wider angled lenses

[island88]

Shooting with a 35mm lens vs 50mm
Is it me or is it a lot harder to shoot with wider angled lenses?

 

[markjwyatt]

Shooting with a 35mm lens vs 50mm
Is it me or is it a lot harder to shoot with wider angled lenses?

35mm is just a bit wider than normal for me. My main wide is the Voigtlander SC Skopar 21mm f4. I also have a Pentacon 30mm f3.5 (Meyer Optik Gorlitz 30mm f4 Lydith) for my M42 kit. I have a few 35mm lenses, and as I said they feel like wider normals than wide angle. Note a direct calc 35mm normal lens is (24mm x 36mm) is SQRT (24^2 + 36^2) = 36.5mm... 50mm comes from considering only the 36mm circle.

​

 

[Ko.Fe.]

50 was sweet in fifties.
OK, I used it until I was able to by my first 35 in 2012 or so. 🙂
35 was my new normal for some years. I have more of 35 than 50ies.
Now I have to force myself to switch to something narrower than 21mm.
It is my normal view angle.
Not centered lens with incurable purple cast in left corner, but I can't let it go 🙂

 

[Dogman]

Wider lenses require you to be closer to your subject. That might be problematic to someone who couldn't be or wouldn't want to be that close.

Personally, I like using the 35mm and 50mm about equally. I enjoy getting close to the subject to get some depth to the photo. A 24/25mm was always my favored focal length but I try not to use it as much today. I don't wanna overdo the look. A 20/21mm is wonderful. It's a cross between Bach and Thelonious Monk--sublime but humorous.


...................................

 

[38Deardorff]

If i had to choose one lens it would be the 35.....I've likely taken more photos with that focal length. To me the 50 is a short tele. I love the 21/28 for travelling in Europe...they just give me more context. I'd only buy a 15 if i had a particular assignment that was in extremely cramped quarters.
(photos w 28mm & 21 mm)

[/url]

 

[oldwino]

35mm is a really versatile focal length, but as someone who shoots mostly 50mm, it seems very wide when you are not used to it.

 

[38Deardorff]

35mm is a really versatile focal length, but as someone who shoots mostly 50mm, it seems very wide when you are not used to it.

It's interesting how different brains work. I'd feel really cramped if i were restricted to a 50mm

 

[Godfrey]

Shooting with a 35mm lens vs 50mm
Is it me or is it a lot harder to shoot with wider angled lenses?

It's neither harder nor easier. Like with everything else, there's a learning curve to working with different focal lengths. 35mm isn't super wide, but it's enough different that you have to be aware of different scene dynamics and how to integrate them into your photography.

I have lenses from 10mm to 360mm to work with. Each time I switch from one lens to another, I take a day or two worth of shooting with whatever I've chosen simply to re-learn the dynamics of the change in focal length. Some lenses require special techniques... the farther you get from a "normal" lens, in either direction, the more exaggerated those special techniques tend to become.

Just work at it for a while, observe what the lens does and how you might put its new characteristics to use in your favor.

G

 

[Ko.Fe.]

It's interesting how different brains work. I'd feel really cramped if i were restricted to a 50mm

It depends on surroundings.
I took 50 to Vermont emptiness.
But it is useless in Paris.

 

[Mos6502]

I used to prefer the 45mm lenses of most fixed lens rangefinders. They have the most "natural" angle of view. However after years of shooting with Exa/Exakta and Miranda SLRs which give an approximately 1:1 magnification when using 50mm lenses, I began to perceive compositions in my head with a 50mm view without even noticing it at first. Now 50mm seems "natural", it's how my mind sees the frame before I even lift the camera to my eye. Many 35mm lenses are only nominally 35mm, and are in fact closer to 40mm so don't seem much different than thinking in 45mm terms.

 

[Richard G]

It’s not a lot harder. But there’s more in the frame to deal with. What to do with loads of foreground was my first challenge with a 35. Now it’s second nature. When I bought a 21 I just kept it on for months and took shots that didn’t look like 21mm shots quite often. Beyond 35 and especially 28 you have to be careful not to include faces near the edge of the frame. With digital at 28 and wider too much of the exposure calculation is affected by sky. You need to open up a stop or use exposure compensation. Keeping a Leica level with a 21 is aided by using the rangefinder patch.

 

[Axel]

50 is easier for me. 35 is slight wider and it causes a slight "big nose" effect in near Portraits.
I don't like 35mm very much. Really wide is wider 🙂

 

[Coldkennels]

"50... is useless in Paris", @Ko.Fe.?

Someone should dig up Cartier-Bresson and tell him he was doing it wrong!

 

[Out to Lunch]

Wide is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

"50... is useless in Paris", @Ko.Fe.?

Someone should dig up Cartier-Bresson and tell him he was doing it wrong!

Well, where aren't Google maps photos to show how much dense it became since.
I took 21 to Paris inner streets couple of months ago and if it would be 50, it would be a loss for eight kilometers walk in 30C weather.

But we all know, late HCB was wondering with 90mm in Paris.

 

[Godfrey]

What focal length you choose for a given photographic endeavor is entirely based on what sort of photos you intend to make. I have done walks in dense, urban environments (London, New York, Paris, San Francisco, Los Angeles, etc) with everything from 10mm to 200mm lenses on a 35mm FF camera... The key is that for each different lens choice, I have different notions of what kinds of photos I'm looking to make.

To dogmatically suggest that one MUST have a wide or a super wide—or a normal or a telephoto—to make satisfying photos in Paris is just ridiculous, and short-sighted.

G

 

[Richard G]

Without 28 in the old city of Nice I’d have been sunk. Learning to use 21 was a great revelation and would take that next time.

 

[Darthfeeble]

It depends on what you see, for me what I see is best taken with a 28mm. Someone more focused might see in 50mm or even more. Work with the lens and if it gives you what you see you will like it, if not go back to 50mm.

 

[Axel]

It depends on what you see...

Right. Most of my pictures are taken with (around) 50mm although I often walk with zooms.
I do a lot of city- and landscapepics.
And I`m shure I`do in Paris also 🙂

 

[38Deardorff]

It depends on what you see, for me what I see is best taken with a 28mm. Someone more focused might see in 50mm or even more. Work with the lens and if it gives you what you see you will like it, if not go back to 50mm.

I'd say it depends on how you see....