Why 35mm is the best, talking head video.

It’s a very subjective topic. I never understood the “normal” lens of 43mm because that masks so much of what I see. I’m more at home with the SWC and when it comes to “regular” cameras, the 28. Or the 50.
 
I agree; it's my favorite prime. (followed closely by 85)

On the other hand, compared to a zoom, we can often miss the moment by having to "zoom with our feet" or change lenses. If I had to choose between a 35/2 and a 24-120/4, it would be a tough call. (thinking of the 3rd generation 24-120 VR Nikkor...)
 
43mm is close to the diagonal measurement of the 36mm negative.

I have no clue if the field view of normal human vision matches the viewing angle or angle of coverage of 35mm lens when matched to a 35mm negative - because images become degraded in our peripheral vision - but I like the proposed theory.
 
I'm a 35 person as well. Occasional flirtations with 28 and cold feelings toward 50...
I don't use 35 because I think it's 'better'; more of a convenience thing. Where I live there is a lot of space so I can (usually) take a few steps forward or backward to get whatever angle of view I want from the scene.
 
43 is just as no go for me as 50. Slightly, tiny bit wider than 50.

I have no idea who came with 50 as kit lens.
My guess, it was just cheapest way to make and nothing else. It is tele suitable for portraits. Perhaps, back then it was less crowded everywhere. At least, according to population statistics.
 
charjohncarter said:
Maybe the designer of the Olympus 35RC saw this video. I like it's 43mm lens. BUT I have a 35mm f/2 permanently on my K1
Click to expand...

I like the 70s fixed lens rangefinders, but hate the 45 mm focal length they often came with. 40 is better, but still too tele.

Finally, I found the Yashica Electro 35 CC, with its 35/1.8. If only there were repair parts available so that Mark Hama could fix mine and get it back to me... Meanwhile, I'm using a 35/2 on my Nikon FE2 and a 28-105 on my N90s.
 
On 35mm cameras, I have used 55, 50, 45, 40, 35, and 28mm lenses as my "normal" lens. As others have said, which one is best is very subjective. Personally, the 35mm is my favorite.

I currently use the following 35mm lenses:
Vivitar 35mm f/2.8 with M42 mount (recently replaced with a Pentax Takumar 35mm f/3.5)
Nikon 35mm f/2 with Nikon F mount
Nikon 35mm f/1.4 AIS with Nikon F mount
Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 with Leica M mount

With these lenses, I can capture about 50% of the general subjects that I need to photograph.


35mm Wide-Angles by Narsuitus, on Flickr
 
I think it is subjective. People have different degrees of peripheral awareness. The 40 mm Rokkor lens covers exactly my field of awarenes and is perfect for the street/landcape photography I do. When I see an attractive composition I can simply raise the camera and shoot it without moving (which is good because moving closer or further away will usually destroy the composition that attracted my attention in the first place), assuming I scan/print myself. 35mm is a little wider than my field of attention; however, photo labs will tend to crop scans/prints so that from a 35 mm lens you will be left with about 40 mm field of view on the scanned image. I can take my 35 mm images to the lab but I have to scan my 40mm images myself because they get cropped too narrow by the lab.
 
I don't hear an explanation there why 35mm is supposed to be the best. Everything he says could also apply to 50 or 28 or even wider. And obviously many do pick these or something else.
 
retinax said:
I don't hear an explanation there why 35mm is supposed to be the best. Everything he says could also apply to 50 or 28 or even wider. And obviously many do pick these or something else.
Click to expand...

Actually, monochrome memories guy did mentioned why 50 is not 35, in his video. And why 35 is better than 50. :)
 
for me, 35mm is more of an acceptable approximation of 40mm. definitively prefer a little bit longer (45mm .. 58mm), but it's a preference that changes on a daily basis.

if wide, i tend to go to 20mm or 21mm.

tastes are different. one man's owl is the other man's nightingale.
 
I opened this thread thinking it was about 35mm film.

On topic, I have 35mm lenses, but I have never actually used them. They just never seem to fit what I want to do.

My "normal" is an 85mm and my wide is a 28mm. I do almost everything with these two focal lengths. For Portraiture, I would use 85mm, 100mm, and 135mm. I read people here talk of 50mm as a portrait lens, but that only makes sense to me for environmental portraiture.

For new photographers, I think a 50mm focal length is more flexible than 35mm. 50mm works for everything from close-ups, to environmental portraits, to scenery. It may not be ideal for any one of these, but it can do it all in a pinch.

(I watched a little over half of the video, but I didn't find it persuasive.)


- Murray
 
In my 14 years of full on photography, I began with a 50mm... But as it turns out, THE most used prime I use the is 35 Summicron and 35 Summaron. Following that is my 24/2.8 Zuiko. But, my most used angle is the 35mm, it just works for everything. Even if I see the world at 90mm at times, but mostly I see in 35mm. Interesting.
 
I have no idea what a 'natural' field of vision would be, this said with the unstoppable march of the cellphones, wide angle lenses are now the new 'standard'.
 
Ko.Fe. said:
Perhaps, back then it was less crowded everywhere. At least, according to population statistics.
Click to expand...

It really does come down to this... what space do you have to work with and how close is comfortable for you. There is no “one size fits all” in photography. Only what works for what you want to accomplish.
 
Regarding the "natural human field of view" type of arguments, they're complete nonsense. We don't see a two-dimensional image of the world with defined borders. We construct a mental three dimensional image of the world in our minds, the eyes scan around to acquire information for that. How else would you explain that we (those of us who's eyes can accommodate near and far) don't usually notice things out of focus except in very specific situations of looking through a hole in the fence or so, even though our eyes do have limited dof? How else would you explain we don't experience any geometric distortion, even though there is no way of projecting an image of a three-dimensional world into two dimensions that is free of distortion (rectilinear lenses turn heads into ovals in the corners, fisheyes bend straight lines)? Even at any moment of time with eyes fixed at one position, peripheral vision is something around 150 degrees vertically, but we can also notice only what's in an arbitrarily small field if we're highly concentrated. There really is no naturalistic argument to be had, everyone needs to find their own reasons for choosing focal lengths.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom