Why do you like the 35mm focal length?

P

Paul Connet

Guest
I see so many folks writing that the 35mm focal length is their favorite lens and is their choice for a "standard" on their rf's. I have several 35's, from the FSU J12 to the Summicron 35, and for some reason I can not seem to come to grips with them for general walk-about use. I do try to use them, really, but ----- :(

I am attaching to this post a series of three shots taken yesterday on a walk-about at a sea-side park. I spotted a young couple about 60 feet or so from me and the man was posing the young woman against a railing and getting set to take a shot with what appeared to be a p&s digital. It looked like a cute shot so I quickly lifted my M6 with 35 Summicron and took the shot knowing that they were too far away for a good picture. The guy was still trying to get just the right pose so he kept giving her suggestions. I thought why not move closer so my shot of them would be better, so I moved to about 25 feet, not daring to get so close as to upset the action. I took a second shot and then turned my attention to other subjects. When I looked back, the girl had removed her shirt and was donning a second shirt. I saw the action but did not photograph it. They again went into photoshoot mode, posing and clicking, so I took my third shot of the activity still about 25 feet from them.

In my opinion, had I been using a 50mm instead of the 35mm, my shots would have been much better, and if I had been alert enough to capture her pulling the first shirt over her head to change, it would have been a modern day HCB shot.

These shots illustrate why I do not particularly like the 35mm focal length.

Regards, Paul C.
 
my "normal" vision angle is about the same as a 40mm lens
35mm comes really close to how I see things

HOWEVER, a 50mm lens has a better perspective than a 35mm IMHO. The 35mm "distrots" the perspective too much. That is maybe why you prefer it, it looks more "normal"

Try buying a camera with a 45mm lens and you'll notice a subtle difference but you may like it better
 
Paul,

I prefer the 50mm focal length myself. But I have to say that I like your shots from 25 ft with the 35mm lens. Had it been a 50mm, you'd see just another shot of a guy in shorts with a stable wide stance to balance the weight of his digital p&s, taken in full light with a bit of background. In this shot, I have a very good sense of the environment around the main subject. You have the natural frame from the tree up top, the interesting shadow in the foreground adding depth, the long railing leading my eye to the subject, and the expanse of the sea, and crashing waves in the background. I think you knew that already, having composed this very well.

But I see your point about the girl changing shirts. The 90mm (or the longest lens you had at the time), would have been nice! :)
 
Joe,

Yes, it's distance. Also practice. Shoot enough 35mm, you pick distances suitable for 35mm. Shoot enough 50mm...

But I have to say I 'graduated' from 50mm to 35mm because 35mm provides frame-filling pictures at the distances where I feel most comfortable.

Cheers,

Roger

Cheers,

Roger
 
I am a 50 guy.

I thing that in general I focus in visually on normal details rather than the whole scene, so the 50 provides that perspective for me.
 
Paul,

You were much too far away for a 35. A 90 would have been better. I love the 50 but when I shoot with the 35 I really have to "step into the scene". That is the important thing...
 
The 35mm gives you a wider field without distortion so it's good for working in tight quarters or up close. More important, the 35 gives you more depth of field -- I think that's more important when shooting with rangefinders than it is with slrs.
 
35 allows for tight shots w/o a lot of distortion, and wide shots when you're kinda close. Your second and third pics were nice, with composition elements contributing to what was happening overall, even the ground shadows. What Ray_G said about this shot with a 50 is right on. Would have been a dull shot. A 35 also compels you to get closer for a good shot, thus better detail depending on film speed/graininess.

chris
canonetc
 
Too Far for a 35

Too Far for a 35

Steve Hoffman said:
Paul,

You were much too far away for a 35. A 90 would have been better. I love the 50 but when I shoot with the 35 I really have to "step into the scene". That is the important thing...
Click to expand...

Steve, and others that have responded re: the 35 and subject distance. I did feel that I was still too far from the subjects when taking the 2nd & 3rd shots, but If I had moved to the 10 - 15 foot distance required, it would have most assuredly have spooked my subjects.

Here is an approximation of what a 50mm would have captured:

Paul C.
 
i like 35mm for the angle of coverage and closer working distances, though i dislike its foreground/background perspective. the proportions are muddy...i just don't like it. works great for flatter, more "forward" scenes. more dof is nice, too. not a replacement for a 28mm, though. i definitely think of it as a "wide normal" for when you don't have enough room to use a 50.
 
I don't like the focal lenght, I much rather shoot with standard lenses, but this is personal preference, I do however like the Leica 35 summiluxes they offer great tonality which suits the angle really well, wish I could that lens on my FM3a.
 
I, in turn, love this focal length. It also forces me to walk, and it's next to perfect when it comes to shooting from the hip.

The 50 is a nice focal length... I just don't use it as much.
 
I just find the 35mm easier to use than the 50mm for what I like to shoot. Each to his own though as to what lens focal length they prefer.

Bob
 
I prefer the 35 over the 50 because it gives me a wider field of view and because I prefer to get people and their environment. Of course it's all about distance, you've got not to hesitate to get really closer. But the other important thing IMHO is the background : because you capture more, it's essential to think about the background, not making it too crowded or you'll loose the main subject on the picture.
 
In this situation, I'd agree with you, Paul! With a 35mm you need to get closer, and the pics would be great... but I'd be reluctant to close in on the couple and disturb their concentration! BTW I love his pro-photog stance! A longer lens here would be fun, maybe a 75 or 90mm.

If you often find yourself in like circumstances where you can't get the framing you want with a 35, then for you it'll likely be a minor-use lens. One of the challenges of wide lenses IS the issue of diving right in close, and working on methods of dealing with people to do that gracefully. And the pics reflect that position with a sense of involvement missing if shot "long". But there's certainly something to be said for either approach; the results are just different.
 
I too think a 35 is about the most versatile focal length there is. About the same length as the long side of the negative, and 1.5 times that of the short side, its about as normal as you can get in 35mm.

The DOF of a 35 is just deep enough to allow wide-angle near/far shots that give a wide-angle impression when closed down, as well as adequate isolation when wide open that you'd associate with a short tele.

If you have a situation where the 35 is too wide, then keep in mind that many of the better 35's allow quite some cropping when used with good quality film.
 
aizan said:
actually, "normal" is the diagonal measurement, about 43mm.
Click to expand...
Yes, you're absolutely right, and for my medium format setup (6x6, or more precise 56mmx56mm) I tend to agree. There the diagonal is approximately 80mm (1.4 times the side) and the not only is the lens normal by definition, the lens 'feels' normal too.

But for 35mm, the format has a 2:3 ratio. And the official normal of 43mm mentioned is almost twice as long as the 24mm short side. Hence my personal 'feel' that 35 is about normal here. Of course, your mileage may vary.
 
SUBJECT TOO FAR AWAY: here's a rule that I'm trying

SUBJECT TOO FAR AWAY: here's a rule that I'm trying

Hi Everyone. I think that being too far from the subject (usually out of respect or cowardice) is my biggest problem as a "street" photographer - and I should note that I tend to use 35mm lens as my "normal", and don't like 90mm lenses very much because they ten d to isolate the subject too much and feel abit like spying.

I recently I decided to try to implement a little "rule of thumb". It goes like this:
Take the focal length of the lens in mm (e.g., 35mm), divide by 10, and ALWAYS try to be closer than that distance in METERS from the subjectof interest.

For example:
25mm wideangle, would be 2.5 meters (8.25 feet) OR CLOSER
50mm lens, would be 5 meters (16.5 feet ) OR CLOSER

I'm gonna try this for a few months. 'Let you know what happens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom