50mm lens as the main carry around lens?

[Nodda Duma]

IIRC one of the reasons so many 35mm cameras come with a 45 to 55 mm lens is that it is easiest to design this focal length in wide apertures around f/1.8. Aberrations are less for this focal length with this formal.

There's some truth to that. Normal focal length lenses are easier to correct.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Hi again,

I had it in my head, before I started looking into old slr cameras and also rangefinders that 35mm lenses were the standard. I have read in so many places that 35 is so good for street photography and indeed as a carry-around lens but in fact, as far as I can see, the vast majority of primes sold with slr cameras are 50 or a little higher. I am not going to ask that question about the best lens for street photography but do you feel 50mm is the most useful lens to have when out and about? That it covers most situations? Or do you prefer to have a zoom lens as a carry around lens. I think most people have one lens they use most. I am starting to think from use that my Minolta 35-70 is worth the bulk and slower aperture (and a little less sharpness) than the 50mm prime 'kit lens' that comes with the bodies I bought. It is about personal preference I guess but I am interested to know your favourites.

I mostly use the 35-70 zoom on my Nikon but also favor carrying the 35f/2 or the 50f/2 if the situation calls for it

 

[RalphLambrecht]

We cannot tell which is the best one for you
50mm does fit for me in most cases, a 35mm also good to be around.

I think a 'normal' lenswith a modest wide aperture is the best choice but for 35mm that would be a 43mm focal length;don't see too many of those. That might be the reason why people are torn between 35 and 50mm.:confused:

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Hi ongakublue,

My personal preference is for f/2 or brighter prime lenses. So for 35mm camera I won't carry a zoom, but will carry a 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/2

A 35mm slight wide is tremendously useful for landscape and street photography. Bright f/2 is useful in low-light situations especially for SLR focusing. Slight telephoto makes memorable portraits (and I would take f/2.8 if I had to).

Last week I brought three lenses but used the 50mm for "practically everything".

Your 35,50,85 combo seemsideal to me but a bit much to carry

 

[RalphLambrecht]

If you don't need the fast max aperture, I find a small zoom such as a 35-70 f/3.5-4.5 far more versatile.

If forced to choose I'd take the 50f/1.4;I could live with that as my only lens

 

[RalphLambrecht]

There's some truth to that. Normal focal length lenses are easier to correct.

Then why do the longer focal lengths always have the best MTFs?:confused:

 

[Nodda Duma]

Then why do the longer focal lengths always have the best MTFs?:confused:

Because you can always add glass when the user is ok with carrying more weight.

Added weight or no, a well-corrected f/1.8 telephoto is a more complex derivative of a double gauss or sonnar design. Eg the Canon USM 85 f/1.8 or the Zeiss Sonnar T* 135 f/1.8.

Thinking design philosophy, you're fighting distortion and field curvature for wide fields, and fighting magnification & overall length (design asymmetry in a telephoto) for longer focal lengths.

Probably not a hard and fast rule---but there's some truth to it, I think. Only applies to fast designs.

 

[Jim Jones]

My Leica kit includes a 21, 35, 50, 90, and 135mm. Probably the 50 was used half of the time, the 21 rarely, and the 135 less often than the 35 and 90. When travelling through the Great American West, Nikons with 20 to 300mm provide better reach. If I had to do urban photography, a 20 or 35 would be more useful

 

[AlexMalm01]

I carry a 50mm f1.7 and a 35-70 zoom in a belt pouch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[filmamigo]

If I could only have ONE lens, it would be the Pentax 43mm Limited. This field of view is truly how I see the world. 35mm always seemed a little loose, and 50mm seemed too tight. I could shoot for a lifetime with two lenses, the 43 and the 77mm.

But I recently have been reconsidering a bit. I saw Lara Platman's work in B+W Photography magazine, and I really responded to her work with the 50mm. It has inspired me to pick up a good SMC 50mm f/1.4, and now I am enjoying the 50mm for the first time.

 

[ToddB]

I love my 35mm for street shooting . It give and average image a artistic boost. But the 50mm is mostly on my M3 nearly all the time.

Todd

 

[trythis]

I use a 35 f2 for family shots if I am out in my city but if I am traveling its the 28mm Ais 2.8 that is mounted most. I bring a 17 f3.5 and a 90 f2.8 on the trip but they get little use unless I am on a long day trip to new or interesting places.

The 50 f1.4 stays in the suitcase unless I know we are going someplace dark like a bar.


Sent with typotalk

 

[Saganich]

Summicron 4th 35/2, DR50/2 or 4th50/2 depending on weight issues.

 

[RobC]

If I could only have one lens it would probably be my 35-70 but I usually have 4 lenses with me 50,85,135 and 35-70.

 

[Mackinaw]

My standard 35mm camera for the summer has been an old Canon L1 rangefinder with a 50mm lens (either a Canon 50/1.2 or Nikkor 50/2.0). That's it. There's been times I wish I had another lens, but not often. For the type of photography I do (people pics), a 50mm focal length is about perfect.

Jim B.

 

[sagai]

I think a 'normal' lenswith a modest wide aperture is the best choice but for 35mm that would be a 43mm focal length;don't see too many of those. That might be the reason why people are torn between 35 and 50mm.:confused:

There is something with our eyesight that our eyes actually see in focus only certain percentage of the total more or less 180 degree view. Therefore lenses reproduce that in focus area seems more natural.
Could be I am wrong through [emoji2]

 

[Steve Bellayr]

IMHO: For street photography the 35mm focal length is the best. The 50mm tends to be too tight but is is excellent for portraits. The 50mm is easy and cheaply produced. It renders closest to the human eye. The 35mm focal length is more expensive to produce hence costs more.

 

[Paul Howell]

IMHO: For street photography the 35mm focal length is the best. The 50mm tends to be too tight but is is excellent for portraits. The 50mm is easy and cheaply produced. It renders closest to the human eye. The 35mm focal length is more expensive to produce hence costs more.

Why is that? Most 35mm have the same number of elements, same coatings, size of lens is about the same, why would it cost more to make a 35 than a 50?

 

[cliveh]

IMHO: For street photography the 35mm focal length is the best. The 50mm tends to be too tight but is is excellent for portraits. The 50mm is easy and cheaply produced. It renders closest to the human eye. The 35mm focal length is more expensive to produce hence costs more.

I beg to differ, as the 50 mm is not excellent for portraits, as it's camera to subject distance is too short. 90 to 135 would be better to allow a more pleasing distance and thus perspective. As for street, the 50mm is probably the closest to the human eye, disregarding peripheral vision.

 

[emjo]

I have come to think 50 mm is too narrow and uninteresting. My all time favourite is a 40/2 Voigtländer. If I had to use only one lens that would be it. Now I also have a 200/2.8 and a 28/3.5 but still use the 40 mm almost all of the time.

 

[Newt_on_Swings]

I prefer the 28mm most. It gives me good dof, and is a bit comfortably wider than 35 but doesn't go overboard like a 24 or 21. You have to get in closer if you want less background clutter, but I like how it captures a comfortable field of view without much distortion. I usually stick to f2 versions or a 2.8 if I want a smaller size that day.

 

[Nodda Duma]

Why is that? Most 35mm have the same number of elements, same coatings, size of lens is about the same, why would it cost more to make a 35 than a 50?

They both cost roughly the same to produce -- at the same production numbers. But I'd bet significantly more 50s are made than 35s and so the 50s can be sold for less at the same profit margin.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Ultimately, it's a personal choice based on your style.

For 15 years I owned and used just one lens: a 55/2 Super Takumar. Initially, that was all I could afford, but after a while I felt I was doing quite well with it and had no interest in adding another lens.

For my Maxxum 7, I have an early Minolta branded 35-70/3.5-4.5 AF lens that is just amazingly sharp (I've examined the negs under a microscope at work). That would be a good all-purpose lens. Maybe I was lucky and got the +6 sigma unit off the line.

 

[jeffreythree]

I am a one lens kind of guy since I don't want to or can't haul a lot of gear with me, usually just what I hang on my neck. The 50 or 55 seem to get the call a lot more often than my 28s, and my only 35 is horrible quality(Auto Albinar) compared to those and has recently been relegated to the junk box.

 

[Sirius Glass]

My normal 35mm lenses are the 28mm to 200mm Nikon zoom lens for black & white and the 28mm to 300mm Tamron zoom lens for color, but I do switch them around. My next 35mm lens is the 20mm to 35mm Nikon zoom lens.