Neither Fish Nor Fowl

Gerald C Koch · Sep 26, 2016

A recent post on the lack of interest in the 645 format got me thinking about other things that miss their mark. For example 135mm lenses for 35mm format. Too long for most portraits and too short for a telephoto. I have a couple that gather dust in a closet. Any others?

frank · Sep 26, 2016

1/2 frame cameras for me. No smaller than many 135 format cameras and half the neg area.

Sirius Glass · Sep 26, 2016

frank said:
1/2 frame cameras for me. No smaller than many 135 format cameras and half the neg area.

+1

One of the cameras that I never use. I was given the Tessina.

pdeeh · Sep 26, 2016

ISO100 film

Cholentpot · Sep 26, 2016

Gerald C Koch said:
A recent post on the lack of interest in the 645 format got me thinking about other things that miss their mark. For example 135mm lenses for 35mm format. Too long for most portraits and too short for a telephoto. I have a couple that gather dust in a closet. Any others?

I love my 135 lenses! It's part of my stable, 28, 50, 135. They're affordable and sharp. I've been trying to get one for my Nikons to complete my collection.

frank said:
1/2 frame cameras for me. No smaller than many 135 format cameras and half the neg area.

I have an Olympus Pen EE3 that I load once a year and shoot every once in a while it lasts for months and months. I get great film economy and it's nice and compact. Lovely camera, and you have a Tessina you never use? Welp, at least it looks nice on a shelf.

pdeeh said:
ISO100 film

ISO100 film is my go-to for my sunny 16 cameras. Makes the math easier in my head. It's also nice and clean looking if I'm taking portraits.

What missed the mark for me is 35mm length lenses. Not wide enough really for me, I'd rather break out the 28 or go to the 50.

frank · Sep 26, 2016

Cholentpot said:
What missed the mark for me is 35mm length lenses. Not wide enough really for me, I'd rather break out the 28 or go to the 50.

+1

MattKing · Sep 26, 2016

Cholentpot said:
What missed the mark for me is 35mm length lenses. Not wide enough really for me, I'd rather break out the 28 or go to the 50.

Wheres for me, it is the 28mm lens.

I use the 35mm lens as my "standard lens. The 24mm is my "wide" lens, and 85mm rounds out the kit.

flavio81 · Sep 26, 2016

Gerald C Koch said:
A recent post on the lack of interest in the 645 format got me thinking about other things that miss their mark. For example 135mm lenses for 35mm format. Too long for most portraits and too short for a telephoto. I have a couple that gather dust in a closet. Any others?

Quite the opposite, once i got a 85mm lens and a 100mm lens, the 135mm became my favorite. I always like longer focal lengths (for portraits) and the 135 is more or less the longest i can get in a fast (f2.5-3.5) compact package. Basically if i can, i bring a 200mm f4.0 lens, but most often i will pick the 135.

I also have many images I like done with 135mm lenses.

Also the 135mm lenses I own, and I own three (and am in the process of buying a fourth one), have excellent bokeh.

Pioneer · Sep 26, 2016

The 135mm lens is perfect for kids sports. You can get nice close ups showing their intense focus when they are close and still bring the action to you when they are further off. My 85/90 or 135 are my go-to lenses for this type of use. Especially today zooms with ranges from 24-100, 28-135, etc. show that this telephoto length is still widely sought after in lenses considered to be "walk around" lenses.

I also take issue with 6x4.5 missing the mark. During the film era this was probably the single most use format as it was the darling of wedding photographers. In fact, their use of this format prompted the development of 220 film which of course gave the wedding photographer even more shots (almost 35mm level) before changing film (or most frequently film backs). The fact that it is not as commonly used today has far more to do with the digital push than with any inherent fault in the format. 6x9, though it was extremely popular in the early 1900s, has certainly been out of favor for much longer than 6x4.5.

For me, 110 film and disc cameras missed the mark, but if you look at sales numbers there were an awful lot of cameras sold to those occasional users. Even there you have to identify the "mark" that was aimed at before you can say a product missed.

The Edsel missed. There are probably examples of cameras that missed for one reason or another. But to say a film format or print type missed is difficult to say the least. I think that it is probably fair to say that technology has passed them by, but then that is claimed by many for film in general.

Kirks518 · Sep 26, 2016

Cholentpot said:
ISO100 film is my go-to for my sunny 16 cameras. Makes the math easier in my head. It's also nice and clean looking if I'm taking portraits.

What missed the mark for me is 35mm length lenses. Not wide enough really for me, I'd rather break out the 28 or go to the 50.

+1 on both accounts.

To me, the 35mm (and 28mm) lens was the poor man's wide, and IMO, wide starts at 24mm.

flavio81 · Sep 26, 2016

frank said:
1/2 frame cameras for me. No smaller than many 135 format cameras and half the neg area.

On the other hand I own a Olympus Pen S half frame and I love it. No smaller than a Rollei 35 but far quicker to operate, giving great results. Some of my best shots were made with that camera. The lens is seriously sharp.

And having 72 shots available is an asset in itself which makes the medium very different to full frame 35mm, in my view.

flavio81 · Sep 26, 2016

Kirks518 said:
+1 on both accounts.

To me, the 35mm (and 28mm) lens was the poor man's wide, and IMO, wide starts at 24mm.

Interesting.

To me the 35mm lens is already wide, that's why i never EVER considered "a normal lens". Normal lens should give normal perspective, and with a 35mm lens i can already see the "wide" effect. However, it is a moderate, slight effect, so it is useful. I consider 50, 35, and 28mm lenses, "general purpose" lenses. 24mm i really feel that has a pronounced wide effect, so perhaps in the end I agree with you.

Gerald C Koch · Sep 26, 2016

The problem with a 135 lens for portraits is that you cannot get too close or people look like Jimmy Durante or WC Fields.

I often use a 35mm when working in cramped surroundings such as street photography. This focal length does not have the distortion that a 28mm has. Then too it is also available for RF cameras without resorting to a separate viewfinder.

Sirius Glass · Sep 26, 2016

Cholentpot said:
What missed the mark for me is 35mm length lenses. Not wide enough really for me, I'd rather break out the 28 or go to the 50.

+1 I have been saying that for decades.

frank · Sep 26, 2016

About 1/2 frame cameras: After getting used to medium format camera neg quality, the use of even 35mm cameras is sometimes questionable. 1/2 of 135? Forgetaboutit!

NedL · Sep 26, 2016

pdeeh said:
ISO100 film

My most used! About 1/2 the time for 35mm and all the time for 120.

I like my 24 and 50, and plan to get an 85 eventually.

I've thought about using fish glue or isinglass to size paper... but can't think of anything made from fowl.... turkey gelatin?

flavio81 · Sep 26, 2016

frank said:
About 1/2 frame cameras: After getting used to medium format camera neg quality, the use of even 35mm cameras is sometimes questionable. 1/2 of 135? Forgetaboutit!

I use 6x7 and 35mm and half frame. Each one has its potentials.

I can shoot street in a very stealth way with my Olympus half frame. Image quality will never ever approach 6x7, but i can make pictures that i would not be able to make with the medium format cameras.

It is also very different to shoot with a camera that is able of only 10 pictures per roll versus 72 pictures per roll. You approach the use of the camera in a very different way.

So I think not only image quality counts when comparing formats.

EdSawyer · Sep 26, 2016

APS and 620. the answers to the questions no one was asking.

And digital.

Theo Sulphate · Sep 26, 2016

Definitely disc and APS formats. They're almost a scam.

I do like the Minox 8x11mm film and 110 film for my Pentax 110 - the camera and three lenses all fit in a small pouch!

Personally, for lenses I like to stay between 35mm and 135mm in 35mm format - or their equivalents in other formats.

ISO 100 or 125 films are my favorite.

Cholentpot · Sep 26, 2016

Sirius Glass said:
+1 I have been saying that for decades.

Ya see, I've only been in this game for about 3 years or so. I don't have a lot of preconceived notions. From what I understand 35 is sort of a transcendental focal length to Street folk. I don't care, it's banal to me and a bit boring. I want my photos to have something that pops, maybe some distortion, weird blobs and some flare. What I don't want it the photo to look boring. 35mm makes my photos look boring and mundane. Sure the subject that I'm shooting can have a good story but gimmie an ol' 50 any day.

MattKing · Sep 26, 2016

It is a very personal thing.

For me, the field of view of a 35mm lens just seems to match what resonates for me.

I use a bunch of formats, and if I analyze the lenses I own and use, I realize that I have way more wide angle lenses than longer than normal lenses, and I am way more likely to have on my camera something with a field of view equivalent to 35mm on 135.

This was shot with a 35mm:

Helinophoto · Sep 26, 2016

645 -> why use it when you go medium format ?
35mm -> boring indeed, not wide, not a portrait focal, can never get it to fit my style.
28mm -> not very impressive as a wide angle lens, prefer 24mm or 17mm

Zone system when you are shooting everything but large format.

My 135 f2.0 L (canon) sees way less use that my other lenses, but I think it's because my 70-200 overlaps, and I rarely need f2.0. (Should probably have saved my money back when I bought it ^^ )

Sigma 50-500 -> you either use it on 500 or use other lenses. Who shoots portraits at 50mm @ f6.3, with a lens that weigh 1,2kg ? (Sold mine, bought the 400 5.6L).

28-135 IS -> old Canon lens that was never wide enough or long enough (and too slow)

benjiboy · Sep 26, 2016

I bought a Canon F.D 135mm 2.8 lens about a month ago although I have a 85mm a 100mm and a 200mm, it fills a gap that I sometimes feel in my outfit, it was only pocket change and I've used it quite a few times since I got it.

removed account4 · Sep 26, 2016

medium format cameras for me,
i see no point. 12 or fewer exposures on a roll
or make the frames smaller so they are like 35mm frames
and get more .. all that bulk, you might as well get a graflex slr
better for portraits, perfectly weighted, and if you have to shoot 12 or 8 sheet rolls
you can get an adapter. nothing is worse than over priced cameras and glass
and that is what, for the most part, MF gear is ...

Antonio Marques · Sep 26, 2016

Half frame is great. 80 shots per roll!
And I took some of my best shots so far with a Pronea S.
I don't think there's any film format I don't like. Focal lengths are another matter...
What about aperture? What's the purpose of f/1.8? Give me f/2 or f/1.4....

Neither Fish Nor Fowl

Gerald C Koch

frank

Sirius Glass

pdeeh

Cholentpot

frank

MattKing

Moderator

flavio81

Pioneer

Kirks518

flavio81

flavio81

Gerald C Koch

Sirius Glass

frank

NedL

flavio81

EdSawyer

Theo Sulphate

Cholentpot

MattKing

Moderator

Helinophoto

benjiboy

removed account4

Antonio Marques

Neither Fish Nor Fowl

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency