kshapero
South Florida Man
I usually shot with a 50mm lens but started enjoying a 35mm lens. Both are appealing as a one lens kit but which should it be?
jbf
||||||
Thats a good question... I love shooting with the 50mm lens, but as of late i've been using a 28mm... and I gotta say... its a bit too wide for me. Sometimes I shoot in a style similar to winongrand (taking photos of people right infront of me on the street, etc) and so far I've had mixed results. Often times it is too far away. I'll see the image through the viewfinder and feel like it is close enough but when I've developed the shots generally they have been further away than I would have liked.
All of this, and I personally hate to crop my photographs. Sure, minor croppings I"m fine with but I do not like to crop a shot and lose a lot of detail, etc... esp since I mainly use 400 ISO.
So yeah, while I will keep the 28 for now, I'm looking for a used 40 nokton (that's been filed down) to buy now.
As far as a kit lens is concerned... I would probably think about where I am going to be and how the environment around me might keep me from being able to get a certain shot... and if it would be restrictive to use the 50mm then I'd go for the 35.
All of this, and I personally hate to crop my photographs. Sure, minor croppings I"m fine with but I do not like to crop a shot and lose a lot of detail, etc... esp since I mainly use 400 ISO.
So yeah, while I will keep the 28 for now, I'm looking for a used 40 nokton (that's been filed down) to buy now.
As far as a kit lens is concerned... I would probably think about where I am going to be and how the environment around me might keep me from being able to get a certain shot... and if it would be restrictive to use the 50mm then I'd go for the 35.
ernstk
Retro Renaissance
I use my 35mm Summaron on my M2 just about 99% of the time. I find that it's a much more natural perspective than a 50. It seems to be more like a human field of view.
I have a GR Digital (28mm equivalent) and I find that it's just a bit too wide for general street photography. A 35mm fixed lens digital point & shoot would be perfect.
Ernst
I have a GR Digital (28mm equivalent) and I find that it's just a bit too wide for general street photography. A 35mm fixed lens digital point & shoot would be perfect.
Ernst
craygc
Well-known
Primarily I shoot with a 35mm lens, the only other I really use regularly is a 21mm. I find I can work with both a 28mm or a 40mm as a 35mm substitute but the 35mm is king. I have never been able to fathom most peoples' attachment to the 50mm angle of view - I like to work close and 50mm is way too narrow for my likings. Actually I use the same angle of view in 6x7 MF, 65mm and 43mm.
OldNick
Well-known
I use a 35mm Jupiter 12 on my Leica IIIf RD very often because I enjoy photographing airplanes. With a 50, I have to stand back too far to get the framing correct, and often have to contend with people walking between me and the subject. With a 35, I am close enough to get it right without the distractions.
Jim N.
Jim N.
nightfly
Well-known
I use a 35mm Summicron primarily. I find that what I envision is basically what I get and it has this really unique ability to appear wide or normal depending on how it's used. I rarely wish I had another lens.
Since I shoot primarily street and the overall atmosphere of the shot is important to me, I find 50mm too telephoto. It isolates things to a degree that feels sorta cold to me. I don't currently own a 50 actually. The only other lens I have is a 28 which I can use but I don't feel as comfortable with as the 35. I tend to use the 28 when I know I'm going out for something specific that could benefit from a wider field of view (graffiti for example) whereas the 35 is on my camera 98% of the time when I don't know what I will encounter.
The other advantage is that f2 is about as fast as I need and my 28 is 3.5. I can shoot in dark bars or in bright sunlight with the Summicron and I never worry I'm going to have the wrong lens. Also the rendition always impresses me. I find that's really the deal sealer for me. When I used to shoot with a Pentax MX, I shot primarily with the 50mm M1.4 because I really liked the lens whereas the Pentax 35mm F2 M never did anything for me. So I guess it's not just the 35 field of view but the Summicron that does it for me. Although prior to this I had 40mm Summicron which had just as good rendition but the field of view was too in-between for me.
Since I shoot primarily street and the overall atmosphere of the shot is important to me, I find 50mm too telephoto. It isolates things to a degree that feels sorta cold to me. I don't currently own a 50 actually. The only other lens I have is a 28 which I can use but I don't feel as comfortable with as the 35. I tend to use the 28 when I know I'm going out for something specific that could benefit from a wider field of view (graffiti for example) whereas the 35 is on my camera 98% of the time when I don't know what I will encounter.
The other advantage is that f2 is about as fast as I need and my 28 is 3.5. I can shoot in dark bars or in bright sunlight with the Summicron and I never worry I'm going to have the wrong lens. Also the rendition always impresses me. I find that's really the deal sealer for me. When I used to shoot with a Pentax MX, I shot primarily with the 50mm M1.4 because I really liked the lens whereas the Pentax 35mm F2 M never did anything for me. So I guess it's not just the 35 field of view but the Summicron that does it for me. Although prior to this I had 40mm Summicron which had just as good rendition but the field of view was too in-between for me.
ChrisPlatt
Thread Killer
35mm best approximates the field of view of *two* eyes.
For me it gives the most natural perspective.
I use a 35-40mm lens for 100% of my RF photography (65mm on the RF645),
and ~85% of my SLR photography, changing to a short tele mainly for portraits.
Chris
For me it gives the most natural perspective.
I use a 35-40mm lens for 100% of my RF photography (65mm on the RF645),
and ~85% of my SLR photography, changing to a short tele mainly for portraits.
Chris
gb hill
Veteran
The other weekend I was in a downtown district with my camera. I was using an Industar 50 on my Bessa R. I quickly found the field of view to narrow for street, so I reached into my bag & switched out with the 35 color skopar. This gave me the detail I felt comfortable with & the distance so as to not get in your face like with a 28. For me the 35 is the perfect street lens, but I do always carry both the 35 & a 50 in my bag.
raid
Dad Photographer
I am trying very hard to like the 35mm perspective because so many people here seem to view the 35mm focal length as "the most useful". I am failing at liking the 35mm lens for everyday use. I find the 50mm perspective best suited for my photography.
During a trip overseas, I forced myself to use the Canon 35mm/1.8 and I took along on purpose a [slow] 50mm/3.5 to make myself use the [fast] 35mm lens at available light. It worked OK, but I may have had a better time taking photos with a fast 50mm lens.
It just depends how you like to take photos.
Also, I don't see the 40mm focal length other than a compromise for my liking.
During a trip overseas, I forced myself to use the Canon 35mm/1.8 and I took along on purpose a [slow] 50mm/3.5 to make myself use the [fast] 35mm lens at available light. It worked OK, but I may have had a better time taking photos with a fast 50mm lens.
It just depends how you like to take photos.
Also, I don't see the 40mm focal length other than a compromise for my liking.
charjohncarter
Veteran
Probably not what your looking for, but I use only a 35mm lens with my Pentax K10d. One, it seems to be perfect for my style, and two, I never get dust. I leave a 35mm one my Bessa R over 90% of the time. One, I don't like changing lens, especially when I'm out, two, I like the 35mm full frame format using a 35mm lens.
ferider
Veteran
I really like 28/50 or 28/40.
35 is always a compromise for me:
- either as a single lens, replacing two
- it's easier to control perspective than a 28 in a portrait situation
- a fast 35 is much smaller than a fast 28.
Roland.
35 is always a compromise for me:
- either as a single lens, replacing two
- it's easier to control perspective than a 28 in a portrait situation
- a fast 35 is much smaller than a fast 28.
Roland.
kipkeston
Well-known
On the SLRs I loved wide like 24 or 28 I think this is because looking through the glass I felt blinded by narrower lenses. But with a RF with .72 mag for example, I'm no longer blind on the sides which freed me to use narrower lenses.
the 35 is simply an easy lens to use. Most everything most people photograph easily fits into 35 lines. The problem is of course that you won't get that nice tight composition inherent with a 50. Anyway, I used a 35 until I realized my compositions could almost always be tighter so I went for a 50.
the 35 is simply an easy lens to use. Most everything most people photograph easily fits into 35 lines. The problem is of course that you won't get that nice tight composition inherent with a 50. Anyway, I used a 35 until I realized my compositions could almost always be tighter so I went for a 50.
photobizzz
Speak of the Devil
charjohncarter said:
I also have a K10D and if you use a 35mm lens it is actually a 50mm with the mag factor of 1.53.
I have a couple of 50's a 90 and a 40. I tend to use the 50 over the 40 and I got rid of my 35 Ultron. 50 just seems like home, I think it also has to do alot with what you get used to vs the difference in fov.
alan davus
Well-known
I have 6 lenses between 21mm and 90mm but probably use the 35mm most of the time. I think it's the perfect lazy photog.s best friend and I put myself in that catagory.
steve kessel
steve kessel
Akiva
I alternate between a 50 and the 40/1.4 I bought from you. Having just one lens when going out is always a compromise. Sometimes I want a bit more width from the 40, sometimes prefer less perspecive distortion from the 50. I find a 50 also good when close to the action - makes one feel right in it.
Best wishes
Steve
I alternate between a 50 and the 40/1.4 I bought from you. Having just one lens when going out is always a compromise. Sometimes I want a bit more width from the 40, sometimes prefer less perspecive distortion from the 50. I find a 50 also good when close to the action - makes one feel right in it.
Best wishes
Steve
papasnap
Well-known
nightfly said:
Same here - 35mm just seems to fit me just right. It's wide enough to put your subject(s) in a context - which is usually very important for me - but not so wide they get lost at sea.
That, and the wonderful 35mm f1.2 nokton
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
Lately I've been giving serious thought to selling all my glass except for the 35 and trying to get by with just that... it's what I use 90% of the time anyway!
NickTrop
Veteran
Why a 50?
You can shoot portraits - not as good as a portrait lens, but acceptable. Not with a wider lens, which distorts facial features on tighter shots.
You can shoot indoors for those natural light candids in most or many situations, or outdoors, by "taking two steps back".
You can get faster lenses, there's a multitude of them from every manufacturer, f2 and below, very inexpensively. 35's of the same speed cost crazy money, typically and are much less common. An f1.7 35? Try to find one, see what if costs. A f1.7 50mm is considered mundane and you can get a very good "off brand" - like "Yashica" or a "Pentax" on the used market in good condition for - like $10 - $20.
50's over 35. Faster, cheaper, more choices (at fast focal lengths), more versatile. But - in certain situations, not as convenient.
You can shoot portraits - not as good as a portrait lens, but acceptable. Not with a wider lens, which distorts facial features on tighter shots.
You can shoot indoors for those natural light candids in most or many situations, or outdoors, by "taking two steps back".
You can get faster lenses, there's a multitude of them from every manufacturer, f2 and below, very inexpensively. 35's of the same speed cost crazy money, typically and are much less common. An f1.7 35? Try to find one, see what if costs. A f1.7 50mm is considered mundane and you can get a very good "off brand" - like "Yashica" or a "Pentax" on the used market in good condition for - like $10 - $20.
50's over 35. Faster, cheaper, more choices (at fast focal lengths), more versatile. But - in certain situations, not as convenient.
Last edited:
giellaleafapmu
Well-known
kshapero said:
Both lenses give sort of neutral look (not extremely deep or shallow depth of field, no distortion even with the camera tilted), which one is best is up to you.
Actually, (I think I already wrote this) when shotting I rather prefer the look of the 35mm and I often carry around only that lens plus a short telephoto (around 100mm) but when I look at the results I find quite a lot more picture I like which I toke with a 50mm lens.
I start thinking (opinions?) that it is because 50mm never quite fit naturally in anything (it is just too short for portrait and too long for landscapes) so one has to manouver around to find the right angle/distance and is sort of obliged to think more than one would usually do.
A few days ago I made the experiment to go out with just a 200mm lens to shot cityscapes and I got some interesting picture I would have never thought of taking had I not been "obliged" (it is also interesting to see something you like and start walking 50 or more meters back to have it fit into your frame) so possibly the same apply to any focal length if you has the discipline of practicing with just one focal...
GLF
trittium
Well-known
I use the 35mm with my hexar rf because I find it is the best lens with the framelines and vf magnification.
When I use my M2, I use the 35mm for "no looks". It gives me a wider depth of field, larger target area, and slower shutter speed. When I am at a festival I use the 50mm where it is easier to frame, snap, and disappear.
When I use my M2, I use the 35mm for "no looks". It gives me a wider depth of field, larger target area, and slower shutter speed. When I am at a festival I use the 50mm where it is easier to frame, snap, and disappear.