35mm or 50mm? - the age old question

[Odot]

I shoot street mostly and love the 28 because of the spacing possibilities. It is also great for landscape.

The difference between 35 and 28 is not so big so i dont know why i should even consider it. I also had a hard time in the past shooting the 50 because of the minimal framing possibilities. Still, i am toying with the idea of giving it another shot.

What would you do?

Thanks.

 

[pdeeh]

Buy a 24

 

[benjiboy]

I find the difference between 35 and 28mm enormous and although I have both focal lengths I prefer the the 35mm f2 for street shooting I feel the 28mm pushes the background too far away and can cause too much distortion if it's used too close up

 

[MattKing]

I use a 35mm as my standard lens (with 135 film). I accompany it with 24mm and 85mm lenses. But that is me - you should choose the lens(es) that give you the field of view that you like, at the camera to subject distances you prefer.

 

[carlostaiwan]

If you already have a 28mm, go for the 50mm. You can always have it in your bag for portraits or situations in which the 28mm is too wide. plus 50mm are usually cheaper and smaller.
I usually carry the nikon 28mm f2.8 ai, and the 50mm f1.4.

 

[ac12]

IMHO the 28 and 35 are too close together to make sense getting both.
So I would get the 50 over the 35.

That you have had trouble with the 50 is only because you are so used to shooting with the much wider 28.
Spend a few weeks shooting with just the 50, and your eye and brain will get used to it and it will get easier.
The tighter angle of the 50 makes it easier to be selective in the subject, rather than the wide scene of the 28.

Alternatively, I used a 'normal zoom;' 43-86 in the past, and 28-85 or 35-105 today with my Nikon, or a 50 prime for my OM2.
With a 24 as my wide lens for both Nikon and Olympus.

 

[flavio81]

I shoot street mostly and love the 28 because of the spacing possibilities. It is also great for landscape.

The difference between 35 and 28 is not so big so i dont know why i should even consider it. I also had a hard time in the past shooting the 50 because of the minimal framing possibilities. Still, i am toying with the idea of giving it another shot.

What would you do?

Thanks.

I find the difference between 35 and 28 significant. However a 50 would be the best companion for your 28.

 

[Harry Stevens]

I use a Pentax 35/70 zoom got macro as well.

 

[Bill Burk]

Every time I have the 35mm on, I run into Bigfoot or a bear.

 

[blockend]

If you like to get in close to people, 28mm is the way to go. If you don't mind losing depth of field, 50mm works. 35mm is a good compromise between the two.

 

[Odot]

while we at it, what would you consider to be the best 50 or 35 for the F100 (AF lenses only please)? Thanks

 

[Luckless]

Questions:
- What do you feel you are actually missing with your 35mm lens?
- Why do you feel you need a new lens?

Everyone sees and shoots differently, and really are better served by looking at their own style and needs than randomly asking other photographers what lens to get. Establish your use criteria and shooting style, and then narrow down on specific lenses that meet your needs.
On a 35mm film format I tend to actually reach for something more along the lines of a 100mm or 135mm lens. I naturally tend to narrow in on subjects, and visually isolate them. I own a 28mm lens, but it is probably one of my least used lenses out the lot of them.

 

[locutus]

I find 28 usually not 'wideangely' enough, so the set i carry is a 19/2.8 + 35/1.4 + 80/1.4.

Does everything needed for reportage work.

 

[Paul Howell]

When I was working PJ the 50 was my standard lens, for wide I used a 28, the 35 seems to be too close to a 50, my other lens was the 105, I now used Minolta AF and the 35 to 70 3.5 is my standard lens, I only pull out the 50mm in dim light. I have not owned a Nikon AF so dont know much about current lens other than the Nikon AF 1.4 G gets good reviews.

 

[darkroommike]

35mm focal length on 35mm film is "normal" for me. If I compose an image, walk around, find the best possible angle, and then bring the camera up to my eye, I don't have to move forward or back when using a 35mm, if I use a 50mm I always have to step back a few steps. The 28mm is nice, when I shot real estate it meant I didn't have to stand in the street to shoo,t but I find this is the focal length, for me, where the perspective starts to look "forced" or exaggerated.

 

[locutus]

To me perspective distortion is exactly the point of a wideangle (and yes i take portraits with a 15mm), else i could just take a step back with the 35mm after all.

 

[Jim Jones]

Questions:
- What do you feel you are actually missing with your 35mm lens?
- Why do you feel you need a new lens?

Everyone sees and shoots differently, and really are better served by looking at their own style and needs than randomly asking other photographers what lens to get. Establish your use criteria and shooting style, and then narrow down on specific lenses that meet your needs.
On a 35mm film format I tend to actually reach for something more along the lines of a 100mm or 135mm lens. I naturally tend to narrow in on subjects, and visually isolate them. I own a 28mm lens, but it is probably one of my least used lenses out the lot of them.

Luckless gives the best advice. Others may give the OP reason to reconsider his preferences, but ultimately it's his own shooting style that determines his optimum equipment.

 

[markbarendt]

while we at it, what would you consider to be the best 50 or 35 for the F100 (AF lenses only please)? Thanks

I've used several examples of the normal 'kit lens' 50 1.8 AF and have no complaint with any of them. In fact it is my favorite low light lens, f1.8 and off I go zooming with my feet. I'll stop down to f2 during the day if I have to, but I do it grudgingly.

With regard to the lens length choice, it's purely a style choice as far as I'm concerned. I have a 28mm that is fun on occasion, but it's not my style preference. My true preference is between 80 and 200mm any time there's enough light for f2.8, even if that means using a strobe.

 

[JimCee]

I've always found that a set of three lens, each roughly doubling the focal length of the one wider, worked well. When I purchased my Nikon F3HP I also bought these Nikkor AI-S lens: 28mm f/2.8, 55mm Micro-Nikkor f/2.8, 105mm f/1.8. That was a very nice combination that was useful for everything except wildlife or nature photography when a telephoto lens would have been useful (my favorite is the 300mm f/4.0 Nikkor).

Jim

 

[blockend]

IME 28mm is the widest focal length before distortion becomes intrusive. There's a tendency to believe wider lenses add "drama" to a shot. Personally I've never yet found a boring image that can be enlivened by the introduction of optical distortion, and I own lenses down to 16mm. Street photographers have spent their entire careers shooting 28mm or 35mm or 50mm, and produced great work. It's mostly about shaping your expectations of subject distance, and working within those confines.

 

[Ces1um]

Gear acquisition syndrome may be at play here. I know because I'm critically infected by it. If your current lens performs how you prefer and you've had poor luck with a 50 in the past, why bother buying a new lens? All you'll accomplish is having to make one more decision as to which lens you bring out with you. Sometimes more gear makes it harder to take photos...

Okay- that was the insightful me. Now comes the guy who loves to buy all things photography.

I love 50mm lenses. I like them because of less distortion specifically when I'm taking photos of people up close. I prefer to "get up close and personal" and my 28mm lens really seems to alter perspective on me. I love the fairly tight crop- it seems more intimate. Let us know what you decided to do!

I like what JimCee above has said. I basically did what he suggested. I have a 28, 55 and 135 for one of my cameras and the combination works well. Then I bought another camera and got a 15mm, 40mm and 85mm. Then I bought a 100mm macro lens for the first camera. Then I got a 64mm lens. Then I bought a camera with an integrated 35mm lens. Then I bought a medium format camera with a 75mm lens. Now it takes me an hour to get out the door when I decide I want to go take photos because I can't figure out what I should bring with me. Gear choice paralysis syndrome. Hopefully it doesn't get you too.

 

[cliveh]

My opinion is that a 50mm gives the nearest angle of view to the human eye and therefore it is the only lens you should use. But then that is just me.

 

[flavio81]

Great advice in this thread and i agree with most of the assessments; my take on this is:

28mm gives the widest field of view without looking too exaggerated.

35mm is still a wide angle so it makes places look bigger than they are, but does it on a way untrained eyes think they are looking at the real size of things. That's why many people think it is also a "normal" lens, in truth, it isn't. But it is a usable alternative to the 50.

45-50mm is the real "normal" lens, giving natural perspective. My most used lens.

 

[albada]

For the fun of it, try one of the cheap viewfinder or rangefinder cameras from the late 60s or 70s having a non-interchangeable 40mm lens. Examples include Minolta Hi-Matic F, Olympus Trip 35, Konica C-35, Honeywell EE 35, and others. All were popular, and are cheap nowadays, except the Trip 35 which is a cult classic. For me, 40mm is about "normal".

Mark Overton

 

[removed-user-1]

Over the years, I've carried a lot of different combos. Instead of listing all that (and repeating the good advice others have already written), I'll share this: Recently I've solved my issue with which prime wide/normal combo to carry by getting a 25-50mm f/4 Nikkor. It works for me because I rarely need a fast f/1.4-2.8 lens.