unixrevolution
Well-known
Dave, sometimes a particular focal length just isn't for you.
As for my reasons for loving the 35:
I tend to love wides, and to that end, especially love fast 35s because they provide a slightly wider view and a nice deep field when I want it, but don't distort perspective or completely preclude the use of shallow DOF like a 28 or wider.
a 35mm f/2 is practically glued to my Pentax LX. My favorite fixed-lens RF is an Olympus XA, with its permanent 35 2.8. I really do adore 35mm lenses.
My friend, on the other hand, never shoots wides, and in fact almost always shoots a 100 2.8 on his Pentax LX SLR, or a 180 on his RB67. Is he "Wrong?" an I "Wrong?" No. It's just our styles.
Do what works for you, and keep on keeping on.
For me, 50 is too narrow, I have to back up too much. 
For you, maybe move closer, or just shoot the 50.
Telephotos with thin DOF are a completely different beast.
For you, maybe move closer, or just shoot the 50.Telephotos with thin DOF are a completely different beast.
BobYIL
Well-known
When viewed from a distance equal to or slightly longer than the longer side of the picture, the 35mm FL provides more natural perspective than the 50mm, closer to what our eye sees..
Bingley
Veteran
I love a 50 focal length too, but 35 for me is ideal for street photography. It allows you to get all of a person in the frame from about 10-12 ft away, which is a common shooting distance in a crowded city. This means, of course, that you're working close to your subject. It also allows you to do "environmental portraits" close up: you get the subject, but you also get some of the surroundings for context. I prefer a 50 for landscapes, though, b/c you can be selective.
Vics
Veteran
I had the identical problem. I liked the work of great 35 shooters, Emanuel Smague comes to mind, but my 50 had been welded to my camera (an M3) for years. I got myself a Summaron 35/2.8, and soon thought I'd made a mistake. Then I forced myself to do what a lot of folks here had advised, and began working in closer than I had been. The great thing was that I found that the wider FL , when working up close, drops the background farther back, isolating and "featuring" my subject more. Now the 50 feels tight. I still like it, too, but now I look at it as a short tele. I also like the way I have to interact with people I'm photographing. I have to say something. They're right there!
jljohn
Well-known
Hey Dave,
Here's what I think. The 'natural field of view' is somewhere between 35mm and 50mm on a 35mm frame. Since 50mm (1) has been around longer as a commonly available lens for the format and (2) 50mm has generally always been cheaper, more people have adapted to it as 'normal' than the 35mm. Since they both fall near the 'natural' field of view, I think they have very similar uses. If you were stuck with only one lens, either of these would work well.
Personally, I prefer 50mm and 24mm (or 28mm). Probably because I cut my teeth on the 50mm, the 35mm either feels a little too wide to me or not wide enough, depending on the circumstances. That said, I feel comfortable with the 35mm, and I feel like I know when to put it on the camera instead of the 50mm. Usually this is when I am going to be photographing at close range or in tight quarters. The slightly greater field of view and shorter minimum focus distance allows me to work better is such circumstances.
Regardless of all this, my advice is this: when you get a new lens (or at least a new focal length), put it on your camera and DO NOT TAKE IT OFF (unless you are a professional photographer and you need something else for a shoot or assignment) until your brain can see with that lens/focal length. It can create a really interesting few weeks or months of photographing, like when you spring for the 14mm-24mm lens, but the benefit is well worth it. Hope this helps!
Jeremy
Here's what I think. The 'natural field of view' is somewhere between 35mm and 50mm on a 35mm frame. Since 50mm (1) has been around longer as a commonly available lens for the format and (2) 50mm has generally always been cheaper, more people have adapted to it as 'normal' than the 35mm. Since they both fall near the 'natural' field of view, I think they have very similar uses. If you were stuck with only one lens, either of these would work well.
Personally, I prefer 50mm and 24mm (or 28mm). Probably because I cut my teeth on the 50mm, the 35mm either feels a little too wide to me or not wide enough, depending on the circumstances. That said, I feel comfortable with the 35mm, and I feel like I know when to put it on the camera instead of the 50mm. Usually this is when I am going to be photographing at close range or in tight quarters. The slightly greater field of view and shorter minimum focus distance allows me to work better is such circumstances.
Regardless of all this, my advice is this: when you get a new lens (or at least a new focal length), put it on your camera and DO NOT TAKE IT OFF (unless you are a professional photographer and you need something else for a shoot or assignment) until your brain can see with that lens/focal length. It can create a really interesting few weeks or months of photographing, like when you spring for the 14mm-24mm lens, but the benefit is well worth it. Hope this helps!
Jeremy
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
Dave: Like you my eyes saw as a "50" for years and years. I think I had been taking pictures for 15 years before I bought my first 35mm lens. Gradually though, my sense of what I want to see in the frame has widened, and these days I reach first for a 35 when headed out of doors. But I am also using many more wide angle lenses than I was 20 years ago. Then it was all about the 50's ability to isolate elements (and with other lenses "reach"). Now, it is more about interactions between and among people in complex settings, or portraits of folks in their environments.
Now a weekend travel bag usually contains 15-21-35-50, whereas before it contained 50-90-longer. Can't really explain it.
Now a weekend travel bag usually contains 15-21-35-50, whereas before it contained 50-90-longer. Can't really explain it.
luuca
Well-known
my summicron 35 covers 99% of my shots
I think it's a matter of habits...
obviously you must get closer.
an advantage over the 50mm is the chance to use it for selfshots
it's also way simpler to shot without framing, from the hip for example, simpler than with a 50mm
or for basic street photography
or for interiors
I'm so addicted to 35mm that I always feel too long or too short if I go out with other focal lenghts
I think it's a matter of habits...
obviously you must get closer.
an advantage over the 50mm is the chance to use it for selfshots
it's also way simpler to shot without framing, from the hip for example, simpler than with a 50mm
or for basic street photography
or for interiors
I'm so addicted to 35mm that I always feel too long or too short if I go out with other focal lenghts
kanzlr
Hexaneur
long lenses have an automatic clutter removal feature. That's why they feel more comfortable to many of us.
The longer I photograph the wider my lens preferences get, from 200mm and 85mm to 35 and now sometimes even 28mm for reportage style shooting.
Wide = get in close, include environment, but do not try to "get all in", like in your restaurant shot. That's not the point (at least not to me, as this is very personal).
Still focus on a subject, but with a 35 you can and should include more context.
Wider lenses are more challenging, but they improved my shooting because I have to think more instead of picking details with a longer lens.
The longer I photograph the wider my lens preferences get, from 200mm and 85mm to 35 and now sometimes even 28mm for reportage style shooting.
Wide = get in close, include environment, but do not try to "get all in", like in your restaurant shot. That's not the point (at least not to me, as this is very personal).
Still focus on a subject, but with a 35 you can and should include more context.
Wider lenses are more challenging, but they improved my shooting because I have to think more instead of picking details with a longer lens.
Gary Sandhu
Well-known
If one uses a 28 and 50 but on a particular day doesn't want to carry both, then that person takes a 35 as a compromise.
For you, maybe you can etch 50 mm framelines somewhere and crop in the post processing.
For you, maybe you can etch 50 mm framelines somewhere and crop in the post processing.
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
Dave: Not weird. The 105 DC is currently my go-to portrait lens. Even with its aberration-dial set to "0" it produces the finest portraits I have ever seen out of my cameras. I reach for it before reaching for a 90 Apo-Asph or the 85/1.4 Nikkor or 105/2.5 Nikkor that had been my go-to lenses for this sort of thing. In terms of portraits, you have listed the two obvious contenders, indeed two of the only lenses that are still on my wish list.
My denial of the apparent contradiction stems from the fact that there is no one lens that is best for all jobs. And pace to our colleagues who use one camera and one lens, that has never been my style. So: 35mm lens on an M camera for being out in the world; Nikon with a 105 DC for getting in closer. Sounds like a plan.
Last edited:
kxl
Social Documentary
Here's my simplistic $0.02 (in 2012 nominal dollars)
I use a 50mm if 1) the people in my shot are most significant to the image AND 2) there are only 1 or 2 people in the frame.
I use a 35mm if 1) I want to see how the peopl interact with their surroundings AND/OR 2) there are 3-4 people in the frame.
Again, very simplistic and not meant to explain everything...
I use a 50mm if 1) the people in my shot are most significant to the image AND 2) there are only 1 or 2 people in the frame.
I use a 35mm if 1) I want to see how the peopl interact with their surroundings AND/OR 2) there are 3-4 people in the frame.
Again, very simplistic and not meant to explain everything...
Damaso
Photojournalist
I think it can be a powerful tool for environmental portraits. That said I've shifted from the 35mm to the 50. But when used well there's nothing quite like it. From a photog's POV I think it comes down to comfort and taste...
oftheherd
Veteran
As others have stated, some people just "see" differently. I see 50mm or wider. If I am going to be out long or in a place I may not easily return to, I will probably want a short tele too. But if not 50mm, the I will probably want wide.
However, 35mm isn't my cup of tea. It is only of value to me on my Kiev kit because that is all I am ready to spring for now. Someday I hope for a 28mm or 21mm. For a long time, the 65mm (close to 35mm) on my Super Press 23 was the only wide I could afford. I was glad to have it, as with the 35mm and the Kiev. Otherwise, I just don't care for the 35mm. Its to wide to be normal, to long to be wide. But that's just me. I know some people swear by 35mm.
However, 35mm isn't my cup of tea. It is only of value to me on my Kiev kit because that is all I am ready to spring for now. Someday I hope for a 28mm or 21mm. For a long time, the 65mm (close to 35mm) on my Super Press 23 was the only wide I could afford. I was glad to have it, as with the 35mm and the Kiev. Otherwise, I just don't care for the 35mm. Its to wide to be normal, to long to be wide. But that's just me. I know some people swear by 35mm.
batterytypehah!
Lord of the Dings
I was also "brought up" on a 50 but now I honestly feel that 40 is the sweet spot for me. Not too many choices in RF land, but in SLR or scale focus, 40 is what I pick most of the time. In fact, I should be out there with the 40/1.8 Hexanon on a cheap Konica body and forget the rest. But gear is just too much fun!
In RF terms, I would now pick a 35 over a 50 as my only lens. As soon as you allow a second lens though, out it goes in favor of 50 plus a real wide (i.e. at least 28).
In RF terms, I would now pick a 35 over a 50 as my only lens. As soon as you allow a second lens though, out it goes in favor of 50 plus a real wide (i.e. at least 28).
bhop73
Well-known
I used to feel the same, then I started carrying my Olympus stylus epic and XA around more than my bigger cameras (because of bicycle + camera size) and eventually got used to the 35mm FOV.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Dave,
35mm is at its best when taking close up portraits of people along with their surroundings.
Whenever I did this with 50mm, I always have to step back or just couldn't find a good composition.
I can use 50mm for shots with a clear-cut subject such as this:
But 35mm does the rest and is by far my most preferred focal length.
Plus in a pinch, I can even do landscape with it
35mm is at its best when taking close up portraits of people along with their surroundings.
Whenever I did this with 50mm, I always have to step back or just couldn't find a good composition.
I can use 50mm for shots with a clear-cut subject such as this:
But 35mm does the rest and is by far my most preferred focal length.
Plus in a pinch, I can even do landscape with it
raytoei@gmail.com
Veteran
here is a good article by David Alan Harvey, where he says that he cut his teeth on 50 primes but likes the 35mm focal length very much:
http://betterphotography.in/2011/08/03/dream-lens-david-alan-harvey/
here is the killer shot from that article:
http://betterphotography.in/2011/08/03/dream-lens-david-alan-harvey/
here is the killer shot from that article:
dave lackey
Veteran
These are all good, very good comments. Thanks to all.
I am open to a 35 prime in lieu of my zoom lenses on the Nikons.
Ideally... after winning the local lottery...
If I continue with the M3, I would like to keep the 50 as a midpoint and my brain wants to go 35 lux for wide and the 75 Lux for a tele. It just strikes a balance for me.
On the R4, I can keep the 50 cron as a midpoint and again, balance the wide with the 35 Lux (or a 28 2.8) and the tele at 80mm Lux.
In the real world, a Cron would substitute for the Lux lenses with either the M3 or the R4.
(On the digi side, if I go with the X1 and the fixed lens (at 35mm more or less), I will go through a mental change that might be worthwhile...or not.)
This should be an interesting exercise.:angel:
Again, great comments and much appreciated as usual from all of you!
Thanks to all.I am open to a 35 prime in lieu of my zoom lenses on the Nikons.
Ideally... after winning the local lottery...
If I continue with the M3, I would like to keep the 50 as a midpoint and my brain wants to go 35 lux for wide and the 75 Lux for a tele. It just strikes a balance for me.
On the R4, I can keep the 50 cron as a midpoint and again, balance the wide with the 35 Lux (or a 28 2.8) and the tele at 80mm Lux.
In the real world, a Cron would substitute for the Lux lenses with either the M3 or the R4.
(On the digi side, if I go with the X1 and the fixed lens (at 35mm more or less), I will go through a mental change that might be worthwhile...or not.)
This should be an interesting exercise.:angel:
Again, great comments and much appreciated as usual from all of you!
Redridge
Newbie
try shooting at some cars at a show when people are around, space can be limited... you will see the difference of the 35 and the 50. Standing at the same distance, the 50 will get you details, while the 35 will get you the whole car.