There's some truth to that. Normal focal length lenses are easier to correct.
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.
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 itHi 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 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: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.
Your 35,50,85 combo seemsideal to me but a bit much to carryHi 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".
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.
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:
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.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:
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.
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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?