Why do you like the 35mm focal length?

hmm...i don't get how 80mm can look normal to you in 6x6 when 50mm doesn't look normal in 35mm. an 80mm lens has a 53-degree field of view in 6x6 (47-degrees in 6x4.5, a more natural aspect ratio). in small format, a 50mm lens also has a 47-degree FOV, whereas a 35mm lens is 63-degrees. you need about a 60mm lens in medium format to get the same FOV as 35mm in small format.
 
I think you put too much emphasis on the maths.. It's about the feel, to me the 80mm on 6x6 is equally adaptable to different situations as the 35mm on small format. They both are equally flexible..

First image: 80mm looking 'wide',
Second image: 80mm looking 'almost tele'
Third image: 35mm looking 'wide'
Fourth image: 35mm looking 'almost tele'
 
I think the "spooking your subjects" issue is something that you can easily overcome with practice. Pre-focus, keep the camera in your hand by your side, not around the neck, and snap the picture when close enough.

I love the 35mm - it is my telephoto on the M2. For walkabouts, you cannot beat the 21mm.
 
that's not really the criteria by which i define normal. any lens can look "almost wide" or "almost tele" if objects in the image are arranged and framed in a way "typical" to wide and tele shots, i.e. encompassing a scene, or having a closer foreground overlap a farther background, compressing the horizon, etc. that's hardly unique to 35mm lenses, as you can see with the 80mm. koudelka even used a 25mm lens and some of them looked almost telephoto. these effects depend quite a bit on the size and distance of objects, and tell tale signs of a person's working distance can be reduced, even eliminated if we haven't had direct experience of such objects and scenes to say "that object isn't really that far away" or something.

normal lenses are the easiest to get a sense of depth and space that looks normal, realistic, in photos that you don't work over aesthetically, the artless ones.
 
I'm also in the faction that doesn't find the 35mm lens useful despite my owning several of them. For the most part, a 50mm Summicron, or 50mm LTM Nikkor is more useful to me. If I need to shoot with a wide angle, the 35 isn't "wide enough"; I prefer a 28mm.

My most used lens, other than the 50mm, is a 90mm. This seems to better suit the way I visualize a shot than a wide angle lens. Perhaps it is because I prefer to stand back a bit when shooting people than to be right on top of them.

No accounting for taste, of course.
 
Paul Connet said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ah, isn't that always the point?
To spook or not to spook.... Or at least we think we might spook the subject, which is why so many of us have problems to do "proper" street photography. I always feel hesitant to shoot when I feel like voyeur or that I'm shooting for "selfish" reasons. Getting closer and really interacting with the subject makes it easier for me to loose the feeling of being a voyeur or selfishness.

The 35 is a nice focal length and I use it often, as I do 50mm and 25mm.
 
sleepyhead said:
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.
Click to expand...


Wow! That's a tough exercise! But the "maths" sound good. I'll try to keep it in mind.
 
It will work well. I like 35 mainly as it allows me to work comfortably with prefocused/hip shots at f/8 and in the 1.5-3 meters range.

But perspective of objects in the image can easily fool your eyes...
 
Last edited:
Here's an interesting, on topic, quote from Magnum Photographer Bruce Gilden:

"The older I get, the closer I get -- I mean, in proximity to my subject. I'm showing more while using a smaller palette because I'm just taking someone's face, yet I'm saying more. Because in that face is a whole life. When people walk around the city, they daydream or they're thinking -- so I try to catch them unawares. When I succeed in the composition and in the emotional content, I get a strong photograph. Instead of switching to larger cameras or some other technical change, I go in deeper in the direction of the close-up. There are very little variations in the twenty years I've been photographing in Manhattan, and those variations come only after I take breaks -- not a vacation, but a cold, or working on something else. I don't like taking the breaks, but there's always a different angle that comes up. So what's happened over the years is I've gotten closer to people. Like I said, my pictures are not only about the form, but they're about the emotion. And the closer you get, the easier it is to get a strong emotion and relay that emotion to the viewer. And all of these things were in my subconscious, I'm sure. But when I look at the pictures, these things come up and reveal what is probably going on. The thing was done, and then the thought, because it just happens intuitively. I think if you think too much about something, especially on the street, it's gone. So it has to come from within, a natural outgrowth, and you have to let it flow. If I was busy thinking, Well, what am I going to do? Am I going to do this? Am I going to do that? -- if I'm uncomfortable, I can't photograph."

His work has a 35mm/28mm/21mm feel to it.

You can see his work on the Magnum Photos site.
 
Thanks for the quote, Thomas; he puts it very well, and that resonates with me and what I've been doing the past few years. When working close and quickly it has to come together intuitively. I see things that work together in the print that I wasn't consciously aware of at the time of exposure, and this is one of the main joys of photography!
 
Been using the 35 Summilux for a couple of months and that lens has really been living on my camera. Before that the Nocti lived on the camera. Really it depends on what you want to pull out of the bag for the situation. In my opinion the best lens for general walk around shots is either the 28 Summicron or the 35 Summilux. Back me in a corner and tell me that I can only take three lens' with me then I would pick the 28 Summicron, 50 Summilux, and 75 Summicron. That should handle every street shooting situation. IMHO.
 
I have had my R2 & Pancake2 for a year. In a recent review of my pix, I felt more satisfied that I did initially. However, I'm not sure I'm going to keep the P2. It's hard to see the frame lines with glasses. Some of the pix lack detail; maybe I'm too far away. Perhaps an external vf would help but currently not in my budget. I await my Industar 61, recently purchased and sent out for minor work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom