What is your most used focal length?

P

Peter

Guest
Dear All,

Another poll. Which is the most used focal length for your RF system? Mine was 50mm and now is 35mm.

:D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
For me it's definitely the "normal" lens. In the 1960s I used a Japanese Beauty Super II rangefinder with a non-interchangeable Canter f2.0 45mm lens. This little known camera and lens produced excellent results. Employing the "foot zoom" I could shoot just about anything I wanted to (except macro work). I also like normal lenses because they are fast and therefore good for available light photography.

In the 1970s I switched to SLRs. Then I started using moderate telephotos for portraits and wide angle lenses when working in cramped quarters. Still, most of my pictures were taken with the 50mm lens on my SLR.

Now I have some Russian rangefinders with lenses ranging from 35mm to 135mm. But I still use the normal lens more than anything else.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I was pretty much a 35mm guy, but have rediscovered the 50mm ,so it's kinda up in the air.

The neat thing about the Bessa R2 (and other RF I assume) is that the viewfinder shows a degree of empty frame around the 50mm bright lines, so you get a heads up on whats about to come into the frame.

This is a useful creative tool.
 
for 35 mm i used to use the 35 and 85/90, mostly the 35.
for my mamiya 6 i probably use the normal 75 mm lens most and then the 150, i don't have the 50.

joe
 
Using a 35 recently

Using a 35 recently

It really depends what I am shooting and where. I use a 35 a bit on my ranegfidners and with the Voigtlander 35/1.2 I am using it a bit at my favorite hangout. But I also employ a 50 and an 85/90 often as well
 
MF: 75, 80 and 150
35mm: 50 and 90

I'm very sad to say that I've never been able to 'see' in Wide Angle focal lengths even though I tried 28 in 35mm for some time.

If I could only live with one focal length I would pick something along the line of 85-90 in 35mm - it's where I seem most comfortable.
 
Interesting question, I had to think about it.

There is a martial arts concept that a warrior has no favorite weapon, which can be translated to photography (or anything else) as "use the right tool for the job." In that spirit, when in earnest about making photographs I carry a boatload of equipment, not knowing exactly what will be required and to be prepared for whatever. Just because I use one or another lens often/seldom doesn't mean I can think of it differently than any other. Put another way, my favorite lens is the one that gets the job done.

All that blather aside, for 35 mm I usually find the 35 mm most appropriate, for 6X6 most often the 75 mm (with the 50 mm first runner-up).

Are we having fun, yet?
 
zsnaps,

don't you think that we 'see' things when we are out shooting from our own unique perspective. and if so, wouldn't we then 'see' things with a certain angle or slice of vision, oh hell, you know what i mean!

i quite often find myself admiring very wide angle shots. i think because i don't normally see that way. i have had very wide angle lenses in the past and never used them. i don't see that way.
if this is making sense i'll be happy!
joe
 
For many years I favored the 35 Summicron and 50-85 Takumars. More and more I found the 35-40mm view producing the best pics.

Now it seems the 25-28mm and 35-40mm fields of view are about equally balanced in use, both in 35 and MF. Just got an (offtopic) 2.8/75 for the 6x7 and a GA645Wi (4/45)... whee!
 
backalley photo said:
zsnaps,

don't you think that we 'see' things when we are out shooting from our own unique perspective. and if so, wouldn't we then 'see' things with a certain angle or slice of vision, oh hell, you know what i mean!

i quite often find myself admiring very wide angle shots. i think because i don't normally see that way. i have had very wide angle lenses in the past and never used them. i don't see that way.
if this is making sense i'll be happy!
joe
Click to expand...

Actually, I believe you probably do see that way. A person with normal vision sees everything in super wide angle without a frame.

When we see with photography in mind it is within the limitations of what equipment is available. Even if we don't own a particular piece, lens or camera, there are enough published samples so we can get the general sense of how it images and that gets stored in our subconscious, thus available for image evaluation. We usually compose mentally in rectangles and in 2 dimensions, even though the eyes don't see that way, because available cameras are made to produce pictures in rectangular formats and have only one lens. The photographer's eye is trained to the limitations of manufacturing technology, and so are the expectations of viewers.

Back when most photographers, amateur and professional, used cameras with fixed lenses, 40-some degrees was "normal" for most viewing. When manufacturers provided affordable systems that included lenses in multiple focal lengths, it stretched our optical possibilities. Some of us defaulted to wide or narrower angles of view than the previous standard of "normal," but most remain comfortable with 40+ degree rendition, a coverage that seems to work for many, most or all subjects, depending on the individual.

It has been interesting to watch the progress of expectations in photography. Over years wide angle effects have gone from the status of novelty to just another POV. I remember, for example, when wedding photographers would never use WA lenses, especially wider ones, because people would simply not accept the appearance of "distortion" with off-axis subjects. Now, some wide angle treatments are expected and enjoyed. Others, like fisheye views, were fads that are seldom seen these days.

I don't regard equipment limitations as a negative :rolleyes: , btw. Every art has some technical boundaries, and I like the discipline of working (or fooling around) therein. My problem is too much coffee, which gets me too wordy sometimes.
 
Two of my carry-arounds -- Olympus XA and Stylus Epic -- have fixed lenses of 35mm so those are the ones I like :)

I particularly enjoy using the 40mm lens on my Leica CL and use it most of the time. When I go wide with the CL I go with a 21mm V/C which is becoming a lens I use more and more.

Gene
 
I feel the 35 on a 35 is perfect for me. Not too wide or short but just right. Not to mention its incredibly sharp.
 
Most used lens?

The "Normal" for each format/camera I shoot.

The 50mm's for the Kiev and Nikon rangefinders.

80mm for the 645's (no, not rangefinders, but the 1000 DOES have a rangefinder spot in the focusing screen- does that count?)

100mm f/2.8 on the Universal using 6x7/6x9
127mm f/5.6 on the Universal using the Polaroid back

90mm on the RB.

Of course, on the 7 the mixture was pretty even between all three lenses- I actually didn't use the 80mm as much as the 150mm and 43mm combined, but I did tend to use it more often than either.
 
I most frequently find myself using rangefinders in low light situations so I depend on the fast "normal" lens -- 35mm on the Konica Hexar and 45 mm on the G2.

When roaming the streets in daylight, I love the 21 mm lens and the 25mm that Voightlander offers.

Alan
 
Lets see, I use one of my rangefinders most of the time. I also rotate them, so 40mm, 45, 38, 35. I don't have a 50 for Bessa, well I just can't get used to my Jupiter 8 though I took some nice shots with it. By default I would say 35 and I think that is a good focal length for me, particularly indoors, though I really like 50mm. Perfect for me all things being equal is probably somewhere around 45mm.
 
when i pack the camera i select which lenses& bodies i
will carry based on what im doing. how fast i need to work and how far im going may also limit me.
the first lens may well be all i will have time for.
its often a argument over the 1.4 or the f2/ 50;
and the only other first lens is the 35/f2;/
unless my purpose is portraits; then its 50;90/75./135/35/21.
on occasion i carry a 21mm s/a on a mda.its a point and shoot with real potential.
sometimes i have 2 or 3 cameras each with a different lens/loaded.
the choices ; can also include ;
the print quality needed; and what focus effect /will be useful.
each shoot has some special considerations- can i change my position;
stuff like that. can i change the lighting...etc.
fcg
 
I used to think 50mm was my thing; I liked the 45mm focal lenght in the Contax G1 and the 50mm was the lens I dreamed of with a Leica, but then I found about wide-angles and after getting the Planar 35mm that's the focal lenght I like. :)
 
Last edited:
I started out with a 50mm on my slr lens like most people. My first two aux lenses were a 28mm and a 135mm. Pretty much the standard next two lenses in the day. I soon realized that I needed something wider than a 28mm and was doing pretty much OK with the 135mm. I got an 18mm and a 35mm was thown in for free. I just can't get myself to like the 35mm. It just isn't wide enough! I love the 18mm to this day, and have gotten a 24mm to flesh out my slr prime lens set (OK, so I later got an 80-200 zoom, and a 300mm).

With my other 35mm system, I have an 18-28 zoom, 28-70 zoom, and 75-150 zoom for quick and light. Nice range. Since I also carry a 500mm mirror, a ttl flash, the 300mm and a 90-230 zoom along with a backup FX3 body and the Contax 50mm f/1.4, the bag isn't usually as light as I wanted it to be when I decided on the first three zooms.

With my Mamiya Super Press 23 rangefinder (to get back on topic), I prefer my 50mm lens along with the 100mm normal. I don't even have a telephoto, and don't really miss it.

All more than you wanted to hear I guess. The bottom line for me is that I always want wide even if I have a normal. I sometimes go out with nothing but a 24mm on the camera if I want to travel really light. If I wanted to be super light with the other, it would be the 28-70. With the Mamiya, frankly, I ususally go for the normal, but I know where the 50mm is at all times.

All that to say I am with Francisco on wide. I just prefer a little more room.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom