You can only choose one lens…

DownUnder said:
Agree entirely. Me, I would go 28/85, which would see me through just about all I want to photograph. Options at the low end could be 35 or even 24 if one is a panoramic type, at the top end 105 or 135 or even 180, which in the Nikon D range is a superb lens (I have one, trust me on that). So a little flexibility fits in well here.

Come to think of it, why only two lenses? If we have to talk minimalism, as I see it, to me lenses are like bods in a bed. Two are fine, three can be a crowd. Unless the third in the trio is a cat, which given your poster photo I'm sure you entirely understand.

All this said, a sensible compromise (photographically) would be to go three ways. One wide angle, one standard, one longer lens. As I'm not a '50 sort of photographer, I'm happy with my 28/85 combo. Of course YMMV...

But let's do go on disagreeing about all this. It's such fun to disagree.
Click to expand...

I have lots of choices for both Leica and Nikons (an OM-1s before that), and for reasons unknown to me, I have never owned a 28mm for either.

My Nikon stock kit for many years was 24mm, 35mm, 50mm and 105mm. I say "was" because once I latched onto a 20mm f/2.8, the 24mm started gathering dust.

My Barnack and M bodies walk around with 21mm, 35mm, and 50mm options, the M also having a 90mm available. I'd guess that 50+ % of what I shoot with Leica is either 21mm or 25mm, about 45% is 50mm, and 5% is 90mm.

But I have never really seriously considered a 28mm since I don't see it as being remarkably different than either the 21mm or the 35mm.

Then again, the local shop has an M4-P with a 28mm going out for service, then to be sold and ... there is no such thing as too much Leica ...
 
chuckroast said:
My Barnack and M bodies walk around with 21mm, 35mm, and 50mm options, the M also having a 90mm available. I'd guess that 50+ % of what I shoot with Leica is either 21mm or 25mm, about 45% is 50mm, and 5% is 90mm.

But I have never really seriously considered a 28mm since I don't see it as being remarkably different than either the 21mm or the 35mm.
Click to expand...

So you routinely walk around with say AUD $20K worth of lenses? I admire your courage. Do you carry any weapons?

Otherwise, two easy ways to determine the difference between the two lenses - that is, 21 and 35.

The 21 often has too much distortion for my liking. I have one (a Nikon D) and the only way I avoid getting all my verticals lopsided is to put the camera on a tripod and use a small spirit level. Which isn't really my way. But I persevere.

The 35 is too close to the 50. It's (for me) a better pick for street work, but not by a great difference.

I do admit, in my film days my Nikon 35/2.0 O AI lived on my Nikkormat. And did everything for me as I disliked the rendering of the old Nikon 28/3.5 AI. (I still have all these lenses, also the 'mat.)
 
Last edited:
chuckroast said:
I once made the terrible mistake of speaking German in Amsterdam asking for directions. "Do you speak English?" asked the nice lady. I said, "Yes I do, I guess my German is pretty awful." She replied rather firmly, "We speak Dutch or English here, not German."

I know there was a war and it was awful, but German is a whole lot closer to Dutch than English. I'm told that Welsh is also quite comfortable for the Germanically aware ...
Click to expand...

Stick to English in The Netherlands.
 
DownUnder said:
So you routinely walk around with say AUD $20K worth of lenses?
Click to expand...

I do not. I paid nowhere near that kind of money for the lenses I own. Moreover, I only carry a few at a time, depending on where I go.

DownUnder said:
I admire your courage. Do you carry any weapons?
Click to expand...

It's the US - of COURSE I carry weapons ;) A well armed society is a polite society...

DownUnder said:
Otherwise, two easy ways to determine the difference between the two lenses - that is, 21 and 35.

The 21 often has too much distortion for my liking. I have one (a Nikon D) and the only way I avoid getting all my verticals lopsided is to put the camera on a tripod and use a small spirit level. Which isn't really my way. But I persevere.
Click to expand...

So, I have certainly experienced some of that, but I've actually gotten really good results without excessive vertical distortion shooting handheld with a finder. It's a matter of paying attention - examples from Italy last year shot on a IIIf:


1741148676853.png 1741148711996.png
DownUnder said:
The 35 is too close to the 50. It's (for me) a better pick for street work, but not by a great difference.

I do admit, in my film days my Nikon 35/2.0 O AI lived on my Nikkormat. And did everything for me as I disliked the rendering of the old Nikon 28/3.5 AI. (I still have both lenses, also the 'mat.)
Click to expand...

I will say that 21mm is too wide for most landscapes (surprisingly) and I use it more the way most folks shoot a 28mm - as a walking around street lens. Maybe I am just strange...
 
Not strange. The key to superwides is to get close.

Anyone watched American Primeval on Netflix? The wide angle viewpoint draws you right in, like you're in the scene yourself. Be careful, it's pretty brutal but that perspective!
 
The 35mm Sonnar on the RX1. Aside from distortion (easily fixable) it's a perfect lens.

Edit: Rangefinder lenses! Doh! In that case, I've not used that many rangefinder lenses overall, but the Voigtlander Nokton 35mm f/1.5 is glued to my M9 and I adore the images that comes from it. Sharp wide open with some vintage character. Small, great ergonomics. A near-perfect lens IMO.
 
Last edited:
splitimageview said:
Luckily it’s not too short to contemplate hypotheticals. 😅
Click to expand...
If "You can only choose one lens..." is a reasonable hypothetical to contemplate, after looking through my 289,000+ full-frame images for examples that I have rated worth of posting, I find the numbers for focal lengths of 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 75mm, and 90mm to be too close to call for any one focal length, never mind specific lens, to be worthy of nomination. These are the lenses that simply click for most 35mm FF format photography.

However, the converse notion, nominating which lens that I only use very infrequently but ranks very highly as producing the most of my favorite/most memorable photos, becomes very interesting. :)

G
 
Leica M-Summarit 50/2.5. You can find worst lenses, alas more expensive. Better, not sure (for what I do with my camera).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom