• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

50mm lens as the main carry around lens?

Gerald C Koch said:
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.
Click to expand...

There's some truth to that. Normal focal length lenses are easier to correct.
 
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
 
sagai said:
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.
Click to expand...
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:
 
Your 35,50,85 combo seemsideal to me but a bit much to carry
 
RalphLambrecht said:
Then why do the longer focal lengths always have the best MTFs?:confused:
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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
 
I carry a 50mm f1.7 and a 35-70 zoom in a belt pouch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
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.
 
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
 
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
 
Summicron 4th 35/2, DR50/2 or 4th50/2 depending on weight issues.
 
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.
 
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.
 
RalphLambrecht said:
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:
Click to expand...
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]
 
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?
 

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
PDH said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register