Choice of prime lens

[benjiboy]

Difference between 35 and 50 is not big enough IMO.
50 is my favorite, on any system.
For my Nikons I use 24mm additionally.
I must admit that I think it is often hard to use.
For me 28mm is the widest, though still relatively "normal", which I can use all the time for anything, just like your maximum zoomrange. Wider than that you enter into a different trade. You may or may not want that.
Also on a Leica, it is the widest lens I can use without an additional viewfinder, and that is a relevant factor for me.

So 28 it is for me, besides 50mm.

Normally Martin I would agree with you that the 35 and 50mm are too close in focal length to be worth buying for general pictorial photography for this the 50mm and the 28mm are a better combination, I have both, but for street shooting I love the 35mm f2 because by setting it at the hyperfocal distance and setting the aperture for the prevailing light conditions I can "point and shoot" without focusing, and it doesn't apparently push the background too far away like my 28mm or 24mm.

 

[stillsilver]

In 35mm the 24,35,60 macro, and the 85 have done the bulk of my shooting. I have a few others(shorter and longer) but those four always went with me.

In MF, I have a 65 and a 180 (35 and 105 equivilent). My next lens would be the 40 (24 equivilent).

Mike

 

[dbuckle]

I like my 40 1.8 Hexanon on a Konica T4 or FT1. It is compact and razor sharp.

 

[Lanline]

I like my 40 1.8 Hexanon on a Konica T4 or FT1. It is compact and razor sharp.

I totally agree! The images from the 40mm have a snap to them that is not present in the other Konica normals. I have not been impressed with the 57mm f1.4 (I have several) I think the 40mm is a spoiler lens - by far the best in the normals of Konica.

 

[dbuckle]

I have never owned the 57 1.4 Hexanon but have several others. The 50mm 1.7 is another favorite. I am awaiting delivery of a 55mm 3.5 macro that is supose to be sharp. Has anyone used one?

 

[nyoung]

It seems it would depend on what you are doing. I earned a living doing photojournalism/documentary with only a 28 and an 85. Didn't even own a 50 for years.
Now-a-days, I generally mount a 24 or a 20 for my "walking around" lens.
Just the way I see the world I guess.

 

[Lanline]

I have never owned the 57 1.4 Hexanon but have several others. The 50mm 1.7 is another favorite. I am awaiting delivery of a 55mm 3.5 macro that is supose to be sharp. Has anyone used one?

Yes, the macro is very sharp. I've shot a few test rolls with it and then never used it again. I just dug it out last week after shooting my 90mm Tamron macro to give it a try.

The 40mm is by far the best in Konica normals IMHO.

My Minolta 50mm AF f1.7 is very, nice. My current favorite.

 

[M.A.Longmore]

Dude, Go for the 24mm.
I should have done that years ago, I wasted time and money with the 28, and 35.

 

[ContaxRTSFundus]

With so many different manufacturers' systems from which to choose, it's impossible to be dogmatic. But I have to say with my Contax Zeiss gear, it was always a tussle between the 50 1.4 or 55 1.2 as the standard, and then either the 35 1.4 or the 28 f2 for wide-angle. If I would be shooting in low light or need very high shutter speeds, it was often the Planar 55 1.2 and the Distagon 35 1.4 BUT if you wanted pin-sharp edge-to-edge and a close focus capability (don't you just love those floating elements!) the Zeiss 28 f2 'Hollywood' lens could not be beaten - until the 21mm appeared and I've never shot with anything as sharp since. And when speed is not an issue, Yashica provides a stunning alternative in their legendary 24 2.8ML and 55 2.8 Macro ML lenses and will cost less than 1/6th the cost of the 21mm. The only problem with these 2 lenses is that over the last 6 months, canny Canon EOS users have started pushing their prices up...