What is your most used focal length?

[Peter]

Dear All,

Another poll. Which is the most used focal length for your RF system? Mine was 50mm and now is 35mm.

:D

[Oldprof]

For me it's definitely the "normal" lens. In the 1960s I used a Japanese Beauty Super II rangefinder with a non-interchangeable Canter f2.0 45mm lens. This little known camera and lens produced excellent results. Employing the "foot zoom" I could shoot just about anything I wanted to (except macro work). I also like normal lenses because they are fast and therefore good for available light photography.

In the 1970s I switched to SLRs. Then I started using moderate telephotos for portraits and wide angle lenses when working in cramped quarters. Still, most of my pictures were taken with the 50mm lens on my SLR.

Now I have some Russian rangefinders with lenses ranging from 35mm to 135mm. But I still use the normal lens more than anything else.

[Picture Guy]

I was pretty much a 35mm guy, but have rediscovered the 50mm ,so it's kinda up in the air.

The neat thing about the Bessa R2 (and other RF I assume) is that the viewfinder shows a degree of empty frame around the 50mm bright lines, so you get a heads up on whats about to come into the frame.

This is a useful creative tool.

[back alley]

for 35 mm i used to use the 35 and 85/90, mostly the 35.
for my mamiya 6 i probably use the normal 75 mm lens most and then the 150, i don't have the 50.

joe

[NVARon]

It really depends what I am shooting and where. I use a 35 a bit on my ranegfidners and with the Voigtlander 35/1.2 I am using it a bit at my favorite hangout. But I also employ a 50 and an 85/90 often as well

[DougJGreen]

40mm on my Minolta CLE

[Rich Silfver]

MF: 75, 80 and 150
35mm: 50 and 90

I'm very sad to say that I've never been able to 'see' in Wide Angle focal lengths even though I tried 28 in 35mm for some time.

If I could only live with one focal length I would pick something along the line of 85-90 in 35mm - it's where I seem most comfortable.

[znapschatz]

Interesting question, I had to think about it.

There is a martial arts concept that a warrior has no favorite weapon, which can be translated to photography (or anything else) as "use the right tool for the job." In that spirit, when in earnest about making photographs I carry a boatload of equipment, not knowing exactly what will be required and to be prepared for whatever. Just because I use one or another lens often/seldom doesn't mean I can think of it differently than any other. Put another way, my favorite lens is the one that gets the job done.

All that blather aside, for 35 mm I usually find the 35 mm most appropriate, for 6X6 most often the 75 mm (with the 50 mm first runner-up).

Are we having fun, yet?

[back alley]

zsnaps,

don't you think that we 'see' things when we are out shooting from our own unique perspective. and if so, wouldn't we then 'see' things with a certain angle or slice of vision, oh hell, you know what i mean!

i quite often find myself admiring very wide angle shots. i think because i don't normally see that way. i have had very wide angle lenses in the past and never used them. i don't see that way.
if this is making sense i'll be happy!
joe

[Doug]

For many years I favored the 35 Summicron and 50-85 Takumars. More and more I found the 35-40mm view producing the best pics.

Now it seems the 25-28mm and 35-40mm fields of view are about equally balanced in use, both in 35 and MF. Just got an (offtopic) 2.8/75 for the 6x7 and a GA645Wi (4/45)... whee!

[znapschatz]

Originally posted by backalley photo
zsnaps,

don't you think that we 'see' things when we are out shooting from our own unique perspective. and if so, wouldn't we then 'see' things with a certain angle or slice of vision, oh hell, you know what i mean!

i quite often find myself admiring very wide angle shots. i think because i don't normally see that way. i have had very wide angle lenses in the past and never used them. i don't see that way.
if this is making sense i'll be happy!
joe

Actually, I believe you probably do see that way. A person with normal vision sees everything in super wide angle without a frame.

When we see with photography in mind it is within the limitations of what equipment is available. Even if we don't own a particular piece, lens or camera, there are enough published samples so we can get the general sense of how it images and that gets stored in our subconscious, thus available for image evaluation. We usually compose mentally in rectangles and in 2 dimensions, even though the eyes don't see that way, because available cameras are made to produce pictures in rectangular formats and have only one lens. The photographer's eye is trained to the limitations of manufacturing technology, and so are the expectations of viewers.

Back when most photographers, amateur and professional, used cameras with fixed lenses, 40-some degrees was "normal" for most viewing. When manufacturers provided affordable systems that included lenses in multiple focal lengths, it stretched our optical possibilities. Some of us defaulted to wide or narrower angles of view than the previous standard of "normal," but most remain comfortable with 40+ degree rendition, a coverage that seems to work for many, most or all subjects, depending on the individual.

It has been interesting to watch the progress of expectations in photography. Over years wide angle effects have gone from the status of novelty to just another POV. I remember, for example, when wedding photographers would never use WA lenses, especially wider ones, because people would simply not accept the appearance of "distortion" with off-axis subjects. Now, some wide angle treatments are expected and enjoyed. Others, like fisheye views, were fads that are seldom seen these days.

I don't regard equipment limitations as a negative :rolleyes: , btw. Every art has some technical boundaries, and I like the discipline of working (or fooling around) therein. My problem is too much coffee, which gets me too wordy sometimes.

[GeneW]

Two of my carry-arounds -- Olympus XA and Stylus Epic -- have fixed lenses of 35mm so those are the ones I like :)

I particularly enjoy using the 40mm lens on my Leica CL and use it most of the time. When I go wide with the CL I go with a 21mm V/C which is becoming a lens I use more and more.

Gene

[MP Guy]

I feel the 35 on a 35 is perfect for me. Not too wide or short but just right. Not to mention its incredibly sharp.

[jdos2]

Most used lens?

The "Normal" for each format/camera I shoot.

The 50mm's for the Kiev and Nikon rangefinders.

80mm for the 645's (no, not rangefinders, but the 1000 DOES have a rangefinder spot in the focusing screen- does that count?)

100mm f/2.8 on the Universal using 6x7/6x9
127mm f/5.6 on the Universal using the Polaroid back

90mm on the RB.

Of course, on the 7 the mixture was pretty even between all three lenses- I actually didn't use the 80mm as much as the 150mm and 43mm combined, but I did tend to use it more often than either.

[ABarGrill]

I most frequently find myself using rangefinders in low light situations so I depend on the fast "normal" lens -- 35mm on the Konica Hexar and 45 mm on the G2.

When roaming the streets in daylight, I love the 21 mm lens and the 25mm that Voightlander offers.

Alan

[Andrew Touchon]

It depends on the body that I'm using. I use a 35mm on my .58 Leica M6ttl, a 40mm on my Leitz-Milnolta CL and a 50mm on my Bessa R2.

[rover]

Lets see, I use one of my rangefinders most of the time. I also rotate them, so 40mm, 45, 38, 35. I don't have a 50 for Bessa, well I just can't get used to my Jupiter 8 though I took some nice shots with it. By default I would say 35 and I think that is a good focal length for me, particularly indoors, though I really like 50mm. Perfect for me all things being equal is probably somewhere around 45mm.

[fcg]

when i pack the camera i select which lenses& bodies i
will carry based on what im doing. how fast i need to work and how far im going may also limit me.
the first lens may well be all i will have time for.
its often a argument over the 1.4 or the f2/ 50;
and the only other first lens is the 35/f2;/
unless my purpose is portraits; then its 50;90/75./135/35/21.
on occasion i carry a 21mm s/a on a mda.its a point and shoot with real potential.
sometimes i have 2 or 3 cameras each with a different lens/loaded.
the choices ; can also include ;
the print quality needed; and what focus effect /will be useful.
each shoot has some special considerations- can i change my position;
stuff like that. can i change the lighting...etc.
fcg

[SolaresLarrave]

I used to think 50mm was my thing; I liked the 45mm focal lenght in the Contax G1 and the 50mm was the lens I dreamed of with a Leica, but then I found about wide-angles and after getting the Planar 35mm that's the focal lenght I like. :)

[oftheherd]

I started out with a 50mm on my slr lens like most people. My first two aux lenses were a 28mm and a 135mm. Pretty much the standard next two lenses in the day. I soon realized that I needed something wider than a 28mm and was doing pretty much OK with the 135mm. I got an 18mm and a 35mm was thown in for free. I just can't get myself to like the 35mm. It just isn't wide enough! I love the 18mm to this day, and have gotten a 24mm to flesh out my slr prime lens set (OK, so I later got an 80-200 zoom, and a 300mm).

With my other 35mm system, I have an 18-28 zoom, 28-70 zoom, and 75-150 zoom for quick and light. Nice range. Since I also carry a 500mm mirror, a ttl flash, the 300mm and a 90-230 zoom along with a backup FX3 body and the Contax 50mm f/1.4, the bag isn't usually as light as I wanted it to be when I decided on the first three zooms.

With my Mamiya Super Press 23 rangefinder (to get back on topic), I prefer my 50mm lens along with the 100mm normal. I don't even have a telephoto, and don't really miss it.

All more than you wanted to hear I guess. The bottom line for me is that I always want wide even if I have a normal. I sometimes go out with nothing but a 24mm on the camera if I want to travel really light. If I wanted to be super light with the other, it would be the 28-70. With the Mamiya, frankly, I ususally go for the normal, but I know where the 50mm is at all times.

All that to say I am with Francisco on wide. I just prefer a little more room.

[Doug]

I got into photography in the mid-60's when there were still raging debates about SLR vs rangefinder and 8-track vs cassette, as well as the timeless Ford vs Chevy. And serious color was transparencies; only snapshooters used color print film.

SLRs were a rising surge of popularity, reveling in telephotos. Wide angle SLR lenses were exotic, large, and expensive. Everyone had a standard 50, 55, or 58mm lens, plus a 135.

My first extra lens was a 105mm Spiratone with a preset diaphragm for my Pentax H3. It was replaced by a 135mm Steinheil. I stuck with Pentax lenses after that.

In 67 I got a used Leica body and new 35mm Summicron, my first wide angle, and the only one for some years. I came to love the 85mm on the Pentax. My usual "street stalker" kit then was the M2 & 35mm on a short strap around my neck, with the Pentax & 85mm on a longer strap hanging below it, both with Tri-X. This was good for fast reaction to varying needs on the street.

I thought of the 35mm as a wide-normal. I never had anything much wider until recent years with the Cosina-Voigtlander gear, and 45mm lenses in medium format. As my view of the world has grown wider, I've come to even more strongly consider 35-40mm as normal, and favor their medium-format equivalents too.

But I certainly don't hesitate to venture forth with only a 25-28mm. There just seems to be a greater involvement or immediacy or intimacy with the subject when you get in good and close!

[mothra]

I like 50mm.

I really like wide angle, but I like it for the weird up-close distorted perspective. (I have a 21mm on my R2)

For normal shooting though, I like the 50. I want to get a 35mm though -- I haven't used a 35mm lens since I was fifteen or sixteen, but I like the idea of a slightly wider angle than the 50.

[bmattock]

As for me, I'm still trying to find my 'voice' if you know what I mean, so I use a bit of everything. I find (so far) that if I don't have a particular plan for what I'm going out to shoot, I take a 50mm, a 35mm (28mm if I'm packing an SLR), and a 85/90mm.

If I know what I'm going to be shooting, then probably I'll take something more suited to my subject matter, but I may bring along others for whatever else I may find.

Unlike the others here, I'm not as enamored of wide-angle lenses, and I don't consider 35mm to be a 'normal' lens - it's wide to me. I use a wide lens when I have to - to get the subject into the frame. At least, that's what I'm finding at the moment - I'm willing to change!

Also unlike everyone else here, I guess I find myself reaching for a 90mm or 135mm more often than anything else. Why? I'm not sure. I guess it lets me bring in a level of detail in my subjects that I'm happy with, makes it a bit easier to render background objects out-of-focus (which I love to do), and I find I'm more interested in minutia and details of objects than their overall shape or form in many cases.

Of course, if I'm shooting landscapes, I want wide. On my Canon SLRs, I have a nice older Vivitar 19mm that is amazing. I'm planning on getting a Canon FD-to-LTM adapter so that I can mount this beauty on my Bessa R - no need for rangefinder coupling, nearly everything is in focus with a good guess at distance.

So, I'd have to say 'it depends' but overall, I find myself with a 90mm lens mounted more often than nearly anything else!

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

[Laika]

My RF lens choices are 35mm & 50mm at the mo and I like both focal lengths maybe leaning more towards the 35mm. I like wide to standard lenses most of the time (inc for SLR's) and to round out my kit I'm very tempted by a 28/1.9 and/or 21/4 Voigtlander.

I guess my ideal one lens kit would be a 35mm f2 or faster.

[Harvey Platter]

Well, I only have the 50 and 90 for my M3 so, as far as rangefinders go, it's 50. On the other hand, I generally use a Nikon F with my Leica and that has a 35 and a 135. If I'm using this kit, I probably take as many 135 as 50 pictures.

[Honu-Hugger]

I hate to choose, but when pressed I favor the 35mm slightly, but the 21mm and a fast 50mm (f/1.5) are right in there with it. The one lens I do not seem to use much with my rangefinders is the 85mm, and now I have to wonder why?

Doug

[Biber]

RF: 35mm
SLR: 50mm

[peter_n]

For years with my Nikon SLR it was the 85mm and to a lesser extent the 50mm. Last year I got my first rangefinder and first 35mm, and I use that lens quite a bit, but now I use the 50mm even more. The 35 makes the 50 seem like a mild telephoto, at least on the rangefinder. Maybe it has something to do with the framelines in a rangefinder viewfinder...

[Pherdinand]

17 mm
:) Just kidding. Lately, 45 or 50 mm.

[Russ]

Because all of my rangefider's are of the fixed lens type, I am stuck at around 35mm to 42mm lengths. But when street shooting with an SLR with a zoom or fixed prime, I am uaually at 28mm's. Love that length. Brings you and the viewer in close to the environment.

Russ

[DougK]

I'm coming in pretty late on this thread, but I'll spew forth anyway...

I tend to use the longer focal lengths between 100-200mm. I like the tight view those lengths provide. Also, I shoot a LOT of macro and the Minolta uses the 200mm length as the macro lens (well, you can use the wide end at 28mm for macro as well but I don't like the barrel distortion on this lens at that length).

That said, now that I'm flirting with film more often I'm trying to take myself back to the normal lens and really work on my "Nike zoom" technique... definitely forces me to bust out of my routine and "see" the shot.

Doug K.

[Russ]

Without a doubt, the 28mm length. Enen when street shooting with a 28-90 zoom, I always try to get in close @ 28mm's.

Russ

[FrankS]

I can easily live with just a 50mm lens. For me, what I shoot and how I shoot it, it is perfect. Next would come a 35mm, I could live with that too, but would choose the 50 if limited to just 1 lens.

[nwcanonman]

For the last year it's been the 85mm f1.8 that's had my heart. But with the new 35mm (J12) lens on the Zorki 4K, I may have to change my style and experiment with WA more.

[Kin Lau]

All my fixed lense RF's are 40-50 mm, I do have a 35mm on the Kiev.

Any wide angles are usually on my SLR's, but by the most often used focal length on my Dreb is a 500mm :).

[Taipei-metro]

I'll say one lens I don't use is the 50.
I use Nikkor 55 macro sometimes.35 f2 was on F3 all the time.
A Hexar Silver,also 35mm. A 28 2.8 EF on one EOS.
I'd like to try that Fujinon 38mm 2.6 on Klasse (Rollei AFM35 in the West) badly.
That Silver w 35mm f2 is really something.Smooth and deep.