Using the 35mm on a rangefinder

Rob Skeoch · Aug 1, 2007

I think the 35mm is my favourite lens on a rangefinder.

It lets you move a step or two closer to the subject than the 50mm and gives a nice working distance between the subject and the shooter.

This is a quick snap of my wife with the Zeiss Ikon with the 35mm. I find this lens length the most natural with a rangefinder camera.

Most likely about F5.6. Shot on XP2 and scanned from neg.

-Rob

Richard Wasserman · Aug 1, 2007

I agree. I have been using Leicas for about 35 years and probably have used a 35mm lens 85% of the time, they do just about everything I need and fit the way I see. That said, the 75mm Summicron I got recently takes my breath away...

Richard Wasserman

Pinholemaster · Aug 1, 2007

I have a rangefinder with a 35mm. Never comes off the body. It's the work horse.

The other body is for my 24mm, 75mm, or 135mm.

Chazzy · Aug 1, 2007

Rob Skeoch said:
I think the 35mm is my favourite lens on a rangefinder.

Are you finding the f2 speed to be adequate for your purposes?

Roger Hicks · Aug 2, 2007

Rob Skeoch said:
I think the 35mm is my favourite lens on a rangefinder.

Couldn't agree more. I bought a Summilux about 25-30 years ago. It was stolen a few years later. I replaced it immediately and am still using the lens for the vast majority of my Leica film shots. The perfect outfit for me is two bodies, one with the Summilux, the other with a 75 Summicron.

MattKing · Aug 2, 2007

I don't know that it necessarily has anything to do with the cameras being rangefinders. I think it is the focal length and field of view.

35mm is my standard lens on my Olympus OMs and 55mm is my favourite lens on my Mamiya 645.

It is how I see.

Matt

Rob Skeoch · Aug 2, 2007

Chazzy - I find the F2 lens fine. I'm sure they'll add a F1.4 to the lineup one day but really I think the 35 F2 is great.
-Rob

Roger Hicks · Aug 3, 2007

MattKing said:
I don't know that it necessarily has anything to do with the cameras being rangefinders. I think it is the focal length and field of view.

Partly, yes; but 35s are a lot easier to focus on RFs. And fast 35s are a LOT smaller on RFs and most will either deliver better quality or be cheaper (sometimes both).

elekm · Aug 3, 2007

I was using a 35mm Color-Skopar on a Bessa-R. I really liked the combination. These days, I'm shooting a lot with a 40mm Sonnar on a Zeiss Ikon. It's another combination that I really enjoy.

I don't shoot a lot of low light stuff these days, so the f/2.8 speed is more than adequate. And I don't demand that I shoot everything wide open.

MattKing · Aug 4, 2007

Roger Hicks said:
Partly, yes; but 35s are a lot easier to focus on RFs. And fast 35s are a LOT smaller on RFs and most will either deliver better quality or be cheaper (sometimes both).

Roger:

It may be so, but my Zuiko 35mm f/2.0s (yes, that's plural) do well in the contest (at least in respect to the size and quality tests).

Matt (30+ years in the Zuiko family, and not reluctant to admit it)

lens_hacker · Aug 4, 2007

Well, my Nikkor-O 35/2 is no contender for small size and light weight compared to my Nikkor 3.5cm F1.8 for the Nikon RF's!

I like the Canon 35/2.8 on a Leica CL for a setup. The combo is about the same size and weight as my Nikkor-UD 20mm F3.5.

sienarot · Aug 4, 2007

I like 35mm too, however on my R2 I was finding my CV35/2.5PII a little wider than the framelines than I liked so I opted for the 40mm 1.4 Nokton instead on the same body. I really wanted to keep the pancake, but I'm just too anal about those sort of things

Harry Lockwood · Aug 25, 2007

Rob Skeoch said:
I think the 35mm is my favourite lens on a rangefinder.

It lets you move a step or two closer to the subject than the 50mm and gives a nice working distance between the subject and the shooter.

This is a quick snap of my wife with the Zeiss Ikon with the 35mm. I find this lens length the most natural with a rangefinder camera.

Most likely about F5.6. Shot on XP2 and scanned from neg.

-Rob

I suppose if I were limited to one lens, it would probably be my 35mm 'cron on my M7. But for street shooting I prefer a longer FL, like the 50mm, and I'm really lusting after the 75mm 'cron. Someday.

BTW, you didn't request a critique, but I'll volunteer the following. The image appears to be overly sharpened. I would also have bumped up the contrast and chose a different black point from the image.

BTW2, I've decided that XP2 400 will be my standard. I like the way it scans, and I like the convenience of the C41 process and Digital ICE.

Here is a shot on XP2 with the 90mm 'cron:

http://www.pbase.com/hlockwood/image/81606673

Harry

Tom Duffy · Aug 25, 2007

I think the 35 is to take a picture of a person in their environment and the 50 is to take a picture of a person.

I prefer a 50 (and would honestly prefer the 75mm more) but often use a 35 for depth of field and angle of view considerations. The 35 is just such a damn versatile lens.

One aspect of the 35 that I don't like is that it gives you a point and shoot look (maybe I should call that a view camera look, so as not to denigrate our equipment), i.e., everything is in focus near to far. Using the lens wide open helps in that regard.

Take care,
Tom

Alexz · Aug 25, 2007

I qute a newcomer into street photography, but figure I prefer this kind of shooting with 50mm rather then 35mm FL, often I do with 90mm as well. 50mm is glued to my M6, while 90mm is one to shoot through on my M3.
Having said that, shooting indoors (family, friends, etc...) I often notice 50mm is a bit too long forcing me to back off for beter composition, so I figure 35mm FL for indoors would probably be more convenient. Also, chances I'd prefer 35mm FL for urban architecture (as opposite to 50mm/90mm combo for street life)...
Probably time will come soon to consider 35mm ZM Biogon...

haris · Aug 26, 2007

I have 35mm and 75mm for my Bessa R2A, and I find myself more and more to use 75mm, in last few weeks I used it more than 35mm. For street life. I guess it is not lens issue but personality issue, I still think if I get myself with 35mm in front of someone face, I will be in truble... Not happened so far, but when one have low confidence in himself, then... But, then again, I recently photographed mostly social life around one mosque, and tried to keep respectfull distance between me and subjects, especially females, so I used mostly 75mm. Not that I hide myself, they see me photographing them, but I don't want them to feel like I am invading their private space.

But, 35mm is much easier to use, focus and compose than 75mm for me, even if I find it little small (PII version).

So, 75mm for cowards and 35mm or wider for brave photographers, I guess

rpsawin · Aug 26, 2007

You can have a pretty good day shooting with just the 35mm & 75mm on a rf.

Bob

Oren Grad · Aug 26, 2007

rpsawin said:
You can have a pretty good day shooting with just the 35mm & 75mm on a rf.

You can have a pretty good day shooting with just the 35mm on a rf.

Actually, you can have a pretty good life shooting with just the 35mm on a rf. If I could have only one camera and one lens, that's what the combination would be. For 35mm photography I very rarely use anything longer than 50 or shorter than 28, and I use the 35 focal length more than all others combined.

Roger Hicks · Aug 26, 2007

rpsawin said:
You can have a pretty good day shooting with just the 35mm & 75mm on a rf.

Bob

Seconded. My ideal combination: 35 Summilux on one body, 75 Summicron on the other.

Wish I could afford 2x MP to put 'em on.

rml · Sep 3, 2007

Let me voice a different sound. I don't like 35mm at all. I prefer 50mm, and like 25mm when the situation calls for wiiiiide.

bjorke · Sep 3, 2007

I like this little model:

50mm is about your usual attentive field of view from ONE eye.
35mm is about the attentive field of view from BOTH eyes.

Anything wider (I favor 28mm as my usual lens) means something that wither requires back and forth eye movement or viewing through the finder. It thus has an extra element of abstraction.

Anything longer means a deliberate restriction of view.

Accepting such a model implies that "normal" is a fuzzy and individual notion (and thus when I hear people arguing about whether a 43mm or 45mm is a more "true" normal... I gotta laugh).

kivis · Oct 11, 2007

Right now I have a C Sonnar 50/1.5 on my Zeiss Ikon body with a CV 28/3.5 and a CV 90/3.5 in my bag. I am pretty much in RF heaven. But a 35mm would be nice.

Lee Shively · Oct 11, 2007

I use both 35mm and 50mm Summicrons about equally on my Leicas. Those two focal lengths just seem natural to virtually every situation. Sometimes, I will use a 21mm but it is seldom. I haven't used my 90mm in so long, when I last tried it neither of my Leicas wanted to bring up the framelines until I fiddled with them.

I recently became enamoured of Kiev rangefinders. They are fun and cheap and I like both those factors. I somehow have managed to accumulate more than a half dozen 50mm lenses for the Kievs (cheap, remember?). I was disappointed in the only 35mm I bought so I have another on order. I've been using a Leitz 5cm auxillary finder on one body and a Canon 35mm auxillary finder on a second body, zone focusing and estimating exposures. It's "down and dirty" photography.

Using the 35mm on a rangefinder

Rob Skeoch

Advertiser

Attachments

Richard Wasserman

Pinholemaster

Chazzy

Roger Hicks

MattKing

Moderator

Rob Skeoch

Advertiser

Roger Hicks

elekm

MattKing

Moderator

lens_hacker

sienarot

Harry Lockwood

Tom Duffy

Alexz

haris

rpsawin

Oren Grad

Roger Hicks

rml

bjorke

kivis

Lee Shively

Using the 35mm on a rangefinder

Advertiser

Attachments

Moderator

Advertiser

Moderator

haris

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency