Which Pair: 35/90 or 35/75

[ktmrider]

I will be traveling for 90 days hiking a 100 miles each in Scotland and Spain. We are trying to keep things light and total luggage is a medium size pack. I am taking an M9 with 21/35/90.

Let's leave the 21 out of this discussion. If one of the lenses you packed was the 35, what would be the second focal length: 75 or 90?

In 45 years of photography, I have never owned a 75mm. For years I carried the standard 35/50/90 combo and never felt the need but I could see it pairs nicely with the 35. Honestly, so does the 90mm.

 

[Rob-F]

Time was, when I had only a 35 and a 90. Though it wasn't always easy, I could usually find a way to frame a shot well enough to get along without a 50--though eventually I bought the 50 (and a 28, and a 75, and a 21 . . .). The 35/90 combo can work, but it does leave a gap in the middle. Using a 75 closes that gap, even if it does not quite have the reach of the 90. The little CV 75, I think it's f/2.5, is small and light, just right for hiking.

I think you should spend a little time framing subjects using your frame selector lever, to see which focal length might result in the greatest number of keepers. At this moment, I'm thinking the 75 is the right choice for the hike.

 

[back alley]

to answer your question, i prefer a 75 to a 90…i know there is little difference but…
overall, my choice would be an 85 and yes, i know there is even less difference…

i have had all 3 and i always seem to use an 85 more than either of the other 2.

 

[taemo]

I've never been a fan of 55-80mm range, always found it odd, love 50mm, can get by 85mm.
my 90mm T-E-M is so small and light that I can carry it with me no problem.

have to agree with Rob, look through your M9 and see how the 75mm frameline feels to you.

 

[Godfrey]

I will be traveling for 90 days hiking a 100 miles each in Scotland and Spain. We are trying to keep things light and total luggage is a medium size pack. I am taking an M9 with 21/35/90.

Let's leave the 21 out of this discussion. If one of the lenses you packed was the 35, what would be the second focal length: 75 or 90?

In 45 years of photography, I have never owned a 75mm. For years I carried the standard 35/50/90 combo and never felt the need but I could see it pairs nicely with the 35. Honestly, so does the 90mm.

21/40/90 has been a standard of mine since my first CL. 35 is not so different from 40.

G

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

A small 28, a fast 50 (they can be small) and a 90... Not big, not heavy.
If it has to be 35 and just one more lens, I'd prefer anything closer to 50 than the 90...
Again, if a 50 is used, 35 may be not wide enough, talking about normal wides, so I prefer a 28...
I see little reason to skip the 50... They're usually small, sharp, fast, and can be used for lots of things... Just my opinion...
Cheers,
Juan

 

[FrozenInTime]

21,35 and 75 works well for me as a travel kit. I tried 21,50,90 but missed 35mm and the 90 was rarely used.
I used to hate the 75mm because of the poor frame lines, and sold my Summilux because of this. However lately thanks to the x1.25 magnifier, I'm happy with the 75mm Summicron.
With a single body, a 35mm can sort of fill in for the 50mm and 75mm is not too long to stand in for the 50mm; so rushed shots with the wrong lens normally work out okay.

 

[Bingley]

Of your choices, I would pick 35/90. I had a 75 and never bonded with the focal length. It's neither fish nor fowl, IMO. OTOH, if you're backpacking in Scotland, a 90 will be very useful for landscapes, with selectivity helpful for that terrain.

 

[BTMarcais]

21/35/90 has been one of my favorite combos for a long time. (sometimes I'll swap out the 35 for a 50 though). 35/90 is probably the most useful 2 lens set up for me. I treat it like a wide standard lens, and a long standard lens. You can get most shots with those 2 (and for the rest, you have the 21!)
I'm with Bingley- I love using the 90 for landscapes. That slightly tighter crop you get allows you to isolate the part of the surroundings that attracted your attention in the first place. I probably use the 90 for landscapes as often as I do the 21...

-Brian

 

[f16sunshine]

Hiking?

I would take the 90. Only because I would take a 180 or 200 with the kind of Hikes I usually do.
Will 90 really get you close enough when you need some reach?
75 is only a couple steps closer than 50 so leave that at home.

Sounds like a great time. Enjoy!! 🙂

 

[Archiver]

I think this really depends on what subjects and distances you prefer to shoot, and the anticipated environment. For example, a 90 would be excellent if you are in a lot of long, flat outdoors areas with subjects in the distance, or if you want portraits with very blurred backgrounds. For people and other subjects at middle and somewhat closer distances, 75 is my preference on the M9.

On a three week trip through Japan, I took a 21, 35, 50 and 75. I hardly ever used the 75 and it stayed at the hotel most of the time, as the visual environment needed to be captured in a shorter focal length. Picking out subjects or getting as close as a 75 wasn't really necessary for me, but your photographic preferences may differ.

Having said that, I've also traveled with the Oly EM-5 and Panasonic 12-35, Oly 45 and 75. Many images were shot at 12mm in order to capture whole streetscapes and interiors, I went up to 35 (70mm eq.) quite a bit, and I used the 45mm a surprisingly fair amount of the time.

I wasn't as keen on using the Oly 75mm (150mm full frame equivalent) as subjects were often too close. If I was traveling again, I'd use the 12-35, the Pana 35-100, and a fast prime like the Oly 25/1.8. This combination would give me the widest flexibility. But this isn't relevant to the discussion.

 

[hepcat]

I love my CV 75mm f/1.8 on my M9 for a LOT of things... it's a tough choice, but I think for travel, my Summicron 90 would be in my bag. The 75mm is a tiny bit smaller and lighter which is nice, but it's not quite long enough when you want the reach. The bottom line is that the 90 is neither significantly enough larger or heavier to cause me not to want to carry it.

 

[ktmrider]

Last Trip

Last Trip

On my last trip (month motorcycling in Laos in Feb/Mar), I carried the M9 for the first time and 21, 50, and 90. Missed the 35 a lot and barely used the other two lenses. Perhaps, I should just take the 35 or go super light and just take the X100.

 

[Ronald M]

Beware of weight. Leica 75 are pretty heavy. Other brands ?

35 V4, coll 50 2.8 , maybe an old 90 4.0 elmar.

Weight aside, 75 can be cropped to 90. Therefor I pick 75. Leicas 75 APO is very sharp, but not harsh like some lenses. Downside is weight.

 

[Paul Jenkin]

I don't have a rangefinder that offers me a longer option than 50mm (as I use a Bessa R4M). However, if I want a light travel kit, I take FM3a + 20mm, 35mm and 85mm lenses. The 35mm sometimes gets swapped for a 50mm/f1.2 and I don't think it will make much difference (from a focal length point of view) whether you take 75mm or 90mm. For me, it would be which lens gives me the results I prefer / want.

 

[MaxElmar]

Myself, I'm a 20/4 + 40/2 kind of photographer when in RF land. Very light and small. Covers a lot of typical subjects when out and about. There's also a 90/2.8 TE that I probably left home.

 

[presspass]

I've been trying to get comfortable with the 35/75 pairing for years. It makes more sense than the 35/90, but … Given my druthers, I'll take a 21, 35, 50, 90, but that's four lenses. The 75 fits the bill better than the 90 for the three-lens kit. I'm trying it again this week. We'll see.

 

[mike rosenlof]

I few years for a trip to Japan I carried only a 100mm on an OM-1. It worked well for me.

Hawaii this year was with a CV 75mm on an old Leotax. I think there was only one situation that I wished for something wider.

Wide angle lenses and I don't get along that well. The range of 75 to 100mm is a good fit for me. I think between a 75 or 90 most photographers would adapt equally well to either. If there's a lot of hiking involved, I would pick the lighter of the two.

 

[kbg32]

I'd go with 21/35/90.

 

[Finglas]

Not so sure I'd agree with the comment below about the weight of the Leica 75mm being a setback as Leica do also have their 75mm f2.5 summarit-m is quite reasonable indeed, nothing heavy about it - (345g) just another option in respect of the 75mm

I use both 75mm and 90mm on my MP and both are great, but now I am more inclined to use the 75mm - however I must confess I don't do hiking.
Although I now prefer the 75mm myself I think 90mm is better with hiking scenes.