If you could only have ONE lens..35mm or 50mm???

[MattKing]

35mm for me - but then I'm probably influenced by the entire kit I carry most frequently: Zuiko 24mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2.0 and 85mm f/2.0

 

[cliveh]

The reason for sticking with one focal length lens has great advantages. The 50mm is probably the closest to the human eye angle of view, discounting peripheral vision. But by sticking with one focal length, it allows you to experiment and realise the infinite possibilities in controlling view within the aspect ratio of the viewfinder, angle and perspective. A few days ago I was in a particular location for a couple of hours. After about an hour I found a viewpoint that I could never have found by just a casual visit to the location. It’s all out there; we just have to have the patience to find it.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

I do like the 50 but I would go for the 35.

Jeff

 

[vlasta]

35mm

 

[SafetyBob]

Silly me has recently learned how to use my feet to zoom in and out to frame a better photo. I used to never go anything wider than 50mm but again, life changes and I am now starting to move closer to my subjects and finding that I really like the results I am getting out of that 35mm lens I bought some 4 years ago but never used.....

Bob E.

 

[Jerevan]

I am a 50's man, the Nikkor-H 50/2 to be more specific.

 

[Pioneer]

Nikkor 50

I am a 50's man, the Nikkor-H 50/2 to be more specific.

I agree, a terrific little lens.

 

[Leigh B]

35mm.

If it ain't on the negative, it won't be on the print no matter what you do.

- Leigh

 

[Alan Gales]

If I could afford the 35mm f1.4 for my Contax, I'd have that. Since I can't, I'm happy to stick with the 50 f1.4. I like doing portraits with shallow depth of field, and a 50 is the shortest focal length you can get that really starts to give you the spatial compression for a good portrait. Were money no object, I'd have three lenses for my Contax - the 50 1.4, 35 1.4, and 85 1.4.

What about the 35mm f2.8?

I use to shoot Contax and owned the 25mm/2.8, 35mm/2.8, 50/1.7, 100/3.5 and the 180/2.8. All were fine lenses!

 

[LarryP]

50 never have been big on wide angle.

 

[Newt_on_Swings]

I would go for the 35mm, though I prefer a bit wider, 28mm or 24mm.

 

[narsuitus]

The first lens on my first SLR was a 50mm. I was never happy with it because it was too “telephoto” for my shooting style. When I traded my first SLR for a Nikon, the first lens I purchased was a 35mm f/2. It was my favorite lens until I replaced it with the 35mm f/1.4 shown in the foreground of this photo.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/11336821@N00/7011397917/

 

[fmajor]

On 35mm format, a 35mm lens is so versatile for what i like to shoot. I really love my 50mm's, but if i'm restricted the lens that's gonna make it is something wide enough (actually, 35mm is probably my fav focal length anyway....).

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

What about the 35mm f2.8?

I use to shoot Contax and owned the 25mm/2.8, 35mm/2.8, 50/1.7, 100/3.5 and the 180/2.8. All were fine lenses!

Alan-

this was just trying to fit the hypothetical of the question. In a world with no financial restraints, I'd have pretty much the whole lineup from the 16mm to the 200 f2 and 300 f2.8. But I'd have to sell the house to do that, and I'd much rather have a roof over my head.

Actually, depending on a couple factors, I'd either go the 1.4 route or the 2.8 route - 35, 50, 85 f1.4s or 35 and 85 f2.8s with the 50 f1.4 . And who could skip the 28 f2? But in reality, the Contax SLR kit is probably going to stay a one-lens kit - when I travel, I'll use the G2 outfit instead. Thinking of which, I've got a serious itch to hit the road and put some more film through the G2. THAT's a fantastic camera outfit. And were I forced to pick just one lens for it, I'd keep the 21mm f2.8.

 

[Alan Gales]

Alan-

this was just trying to fit the hypothetical of the question. In a world with no financial restraints, I'd have pretty much the whole lineup from the 16mm to the 200 f2 and 300 f2.8. But I'd have to sell the house to do that, and I'd much rather have a roof over my head.

Actually, depending on a couple factors, I'd either go the 1.4 route or the 2.8 route - 35, 50, 85 f1.4s or 35 and 85 f2.8s with the 50 f1.4 . And who could skip the 28 f2? But in reality, the Contax SLR kit is probably going to stay a one-lens kit - when I travel, I'll use the G2 outfit instead. Thinking of which, I've got a serious itch to hit the road and put some more film through the G2. THAT's a fantastic camera outfit. And were I forced to pick just one lens for it, I'd keep the 21mm f2.8.

Sorry, I was just suggesting the 2.8 because of price. If someone really wanted the 1.4 and couldn't afford it, the 2.8 might have been within their reach.

Best regards,

Alan

 

[Jose A Martinez]

35, no doubt. My very best: Leica Summilux-M 1:1.4 / 35

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I am a 50's man, the Nikkor-H 50/2 to be more specific.

That and the 105/2.5 (Sonnar version) are my two favorite Nikkors.

 

[agphotography]

I am absolutely a fan of the 35mm focal length. I quite enjoy the 35mm f/1.4L on my EOS system, but boy do I love the Hexanon 35mm f/2 permanently affixed to my Hexar AF.

I just got a Nikon F3 which came with the Nikkor-H 50mm f/2. Seems like a nice little lens (going through my first roll now) I did notice a little nick in the front element, but upon close inspection I'm wondering if it is a speck of fungus.. Anyways, I like how small and sturdy it is.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Sorry, I was just suggesting the 2.8 because of price. If someone really wanted the 1.4 and couldn't afford it, the 2.8 might have been within their reach.

Best regards,

Alan

Gotcha. Yes, if price remains an issue, I'd get the 35 f2.8 (I had one before, nice little lens) and the 85 f2.8.

 

[removed-user-1]

If I had to choose between 35mm and 50mm, I'd probably go for the 35mm lens. When I've owned both I've used the 35mm a lot more. But, I'm actually quite fond of the compromise focal length of about 45mm. My Yashica Lynx has a nice 45mm lens, and I also loved the almost-wide angle of view of the old Nikkor 43-86mm zoom (first lens I used beyond simple cameras). This is splitting hairs, of course... if I had the opportunity to buy a Voigtlander R-series rangefinder, I'd probably get the 40mm lens.

 

[BradS]

Although I own a bunch of 50mm lenses, I have grown to loathe the 'normal' focal length.
I greatly prefer either 28mm or 105mm.

Thus, I voted, 35mm.

Best 35mm lens I ever had was the Pentax 35mm f/3.5 Super Takumar.

 

[Roger Cole]

Funny how so many folks pan the 50, yet so many of us who shoot medium format love our TLRs and folders with fixed 80s. The aspect ratio is different but the viewing angle does look really close to me. (I'm in that camp, in a way - I don't dislike 50s but picked 35 as all around more useful. But I love my TLR with its fixed 80mm. Go figure.)

 

[benjiboy]

I would opt for my Canon FD 35mm f2 Thorium lens, it defies the laws of physics in that it is almost as sharp at the edge of the frame at most apertures as in the middle.

 

[Pumalite]

USE both.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

In medium format, while I love the overall operation of my Rolleiflex 2.8E, in many ways, the reason I'd use it (travel) would make me want a Rolleiwide instead with the 55mm lens. Which is actually closer to a 28 than a 35. But maybe I should just take a trip with the Rollei and see what comes of it. But as a general principle, the larger the format, the less telephoto and more wide I want to be. But I've never really been a big telephoto kind of guy - the longest focal length I have in 35mm is a 135, and the longest I ever had was 200mm in a zoom. Given the interchangeability of large format lenses, the telephoto thing kinda goes out the window, but right now the longest I've got for any LF/ULF is a 25" (630mm) which would be also about a 135mm equivalent for 6.5x8.5 or 8x10.