What's _YOUR_ RF Focal Length?

What's _YOUR_ RF Focal Length?

  • Wider

    Votes: 12 1.8%

  • 25

    Votes: 16 2.4%

  • 28

    Votes: 39 6.0%

  • 35

    Votes: 218 33.3%

  • 40

    Votes: 95 14.5%

  • 50

    Votes: 259 39.6%

  • 60

    Votes: 1 0.2%

  • 75

    Votes: 6 0.9%

  • 85

    Votes: 2 0.3%

  • 90

    Votes: 5 0.8%

  • Longer

    Votes: 1 0.2%
  • Total voters
    654
It has to be something between 35 and 50 for me. These are the only lenses I have (35, 50, 53).
Wider mostly is too wide and longer often too long for me.
I guess I prefer the compromise: 40mm. Gives me the best of both worlds...
...and my fav fixed lens RF cams sport lenses between 40 and 45mm.
 
Last edited:
I voted 50 because I have more 50s than any other focal length. It just feels easy to shoot with.

I like 35 as much though. I have a LTM Summaron that I haven't used yet because it looks a bit hazy and needs a CLA. I love the CV 35 Color Skopar. I also like using my Jupiter 12. I think part of it is because I have an M2 and R4M and the framelines for 35 are great on them both. It is probably the focal length I like the most but I use it less for now.

I do have a CV 21mm too but I only really use it for landscapes and nature photos.

Its a tough choice. Each length has its uses.
 
Last edited:
Last year I used 35 nearly all the time. This year I have used 50 much more than 35.

Wonder what next year will bring ?

I've never been really happy with my results from anything wider than 35.
 
The 40mm frame on the 0.85 M finder would have been nice. Although I find the 80mm on the Mamiya 7 and 65 on RF645 much more useful than a 50mm equivalent, I still find myself using the 65 on 6x7 and 35 on 35mm most of all. Such a great compromise if you are happy to get in moderately close. I am shooting 50mm slighly more than I used to but cannot imagine I will ever feel it is an all rounder for my purposes.

I have never tried 40mm on 35mm film and would probably like it, but with no frame lines in current Ms, its not going to happen sadly.
 
When I started I thought I was a 35 user. But after a couple of years I realised I prefer 50 much more than 35. It's the way a 50mm manages to isolate a subject, but not in a telephoto way. Looks natural, but less of the clutter of something wider than 35mm. Its this neat look that I prefer.
 
dufffader said:
When I started I thought I was a 35 user. But after a couple of years I realised I prefer 50 much more than 35. It's the way a 50mm manages to isolate a subject, but not in a telephoto way. Looks natural, but less of the clutter of something wider than 35mm. Its this neat look that I prefer.
Click to expand...

Well explained!
 
Turtle said:
...40mm would pair superbly as part of a 28-40-75 kit.. Do any of you shoot this?
Click to expand...
I agree with this choice, Turtle! And a very excellent vehicle for at least the 28 and 40 is the Minolta CLE... on which I use the 28 Summicron, 40 Rokkor, 40 Nokton, and 43 Pentax. Unfortunately this camera has no 75mm framelines, but one can either fudge with the 90mm frame or use the nice CV 75mm accessory finder.
 
For me it depends on the camera. With the M4-2 I used a 50/2 Summicron. Now I prefer 40/2 Summicron with Cl and Cle. Even on my R-D1 I prefer 40 to my 28 Rokkor. I don't matter the crop factor.
 
I started RF photography with a 35 (came with the camera). At the end of a few months I felt very comfortable with it though I still struggled a little with predicting its perspective distortion. I then got a 50 and yes, it's more challenging with regard to composition, especially since I like to take the occasional pictures of architecture and live in NYC. But the challenges spurred me on and now the 50 spends most of the time on the camera (as I still feel like I am working on it, despite having now shot it more than the 35). I still break out the 35 from time to time but the 50 gets the most use. Again, I still feel like I am trying to wrangle the 50 and how the framelines correlate to the exposed image but I am sure that I will eventually get to the point where I am then unfamiliar with the 35 and will have to spend time with the 35 again. I used 28 and 50 a lot with my SLR but now I am preferring 35 and 50 with RF.
 
Normal, walking around lens is either 50 or 35. I use 50 more lately. I do use the range 21-90 on the cameras, though.

Put another way: I use 65mm on 6x7 format, with a 150mm in my pocket. That is closer to 35mm. I leave the 80 mm (normal) lens at home.
 
I agree, cuts right to the point for me as well.

Kent

RayPA said:
I like that distinction. 🙂

Originally Posted by aizan
50mm...there's a greater emphasis on composition with it, though i'd like a 35mm, which seems to place a greater emphasis on content.

.
Click to expand...
 
Well I voted 35mm because I only have that one lens for my rangefinder right now, although a 50mm is in the mail. I'll be interested to see how the dynamic changes then, although I back my original judgement that the 35mm will still get the most use.

It is interesting, isn't it, that the 35-40-50 block is so prominent in the voting. Perhaps rangefinders lend themselves to a more "normal" (less "exotic") way of seeing or perhaps indeed those of us who come to rangefinders do so after cutting our teeth on the exotics with SLRs etc. Hmm, not sure...
 
I like 50's okay, but time and again I'm framing a shot that needs me to back up more and I can't. Or the image just needs the background to be pushed further back. Whenever I'm packing just a 50, I always end up mad at myself for not bringing along the 35. I should work the other way around. Pack a 35 and bring along a 50 just in case.
 
I tend to adhere to one-camera-fixed lens approach. Hence having shooting with both 50mm and 35mm, I keep 35mm "welded" to my M6 0.72 and 50mm - to my M7 0.85 (formerly to M3). Then, when for people's shootout (such as events or similar) and low-light, there goes 50mm, however for all-around outdoors and non-dedicated trips - the preference usually goes to 35mm.
 
I'm new to RF's. I voted 40mm however, which seems to be what I gravitate to more than anything else. 40mm in field of view terms mind, as the lens used is a 28mm on a 1,5 cropped digital RF body.
 
This poll has been around for almost two years, so I beleiev there is a large enough sample size.

I'm actually somewhat surprised that the 50mm has received more votes that the 35mm (approx 39.6% to 31.5%), and not by a slim margin at that. I would've thought it'd be the other way around.
 
I tend to shoot a lot of "documentary" images: architecture, trains, antique cars, etc.

Often, I can't get back very far from my subject, so I've gravitated to keeping a 35mm lens on my Leica III with Nikon Varifocal finder on top, all he time. Riding along in my kit bag are my 50 mm Summicron, 90 mm Elmar, and 135 Hektor.

In order of greatest user (most to least):

35 - 90 - 50 - 135

Next focal-legnth acquisition will be a 21 mm C-V.


Luddite Frank
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom