For me it's mostly a matter of perspective. By perspective, I mean visual perspective, as in field of view....
In my early photo days, I was a big fan of wides - there was an influential group of young photographers in the early Eighties, who were mostly using wides (24-28mm, I guess) in their mostly social/journalistic photography. I liked that kind of photography a lot, and my first real camera kit included 50mm and 28mm lenses.
Later on, I went to Nikon and zooms 🙁, and basically had no feeling for any kind of vision....
I wanted to do a therapy of a kind, a photo project - you know, the one everyone tells you to do in order to cure the "zoom blues" - shoot only with 50mm lens for at least a month! But, I never got around to it.
It was only when I went into rangefinders and their 50mm lenses that I really understood and got a "feel" for 50mm lenses, which I still prefer. I mean, now I have a small kit for my RF cameras (35, 50, 90, 135), but 50mm lens is still the one most likely to be on any camera.
As some previous posters said, with 35mm you need to get closer. OK, but the photo will not be the same as the one taken with 50mm with the same framing! What is different is the perspective.
You know how they say that if you want a pleasing portrait, you should use focal length above 50mm - preferably 85-90mm or even longer - otherwise you'll have distorted faces, prominent noses, etc. - not very pleasing for the subject, unless you're after caricatural portraits.
Since most of my photos include people, I prefer 50mm length. I've tried 90mm, but it's not the same...
It's all subjective... and mostly depends on the subject. When I'm traveling, and want to take shots of the places I've seen, I'll most definitely take my Nikkor 24mm lens with me. Nothing beats 24mm for nice scenics (at least for me). Combine that with a polarizer, and you can get some really stunning shots!
But, if it's general or "street" photography, it will probably be 50mm. I like its field of view, and perhaps it's also because I like HCB's work 🙂
I've also used 35mm, but for more "environmental" shots, or when I want more "dynamics" or stronger perspective in the photo.
35mm lens can be a good tool, but you have to master it - one person here who immediately comes to mind is Peter - I've always admired his shots with 35mm lenses. I've never been able to come to grips with my 35mm as much as I did with my 50mm lens.
Another thing is the "atmosphere" a lens creates. Well, it's mostly a matter of having the right light, but also of the lens "signature".
After shooting with my RF cameras and various lenses, I now understand those guys who have several lenses of the same focal length. I have two 50mm lenses which I use regularly - a Summicron and a Summitar. There are also Jupiters in various incarnations (8 on Zorki, 8M on Kiev), and also a Helios. Since I usually shoot wide open, I can usually tell a Summicron or Summitar from a Jupiter 8M... Each has its own "signature" in the way it renders OOF areas, etc...
Some lenses produce that "old-time" look, some are surgically sharp, some vignette, some flare quite a bit. etc..... You get my point... Since I like that "old" look, I tend to shoot with older lenses - or at least with lenses manufactured under old formulas....
Most of my Nikon shots with modern glass leave me emotionally indifferent.
Nice colors, sharp, etc... - but no "character".... So, Nikon SLR gets used either for scenics while travelling (24mm) or for telephoto shots (70-300 zoom 🙁).
Finally, as for cropping, I'm trying to avoid it as much as I can. I usually scan/print full frame, or the closest to full frame I can get. So, a crop from 35mm shot for me is not the same as full frame 50mm shot. I feel it would be "cheating"...
Naturally, take all of the above with a grain of salt. If all you have at hand is one camera and one lens, and you stumble upon a great shot, you shoot with what you have!
Sorry for the long post.... 🙂 You can tell the weather is lousy and cold, otherwise I'd be out shooting and posting to the gallery 😀
Denis
