most used focal lenght
-
A
- Thread starter victor
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Schneider Kreuznach Xenar 135mm f4.7 Lens in Synchro Compur Shutter
- Started by Jon Shiu
-
For Sale 72mm f/5.6 Super-Angulon XL in Copal 0
- Started by Steve Goldstein
-
Sold Nikkormat FTN parts donor body
- Started by AnselMortensen
-
Sold FS: NOS, SEALED Kodak 7-Roll pack of Gold 200
- Started by AnselMortensen
-
For Sale Rollei Electronic Shutter No. 0, lens board + Lens Control S
- Started by simplejoy
Forum statistics
Most used in all formats, the "normal" or wide-normal" lens.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
- Messages
- 29,850
- Shooter
- Hybrid
victor:
it really depends what i am taking a photograph of ..
i'm kind of all over the map
it really depends what i am taking a photograph of ..
i'm kind of all over the map
I use the 28mm a75% of the time on my Contax, and the 45mm almost all of the rest. The 90mm sits in the bag. On my ancient LTM, I use the 50mm since it's the best and I have a great viewfinder for it.
I used to use the 85mm (like a 90mm) more on my Canon SLRs -- don't have the fab 85mm for my RTS though (yet). The longer lens seems much more natural in an SLR.
I used to use the 85mm (like a 90mm) more on my Canon SLRs -- don't have the fab 85mm for my RTS though (yet). The longer lens seems much more natural in an SLR.
I use my 43mm (equal to about 21 in a 35 mm format) the most. Second comes the 80 (equal to about 44mm in the 35 format) I have now two of the longer lenses, the 150mm and the 210, but have only placed them on the camera, I have not used them in a shot yet.
The 40mm on my Leitz Minolta CL is a pretty close approximation of a 150mm on my 4x5, (and a hell of a lot lighter), so it is perfect for scouting,
David A. Goldfarb
Moderator
I have three fixed-lens Voigtlander viewfinder/rangefinder cameras, all of which have normal lenses (Vitessa-L 35mm--50mm, Perkeo II 6x6--80mm, Bessa II 6x9--105mm), so no choice to be had with those.
On my Tech V 4x5", I have four cammed lenses (90, 135, 150, 210), and my favorite is the 135/3.5 Planar, because it's so sharp and fast (in 4x5" terms at least), and it's a good focal length for rangefinder use, since the viewfinder can be a little imprecise sometimes and there's a little more DOF than with a longer lens. On the other hand, I probably use the 150/4.5 Xenar just as often, because it's small and will fold in the camera.
On my Tech V 4x5", I have four cammed lenses (90, 135, 150, 210), and my favorite is the 135/3.5 Planar, because it's so sharp and fast (in 4x5" terms at least), and it's a good focal length for rangefinder use, since the viewfinder can be a little imprecise sometimes and there's a little more DOF than with a longer lens. On the other hand, I probably use the 150/4.5 Xenar just as often, because it's small and will fold in the camera.
it is interesting to look at the tendecies of using the lenses. especially today, when the choice of high quality capable lenses are all over the fl map. unfortunatly, leica still doesnt have the 15mm lense. but voigtlander is very good indeed. on the bigger ones (44/66 and 69) there are of course the apo-grand's (35/45) which are breath stopping. so u find yourself with the new experiances with those capabilities and choices (though expenssive game..lol).
about a year ago, i have used exclussivly only the normals ( 50 and 80 ). rf and vf totally changed my approach. the normal is still one of my favorities, but i found myself calling "normal" 35mm, 24mm and 75/90, and their equvs.. it all begun with the voigt snap/skop25mm. at the bigging it was really wide for me, but step by step i came to a point that i call this focal normal. suddenly i had a new dimention in understanding one of my fave masters - kudelka. i just, cannot understand why leica dont make the elm24mm with those click-stops of the snap-skop25. those clicks are great things and their placing (1, 1.5, 3) is very logical and practical. what is great about this focal and the equv is that u go into the bones of what u photograph, while still having it in space, and at the same time - the perspective is very controlable.
the choice of the lense depends on my mood. i think that every thing can be done with each lense when u know how to use it and when u "call it normal" while the "normality" is defined by the mental state.
along the "mental state" of course there are the geomentrical/optical effects. but u can use it in your artistical advance . well - 15mm and 90 are more limitting of course.
bojork.. about the long lenses.. first of all, of course i do agre with u (about slr). i dont use them too much as well. actually, artistically the most intriguinge long in my opinion is imagon...lol
but then.. look at it from the other side..
what u do with the long is that u are concentrated on some choosen part of the scene. the viewfinder (0.72) with the x1.25 gives u at about the real size scene. when u look with the 75 or 90 frames u r actually concentrated vissualy on some part. so the vissual and the mental is in corelation. x1.25 also increases the focusing accuracy at about one stop in confidance. so it is just another approuch.
about a year ago, i have used exclussivly only the normals ( 50 and 80 ). rf and vf totally changed my approach. the normal is still one of my favorities, but i found myself calling "normal" 35mm, 24mm and 75/90, and their equvs.. it all begun with the voigt snap/skop25mm. at the bigging it was really wide for me, but step by step i came to a point that i call this focal normal. suddenly i had a new dimention in understanding one of my fave masters - kudelka. i just, cannot understand why leica dont make the elm24mm with those click-stops of the snap-skop25. those clicks are great things and their placing (1, 1.5, 3) is very logical and practical. what is great about this focal and the equv is that u go into the bones of what u photograph, while still having it in space, and at the same time - the perspective is very controlable.
the choice of the lense depends on my mood. i think that every thing can be done with each lense when u know how to use it and when u "call it normal" while the "normality" is defined by the mental state.
along the "mental state" of course there are the geomentrical/optical effects. but u can use it in your artistical advance . well - 15mm and 90 are more limitting of course.
bojork.. about the long lenses.. first of all, of course i do agre with u (about slr). i dont use them too much as well. actually, artistically the most intriguinge long in my opinion is imagon...lol
but then.. look at it from the other side..
what u do with the long is that u are concentrated on some choosen part of the scene. the viewfinder (0.72) with the x1.25 gives u at about the real size scene. when u look with the 75 or 90 frames u r actually concentrated vissualy on some part. so the vissual and the mental is in corelation. x1.25 also increases the focusing accuracy at about one stop in confidance. so it is just another approuch.
I started with a summicron 50/2, but soon realized that I really prefer wider lenses. Most of the time I use an Hexanon 35/2 in one body and keep the Summicron on the other for black and white shots.
Favorite, though, the Hexanon. Now that I have a choice, I use it the most.
Favorite, though, the Hexanon. Now that I have a choice, I use it the most.
i was unable to vote, but my focal lengths for my Mamiya 6 are 50 (~28-30 35mm equiv), 75 (40-50), 150 (~85) and I use the 50mm 90% time the 150 9.9% of the time.
I believe the 35mm equiv's are correct if not I'm sure you all know better.
I believe the 35mm equiv's are correct if not I'm sure you all know better.
aggie, david, mrcallow andd others...
the "equivalance" is a bit problematic term. generally, when u sue formats like 35mm, 44/66 and 69 (though it is not exectly 69) the ratio is the same - 2/3 so there is no problem about saying the equivalante focel (example - 24mm or 25mm of leica and voigtlander is just the same as the 45apogrand on 44/66 format).
for other ratios- there are many different ways to make the calculations.
one is going on the diagonal and short and long sides of the format - image circyle.
the other is going on the angle of view (the actual angle on the image and not the capability of the lense). usually the datas gives us the diagonal angle of view. but the other way, maybe more practical is the horizontal angle or vertical - which ever u tend to use.
the different apprachs are very important to be understanded, to make the lenses more useful or better to say , to make the visualization process on different cameras and different formats much eassier.
the "equivalance" is a bit problematic term. generally, when u sue formats like 35mm, 44/66 and 69 (though it is not exectly 69) the ratio is the same - 2/3 so there is no problem about saying the equivalante focel (example - 24mm or 25mm of leica and voigtlander is just the same as the 45apogrand on 44/66 format).
for other ratios- there are many different ways to make the calculations.
one is going on the diagonal and short and long sides of the format - image circyle.
the other is going on the angle of view (the actual angle on the image and not the capability of the lense). usually the datas gives us the diagonal angle of view. but the other way, maybe more practical is the horizontal angle or vertical - which ever u tend to use.
the different apprachs are very important to be understanded, to make the lenses more useful or better to say , to make the visualization process on different cameras and different formats much eassier.
I used a chart I have from an old Camera Arts issue that had the equivalents for various formats and their focal lengths. Beyond that I use what I am comfortable with. I don't think past what I want the image to look like when I shoot either vertical or horizontal. I have shot both ways. The question asked did not get into the *greater meaning* reasonings behind, just what you liked about it. I like great depth of field.
Formats: 4"x5", 6x12cm, 6x9cm, 6x7cm. Lenses: 55mm Apo Grandagon; 110mm Super Symmar XL, 150mm Apo Sironar, 180mm Fujinon A, 300mm Apo Ronar. All on my Shen Hao 4x5 Field Camera. It won't focus my 600mm Apo Ronar. I'm thinking about buying a Shen Hao 8x10.
Ole
Moderator
Rangefinders, huh?
My only function rangefinder camera id a FED-2. I have exactly one lens to choose from, a 50mm collapsible "Elmarski".
The big Linhof also is a rangefinder camera, but my 210mm isn't cammed. I find myself either using 121mm or 300mm on that - which corresponds to about 28mm and 80mm in tinyframe terms. The 210mm is second, a "normal" 45mm equivalent. I have also used 90mm and 360mm on it - 18mm and 100mm equivalent or so. I'm just guesstimatin' here.
Most of the rest of my cameras are "zone focusing": Guess the distance, guess the aperture, guess the real shutter speed at the time you select, guess which film is in the camera. I get surprisingly many good exposures with these.
All the old folders are "normal" length, so I use 50,75,80,105 and 150mm normal lenses.
My only function rangefinder camera id a FED-2. I have exactly one lens to choose from, a 50mm collapsible "Elmarski".
The big Linhof also is a rangefinder camera, but my 210mm isn't cammed. I find myself either using 121mm or 300mm on that - which corresponds to about 28mm and 80mm in tinyframe terms. The 210mm is second, a "normal" 45mm equivalent. I have also used 90mm and 360mm on it - 18mm and 100mm equivalent or so. I'm just guesstimatin' here.
Most of the rest of my cameras are "zone focusing": Guess the distance, guess the aperture, guess the real shutter speed at the time you select, guess which film is in the camera. I get surprisingly many good exposures with these.
All the old folders are "normal" length, so I use 50,75,80,105 and 150mm normal lenses.
My Bad - the Shen Hao is not a rangefinder.
I have an old Linhof Technika but have cams for only 2 of my LF lenses - plus I don't use it anymore.
Ok - a 35mm rangefinder with lenses that I actually use (sometimes).
My Contax G2 with the 21mm Biogon and 35mm Planar. I also use my 16mm Hologon but that's zone focused.
I have an old Linhof Technika but have cams for only 2 of my LF lenses - plus I don't use it anymore.
Ok - a 35mm rangefinder with lenses that I actually use (sometimes).
My Contax G2 with the 21mm Biogon and 35mm Planar. I also use my 16mm Hologon but that's zone focused.
50mm and the equivalent in every other format.
With the leica it depends on my immediate mood. Some times I'm in a 15mm or 35mm or 50mm mood or even sometimes the 90mm. Usually only one lens gets taken on short travels. It's 50/50 between the Noctilux and the 351.4 asph for most use but lately I really like the choice of different looks with the Noct esp wide open or sharp closed down. I also use the 80mm 2.8 on the linhof Tech V 2x3 but really like the 180mm f5.5 better if I had to choose only one. Someday I'll get a wide angle for it.
Favorite lens? Depends entirely upon what I happen to be shooting. That said, with the Nikons, favorites would be my 24mm f/2, 35mm f/1.4, 85mm f1.4 and my trusty old 80-200mm f/4. For the "Blads," the 50mm F/4, 100mm f3.5, and the 180mm f/4. For the Leicas, the Summilux f1.4 Asph is a permanent fixture on one of my M6s.
I assume voting closed due to thread age. In 35mm I prefer the 35/40 range and of the 2 like the 400mm better. For my 645, I like the 50mm that equates to I think between the 35 and 40 range. Nothing really wrong with the 50mm or 75mm (645) lenses that are considered the normal lengths for each but I just do not see that narrowly and tend to have to move further back to about the same inclusion as I'd find acceptable with the 40mm.
I usually use 45 - 47 on my rangefinders.
Jeff
Jeff
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |