35mm or 50mm, which is your main lens?

[werra]

FA 35/2 on Z-1p, S-M-C Tak 35/2 on SP1000

 

[alexmacphee]

I've been surprised by how regularly it's the 35 that's mounted. It's now displaced the 50. I like the wider perspective, yet it's not so wide as to appear distorting on objects in the closer planes.

 

[André E.C.]

All my 35mm cameras have 50's as I only use this focal length for that format.


Cheers

 

[benjiboy]

Lately my Canon FD 35 f2 Thorium lens has never been off my camera, It's my favorite 'walk around ' lens, it weighs nearly as much as the camera body again , but produces killer results.

 

[rphenning]

my 50 rarely gets used, so much so that I am considering selling it. it's always my 35 that is on my camera.

 

[clayne]

These days 28mm is my normal. Very natural feel and the Nikkor 28/2.0 is amazingly sharp and robust in varying lighting conditions. With the M4 is still use 35/2.0.

 

[sangetsu]

I'm using a 55/1.2 on my OM4Ti, an old concave 35/2 on my F1, and a 50/3.5 Industar on my old Zorki 1C. The fast lens is great on the OM4 when I'm shooting at night, the 35mm perspective is great on the F1, and the Zorki is just fun (I carry it in my pocket pretty much at all times).

 

[DLawson]

Not too long ago, I picked up a Zuiko 35-70 zoom, which is currently my default lens. I'm liking it a lot. It fits the same space (for me) as the 50mm, while giving a bit of framing adjustment. It's only f/3.5, but I'm mostly shooting stuff where I want depth of field, so that hasn't been a problem.

 

[cooltouch]

For years, I used to have a Vivitar Series 1 28-90/2.8-3.5 almost permanently mounted to my Canon F-1. It was such a versatile lens, and gave outstanding results. I sold it (and the F-1) when I switched to Nikon, and have never gotten around to replacing it with one in Nikon mount. In my Nikon bag I have mostly primes, and no wide-to-short-tele zooms.

So I usually have a 50mm f/1.4 mounted to my Nikon F2, but also usually the first thing that happens is I replace it with another lens when it comes time to shoot something. That other lens can vary widely depending on the subject matter -- anything from 24mm to 500mm. It just depends. For example, yesterday I spotted a picturesque old train station and caboose in downtown Katy (a satellite city to Houston), which have been turned into a museum. Pulled over and pulled out the F2 with 50mm. One look through the viewfinder told me that my best shots would be done with my 24mm. I took a couple of close-ups with the 50mm anyway, then replaced it with the 24mm, and used that lens for the rest of the shoot.

But if I would have spotted some interesting birds, let's say, I would have reached for my longest lens instead. It just depends.

Michael

 

[jcorll]

I almost always use 50mm. It is pretty good for what I need. Never lets me down!

 

[clayne]

My thing is that outside of portrait setting (and sometimes even there) I find a short telephoto (50mm) and anything higher to be somewhat boring. Compression works in certain instances but the flattened perspective isn't too appealing in most cases. There are exceptions of course.

It's a shame to always see so many telephotos at events, etc. (where the photographers can actually get close).

 

[railwayman3]

If I'm travelling light with just a camera and one lens, say on a day out with the family not specifically for photography, it's usually a 35mm focal length, gives a little more coverage in tighter spaces.

But in the last few weeks I've had the chance to take "record" shots of stationary classic cars and steam locomotives for a project, just "front side-on views" and I find that the 50mm lens gives me the natural perspective needed. The 35mm, or particularly a wider lens, would give a more "arty" view, of course.

 

[removed-user-1]

I've gotten away from 35mm for the most part, but if I was going to do it again I would probably go for the 35mm f/2 Nikkor on an FM body, with an 85mm f/1.8 for tight shots. This would be a nice walking around camera kit, and is almost exactly what I carried for years - my Nikon kit in college was a 35mm f/2.8, a 50mm f/1.8, and a 105mm f/2.5 which I replaced with an 85mm f/1.8 that I got a good deal on. I rarely used the 50mm and would probably skip it now. On the RB67 I have a 65mm (wide) and a 127mm (slightly long/normal). I want a 180mm for the RB.

 

[naugastyle]

28mm has been my standard for a couple years now, when before I used to feel more comfortable toting both a 50mm and a 24mm to cover my bases. Never owned a 35mm. These days I have no problem going out with only the 28mm...if something doesn't look right at that focal length (or I can't get any closer to the subject), well, it wasn't meant to be.

 

[kivis]

I use a Voitglander 40/2 pancake on my Nikon FM3A as my walkaround.

 

[Brad Maestas]

My rangefinder came with a 35mm lens and I used it constantly for several months before buying a 50mm. While the 35mm was challenging because of its particular distortion, the 50 has proven to be even more challenging for more reasons than just selective composition but I do appreciate its more natural perspective. That being the case, my main lens these days is the 50 because I still feel like I'm getting to know it despite the fact that I've been shooting 50's on SLR's my whole life. I use the 35 every once in a while when I can't get something in the frame but on the whole, it's been a great challenge trying to fit all the wonder of the city into the 50's field of view. It's a whole 'nother game no matter how comfortable I felt with that FL on an SLR.

 

[Colin Corneau]

I always thought a 28mm would be my main lens, but it turns out to be a 35mm f2. I just think this lens sees the world the closest to my eyes, not a 50mm.

 

[EASmithV]

I usually use the 50mm f1.4 pre-AI Nikkor, and my other lenses on my view cameras have about 50mm equivalents.

 

[geek]

For some reason, I'm no big fan of 50mm lenses, on my Bessa I prefer the 35mm and 75mm combo.

 

[Besk]

I always thought a 28mm would be my main lens, but it turns out to be a 35mm f2. I just think this lens sees the world the closest to my eyes, not a 50mm.

I once read that a well known documentary photographer stated that a 35mm lens set at /2.8F most closely matched the human vision including the amount of depth of field.

I am not so sure that is the case if you are concentrating on something particular - then it is more like an 85 or 90mm.

I use a 50mm mostly except when traveling then it is a 28mm that is used.

 

[ajuk]

I would like something like a 45mm lens if I could, I find 50mm to be slightly too long as a standard.

 

[benjiboy]

Youre quite right ajuk the ideal standard lens is about 43mm, because thats the diagonal dimension of the 24x36 mm negative frame..

 

[djacobox372]

For me it's 50mm... anything wider distorts the perspective, if I need a wider shot I use a larger format.

Of course there are times where perspective distortion is the goal, but most of my photography doesn't venture there.

 

[ajuk]

I don't get that, why would a longer lens on a larger format not distort, you still have the same angle of view.

 

[cooltouch]

Yesterday I bought a Canon 85mm f/1.2 SSC Aspherical. I think this will become my main lens. Since all I have camera wise to use it with is a Canon AE-1 Program, today, I located and bought a Canon F-1 (old style) so that the lens will be coupled to the sort of camera it deserves. I'm kinda stoked right now.

Michael