bread-n-butter. Also I use a 75mm lens, but I have not yet even plumbed the depths of compositional possibilities with it.

50, 35 and then 75.

 

[amateriat]

#1 lens for me is 28mm: my choices at hand are the M-Hexanon f/2.8, the lens permanently mounted on my Ricoh GR-1 (while it was working), and, most recently the zoom on my Contax Tvs, racked out to 28mm. I suppose this puts me in the real-up-close-and-personal category, but that's not the only appeal of this focal length to me by a long shot.

#2 choice? Easy: 50mm. I like how the M-Hex f/2 draws a lot, but I'm also liking the little Contax' lens maxed out at (approx.) 56mm, just a bit beyond "normal."

I never cottoned to 35mm all that much, but now that I have am M2 which came with a v1 35mm Summicron, I'm exploring that combo quite a bit. So far, it comes in behind the 50 in terms of prioity, but not by that big a margin. I've yet to throw that lens on one of the Hexars...I might just do that and use only that combo for a week or two.


- Barrett

 

[ampguy]

framelines

framelines

Hi Bill,

I have the original M8 framelines, and with 40 Nokton (43?) and Pentax L 43, I much prefer the 35 lines.

I guess it depends on what the "normal distance" is for each of us, but indoors these 43's line up well with the 35, they will be tight for landscapes, but you can always check screen.

Most used Noktons come filed for 35, so if you're getting a new one to bring up 50 lines, I'd be interested in how you think it matches at your distances.

Truth is, while rangefinder lenses from 12mm to 135mm are easily available, folks often travel light with a rangefinder - one lens on the camera, just maybe another in a pocket.

I wondered what lens is that number one lens - and more important, WHY #1 - for various folks here on the forum.

When I first started shooting professionally, like many journalists I stuck to the 35mm lens. Then one day Burk Uzzle and I switched cameras to take pictures of each other. That way we each ended up with pictures of ourselves on our own film (not too egocentric). I picked up Burk's camera and yelled, "What is this lens?" It was, compared to what I was use to, a modest telephoto. It might take a little more effort to compose an image compared to the "get it all in" 35, but that very effort could make for a better, stronger picture. Burk said, "It's a normal; it's a 50." From that day on, I was a 50 user. Now, with the M8, I use the 35 as a normal. But someone (and please check in a give yourself credit) pointed out that the safety margin in the bright line finder of the first M8 actually made a 40mm lens (which brings up the 50mm frame) frame line a good choice and more accurate at normal distances. It works out to the equivalent of a 52mm lens on the 1.3 frame M8. I've ordered one from Cameraquest. And I hope it will be my new "normal" on the M8.

Once again, what's THE lens on your camera when you head out the door and WHY?

Bill