THE lens

[Bill Pierce]

Truth is, while rangefinder lenses from 12mm to 135mm are easily available, folks often travel light with a rangefinder - one lens on the camera, just maybe another in a pocket.

I wondered what lens is that number one lens - and more important, WHY #1 - for various folks here on the forum.

When I first started shooting professionally, like many journalists I stuck to the 35mm lens. Then one day Burk Uzzle and I switched cameras to take pictures of each other. That way we each ended up with pictures of ourselves on our own film (not too egocentric). I picked up Burk's camera and yelled, "What is this lens?" It was, compared to what I was use to, a modest telephoto. It might take a little more effort to compose an image compared to the "get it all in" 35, but that very effort could make for a better, stronger picture. Burk said, "It's a normal; it's a 50." From that day on, I was a 50 user. Now, with the M8, I use the 35 as a normal. But someone (and please check in a give yourself credit) pointed out that the safety margin in the bright line finder of the first M8 actually made a 40mm lens (which brings up the 50mm frame) frame line a good choice and more accurate at normal distances. It works out to the equivalent of a 52mm lens on the 1.3 frame M8. I've ordered one from Cameraquest. And I hope it will be my new "normal" on the M8.

Once again, what's THE lens on your camera when you head out the door and WHY?

Bill

[OldNick]

Bill, I use both a 35mm and a 50mm on my Leica IIIf, for different reasons. Some of my favorite subjects are airplanes, often displayed at airshows. I find that, if I back up enough to frame the plane with a 50mm, people will invariably walk between me and my subject. For that reason, I choose a 35mm which works fine, but closer to the subject.

For digital photos, I can't afford an M8. I have an Oly E-510 which I bought with a good quality Zuiko 14-54 lens. The combination works fine, but is a little cumbersome for walk-around shooting, looking for quick shots. For that, I acquired a Leitz Elmarit-R 28/2.8 to serve as a prime, manual lens. At an effective 56mm equivalent on the E-510, it serves me well.

Jim N.

[Don Parsons]

If I'm just going out, nothing special to shoot, I'll take a 35. I like that focal length better than a 40 or 50mm.

If I'm going out to do air-to-air, which is a paying gig, I'll take my 28-135 which on my Canon digital is a 45-210. Covers all my bases for me.

[FrankS]

50mm for me at home. It helps exclude extraneous visual elements.
35mm on vacation, because things are more interesting there than here.

[sojournerphoto]

A bit modd dependent. Recently I've used my 35 Biogon exclusively, but I spend an awful lot of time with a 50 on either my rf or dslr

Mike

[Bassism]

For me it's always been a 50. I've tried to get on with other focal lengths but it never happens for me.
Usually when I see something of interest, it'll fit in a 50mm frame, perhaps with a few steps back.
Wide angles don't work for me because I tend to do a fair bit of candid portraiture and don't like wide angle portraits very much. I also tend to struggle to find stuff to fit into a wide frame.
Longer lenses don't work for me either. They're too tight for most of my shooting, and for portraiture I find I have to move too far back from my subject.

[capitalK]

I only own one lens right now, a 35mm f/2 Biogon. With a 50mm I often found myself taking a step back. With the 35mm it usually forces me to take a step forward.

Maybe a 40mm would be perfect, but for now I'm really just trying to master the 35mm focal length.

[xayraa33]

I like the 50mm lens, as it is the lens that I always had on the 35mm camera and I feel very comfortable with it.
I make it work and there is
no surprises, and that is fine with me.

[Pickett Wilson]

A 50. Otherwise, stuff leaks out of the frame.

[back alley]

never been a fan of the 50, much prefer a 35...but lately the 21 is 'it' for me.

[emraphoto]

really fallen into the 28mm way of seeing things lately. gets me into the thick of things.

[rpsawin]

As of late the 40mm CV Nokton SC....

Bob

[Steve Litt]

40mm summicron fits the framelines for 35mm on the RD-1.Great ergonomics and fast enough for me.The bargain leica lens.(gives 60mm crop)

Regards
Steve

[John Bragg]

50mm is my normal lens but I really like the 28mm for street use, preset on hyperfocal distance. Makes the M6 a rapid point and shoot.

[BillBingham2]

Before recently it was a CV 25/4, now it seems to be a Nikkor 35/1.8. The 35 allows me to get close without distortion. While the 25 is pretty good distortion-wise, it's not the lens you want to put a persons head in the corner of the frame. 35mm just allows me to get close, SCUFI (Shoot Close Up For Impact). I try to fill frames with the image, partly because I used to shoot slides, partly just to me format is an important part of the process.

B2 (;->

[helenhill]

at first it was a 28...Pure Street magic
then I moved to a 35 PURRfect really
but for some reason NOW.... its the Intimacy of the 50


All the Best- H

[jwhitley]

With my rangefinder, this is often my CV 21mm. Yes that's right, a 21. When using it, I shoot with the mindset of apprehending space, whether that space is large or small.

With my Nikon F3, my favorite lens is my CV 58mm SL-II. I love the slightly longer than normal perspective... I think for all the reasons that Bill states he took up shooting with a 50mm.

[Steve Bellayr]

If you know where you are going and under what conditions you will be photographing you should plan ahead with the appropriate lens(es) and film(s). If on the other hand you are going out to have a good time and photography is secondary take whatever camera you want.

[kxl]

A fast 50mm... it's how I see the world around me.

[marknyc]

I used to use a 35 essentially all of the time (except the occasional 21). A year ago I got a M7 with a 50 cron and I am coming round to it as my standard lens.

[oftheherd]

I started out with cameras with normal lenses, whether folders or my first SLR. My first RF was the Super Press 23, and my first lens was the 100mm, again, a normal. I have just gotten used to seeing a lot that way. But in SLRdom, I soon realized I like wides more that teles if I was going to something different than normal. I'm still that way.

I used to be very puzzled reading how people loved the 35mm on RF. I still don't know why. If I want to go wide, that is what I want to do. 35mm isn't really wide to me. 28mm or wider is wide. Now I have the Kiev, I quickly got a 35mm, as well as an 85mm and 135mm. I'm still not crazy about teles, but not about the 35mm either. It isn't wide to me. Even the Orion is more than I want to spend right now, much less a respectable 25, 21 or 15.

I don't mean to hijack your thread Mr. Pierce, but along with your question, I would be interested if those who prefer 35, could they say if it is really that focal length, or are they like me, lusting after something wider, but not ready to lay down the bucks yet?

[Ken Ford]

90% it's a 35. That's just how I usually see.

[mabelsound]

ZM 28mm Biogon. Great for street AND landscapes, AND architecture...not especially fast, but that seems to matter less than I might once have expected. Plus it's lightweight and super sturdy. Renders with appealling coolness on the RD-1 and is sharp on film.

I just got the 25mm Snapshot Skopar, which may nudge the Biogon aside a bit, but that remains to be seen.

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

90% 50mm (or 80mm on my medium format cameras). Followed by 35mm (I use 50mm second most on my bigger cameras), then 85mm (150 on the 120 film).

[marke]

Lately my favorite on the RF has been the 50/1.4 lux pre-asph, because I'm working on a cafe project of musicians. But for street my favorite is usually the 35/2 cron asph.

When shooting digital it all depends what I'm shooting, 18 all the way to 400.

[Livesteamer]

Before I had a kid it was a well used 35mm Summilux. Now with kid it's a 50mm 90% of the time. I don't use it often but my 28mm Summicron is wonderful. Just a lucky amateur. Joe

[MCTuomey]

i've come back to rangefinders over the past few years for shooting film, gravitating to the fifties. but i'll happily shoot a 28 or 35 in tight spaces. or a 90 for candid portraits and walk-around details. if i could have only one lens though, it'd probably be a fifty.

a fifty can do so many things well.

[Merkin]

Until recently, I had been a 50mm shooter all my life, but when I bought my leica, I chose the CV 35mm f/1.4 as my 'normal' lens. This was, initially, a purely practical decision. I can reliably shoot at one stop slower shutter speed with a 35 than I can with a 50 without getting shake, so in terms of EV, I can shoot handheld in low light as reliably at f/1.4 as I could with a noctilux in the same light. I also like the small size of the lens, even with the hood on it. However, I like the fact that I get more in the frame with the 35 than the 50, even though the perspective is still 'normal,' since 35mm is only as wide as 50mm is telephoto. At the moment, the only other (m mount) lens I own is a 90mm f4 elmar, which I only bought because it was 70 bucks, but I absolutely love it for close portraiture, as well as for the fact that it goes to f/32, which is a smaller aperture than I have ever had on a lens. Over the next six months or so I plan on picking up a 50mm f/3.5 elmar collapsible, or a russian copy thereof, mainly for use as a 'useable body cap,' since I don't like keeping my most expensive lens on my camera in the bag all the time.

With all of that said, if my m4-2 had 40mm framelines, I definitely would have gotten a 40mm lens.

[Bill Pierce]

The 75, 90 and 135 are not doing well.

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

The 75, 90 and 135 are not doing well.

LOL. I'd like a 75 or 90 for my Bessa. I mentioned using 85mm a lot because that is what i have in that range for my Olympus SLR system. Oly didn't make a 75 or 90, it went 50, 85, 100 in their system. Something in the 75, 85, or 90 range is great for portraits, and i use my 85 Olympus lens for that a lot.

[kipkeston]

Sorry, I'm in the 35 camp. It unpretentiously says "this is what I see, isn't it awesome?" I love a 28 or 50 however.

[thomasw_]

I use 50s and 35s as my "go to" focal lengths. The 50 slightly more than the 35s. I have a 75 and I like the lens a lot for portraiture, but it is too narrow to be an all-round focal length. I have a 28 and I like the lens for landscapes, events and stage performances, but I am not a fan of the 28 for streetwork.

[filmat]

A UC-Hexanon 35/2 on my Epso R-D1 makes it approximatively a 50mm equivalent. I use 50mm almost all the time with exceptionally a 25/4P skopar when i want to go wider (becomes a 38mm) or a canon 50/1.4 for portraits or closeups (becomes a 75mm)

Whenever i use the 50mm focal length i feel like capturing what i see, the moment (the epson has a 1:1 viewfinder). When i go wider i feel that "extra stuff" is going in the frame. But then most of the time i will crop a lot afterwards.

In a way a 1:1 viewfinder plus 50mm equivalent is great for fast street shots, it help you capture what you see.

Philippe
www.flickr.com/photos/pmat (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pmat)
http://streetphoto.free.fr

[projectbluebird]

50, 50, 50, and... 85. Between all my rangefinders, I own 7 50's of various speeds mounts and makers, I also have at least 1 for each SLR too. They always seem to catch my eye when browsing for new equipment. (watching 6 as I write this.)

My second most favorite lens is my SM canon 85/2, one of the sharpest lenses I own, and a nice performer all around. For the sake of balance, and a really sweet deal, I also picked up a SM nikkor 85/2.

[peterpan]

35mm. Really flexible and a good compromise. 28, 50 and 21 are the others I like to have about, but if I had to stick to one, 35mm would do 75% of everything.

[yanidel]

35mm Summicron IV on M8. The corresponding 46mm FOV is my favorite : close but no too close and enough wide to include various subjects.
Summicron because it is a balanced package between size, weight, IQ and speed.

[semrich]

I seem to have them all, and now that I'm shooting mostly film, IIIf and M's, some MF I tend to shoot mostly 50's and experiment with others on camera days (one body one lens).

When traveling I take a bunch so I can play around if time allows.

[javimm]

My favourite focal length is 50. I never liked 35. I have the feeling that it's too wide for street/people and too long for landscapes/building (for me). I just can't find the confort zone with a 35. I also use a 28 for the architectural shots and landscape, and now that I have a 90 I use it for portraits and works great, but it's mainly 50 for me.

[Ronald_H]

I believe it was Stephen Gandy who somewhere one his site commented that he didn't like the 40mm focal length. Also, being used to zooms I didn't give it that much thought really.

But the simple fact is, my first RF was a Canonet with, you guessed it, a 40mm lens. Revelation is too much of a word here, but that camera makes pictures the way I percieve the world. No step closer, no step back.

On the M2, I have an excellent 35 and 50. But still I am contemplating buying a 40 with a seperate finder for it. Let's make it a fast one too.

[spysmart]

I'm in agreement with the consensus that 35/50 choice is a difficult one for the 24x36 film format : as Merkin says, at the limits in low light the 35mm 'lux pulls in better shots than the 50 'lux by virtue of the slightly lower magnification, for this reason 35mm would be my THE lens.

Outdoors the 80mm lens of the 6x6 hasselblad etc. seems more pleasing to me than either 35mm or 50mm on the Leica.

[Johann Espiritu]

I switch between a 28 (Biogon) and a 35 (ASPH 'Cron) as my "standard lens". The 35/1.2 Nokton and 50 Planar are for special missions only. :-)

[Gary B]

The first Leica that I had came with a 35mm Summicron and I still have that combo although now it is a M2 with lens instead of an M3. For the M8 the 25 Zeiss 2.5 serves about the same purpose but could be faster. I do like my Canon 50 1.2 for portraits on the M8.

[Bingley]

I believe it was Stephen Gandy who somewhere one his site commented that he didn't like the 40mm focal length. Also, being used to zooms I didn't give it that much thought really.

But the simple fact is, my first RF was a Canonet with, you guessed it, a 40mm lens. Revelation is too much of a word here, but that camera makes pictures the way I percieve the world. No step closer, no step back.

On the M2, I have an excellent 35 and 50. But still I am contemplating buying a 40 with a seperate finder for it. Let's make it a fast one too.

I'm also warming to 40mm. I bought a Rokkor-M 40/2 from back alley for my M2, and am liking that lens so much I picked up an R3a to use w/ it. 50 has been my normal, go-to focal length up to now, but I appreciate the extra bit of width from the 40. I'm ambivalent about 35.

[Bill Pierce]

With the 35 & 50 winners in the #1 lens category, should we be looking at what our second favorite lens is? It is actually a lot harder to pick that #2 lens. Let's just make it "What is your favorite lens that you only pull out on special occasions?" And, "WHY?"

For me, it's the Tri-Elmar. I have the first one, and with a maximum aperture of f/4, it's certainly not going to be my #1 lens. But, it sure is useful when just wandering (and at 50mm one of the sharpest lenses I've seen).

[Ken Ford]

My second lens is a 75.

[dof]

My heart belongs to the 50, even if I 've found over time that the 35 is my go to lens when I'm going to shoot indoors. It provides the "wide side of normal" quite effectively.

However outside of those specific occasions, when I pull my camera out of my bag and am greeted by the 35mm frame lines, I think that it's all just a little too wide to frame well. I find that I can visualize everything that fits inside the 50mm framelines as an image, whereas the world often offers too much information in the wider views to be succinct about it.

Maybe it's an ADD thing, but I'm okay with that! <g>

[Eric T]

My favorite is the 15mm CV Heliar on the M8.

[lawrence]

My second favourite lens is the Color-Skopar 28mm f3.5. I don't use 28mm as my 'standard' lens because it's generally a bit too wide but there are sometimes situations where you can't step back and then you need a 28mm. This particular 28mm is wonderful. It's tiny so you hardly notice you are carrying it', it's sharp across the frame at full aperture and it's well built and quick to focus. It also has minimal distortion and although there is some vignetting it's not enough to be an issue. And did I say it's fantastic value?

[CK Dexter Haven]

50mm for me at home. It helps exclude extraneous visual elements.
35mm on vacation, because things are more interesting there than here.

That's what i would have said.

What's odd is that, although i have been a "50mm person" since i started, i'm now moving into wide angles. Before six months ago, i had even struggled with a 35mm lens, feeling it's just 'too wide' and always includes extraneous stuff. But, for some reason, i grew attracted to some work a friend does with a 28mm. I bought one. Now, that seems not too out of the ordinary. More recently, i bought a 24mm. That feels wide, but not 'freakishly' wide. And, now, when i mount a 50mm, it feels a little like tunnel vision - like i'm struggling and want to include more information....

I guess there's no such thing as 'normal.' There's just what your used to That Week.

[chut]

My go to lens is a 50. I find it to be very versatile and since geometry figures prominently in my images I find it easy to draw within the space of a 50's field of view. With anything wider, it's harder to keep extraneous elements out of the frame.

For a special occasion lens, I like using a 25 mm. The perspective is quite unnatural and challenging to use. But when I do get the shot it makes for a very unique and strong image.

[pbjbike]

35mm, 35mm, 35mm! More great photographs shot with that focal length than all others combined. I'll make a wager on that. ;)

[Merkin]

It is pretty obvious that 'normal' lenses seem to be the most popular. It makes me wonder why more manufacturers don't make 43mm 'true normal' lenses. Not only would it make perfect sense for the slr users, but i would think that 43mm would be pretty easy to intuit on a leica, as it would be exactly halfway between the 35 and 50mm framelines.

As to second lenses, as I mentioned on the previous page, the 90 f4 elmar is my second. The main reason that it is truly a second lens and not just another lens I have but don't use very much is because it is so small. If it was larger, I would probably not use it very much at all.

[CK Dexter Haven]

35mm, 35mm, 35mm! More great photographs shot with that focal length than all others combined. I'll make a wager on that. ;)

I gotta disagree, unless we're talking strictly about journalistic stuff. My 'library' has a lot of stuff by Penn and Avedon, and then a lot of fashion stuff - predominantly shot with 'normal' lenses. 50mm on 35mm, 80mm on a Rolleiflex or Hasselblad, 360mm on an 8x10....

[BobPS]

For me it's a 50 mm cron. Currently it's the only M lens I have.

I thought about getting a wider lens, either 35 or 28. Before I bought the 50 cron I tried using my old 35mm nikkor exclusivelly for a month (on my SLR), but I found that I don't really like the fov. Most of the time I find myself stepping forward closer to get tighter frames.

[tbarker13]

With my film Ms, I've always leaned toward the 35mm lens.
Strangely, when I shoot with my M8 - I do the same.
I'm still trying to settle a specific favorite, though.

[astroman]

50 hexanon and my 28 biogon get all the attention.Just sold my 35 as I found I just wasnt using it.

[Doug]

I find it easy to attune to a 60-degree angle of view, or thereabouts. In between the ~57 of the 40mm and ~63 of the 35mm, and this is a fine range for me. With this angle I move to the spot for the perspective I want, and when I bring the camera to my eye it’s framed like I want, with the relationship between foreground and background as I expect. This is good for landscapes, streetscapes, and environmental portraits, though for the last I may go wider bringing me forward into closer touch with the subject. (That’s why 28 is my second-fav, and that’s the 28 Summicron on 135 film.)

Though I have several M-mount 40’s, the f/2 Rokkor that came with my CLE is just about ideal; I like the look and feel.

Similarly, I favor the 28 Summicron on my M8 as having pleasant contrast and an ability to render detail well. Also similarly, my favorite lens for the Pentax 67 is the aspheric 75mm f/2.8 which not only focuses very closely but shows an extra brilliance and sparkle. (The latest 4/55mm SMCP is second)

Not much lens choice with the 645 RF’s... the Fuji GS fixed 60mm lens is smack in the right spot, while the 65mm for the Bronica is only slightly narrower at 57-deg. Nonetheless, no quarrel!

All with about a 60-deg angle, and these lenses I generally prefer to walk out the door with, depending on the body and format.

[Roger Hicks]

Funnily enough, 35/1.4 (Summilux) on film and 50/1.5 (Sonnar - 67 equivalent) on the M8/M8.2.

Then again, 75/2 is my easy second choice on film, and I don't have a 24/25, which would be the 35 (OK, 36-37) equivalent. I keep thinking of getting one but I don't think I can really afford a 24/1.4...

I really like a more-or-less doubling sequence: 18-35-75-135, though if I could afford it, I think I'd use a Tri-Elmar rather than the Zeiss 18/4 (I'm not sure). On the M8 the same sequence would be 12-24-50-90, of which I own only 50 and 90 -- though the 15/4.5 Heliar (which I do own) is an acceptable substitute for the 12, and I'd really like a Tri-Elmar so I could use it on both film and digi.

Cheers,

R.

[fefe]

35 Cron is on the M8 most of the time. 50mm is a bit too long on the M8 but I use it quite a bit for portraits, and when I want wider, I go all the way down to 15mm.
15-35-90 Is what I always carry around and it's been working quite well.

[tbm]

When I go out with my M6 TTL, I usually pack my Leica 35mm ASPH and 90mm APO/ASPH lenses. Once I am in my darkroom, I can raise the enlarger head to create a closer 50mm lens-type composition from the 35mm lens's range of capture and I can do the same thing from the 90mm lens's range of capture (create a larger-than-90mm range of capture).

[Artorius]

If I'm out and about with;

IIIc, 50mm asa 400 BW.
M3, 40mm CV SC asa 400 BW.
M8, either 50 f/2 Cron, Elmar 50mm, Classic Heliar 50mm. Depends on where I'm headed.

My second lens for the M8 is one of these, CV 40mm MC, CV 28, CV 21, CV 15, or the 90 Elmar f/4 90mm col.

Actually my favorite walk around with the M8 is the 50mm Classic Heliar.

[alan davus]

I have 8 M mount and LTM lenses between 18mm and 90mm but probably use the Hex 35UC more than the other 7 combined. I think 35mm is the lazy photographer's best friend.

[Chris101]

My favourite focal length is 50. I never liked 35. ...

... I think 35mm is the lazy photographer's best friend.

Two quotes that I whole heartedly believe in! When I was younger, I was a big fan of 50 and 21mm lenses, and hated 35mm! I could shoot anything with those two (with the occasional tele shot thrown in) and it made a much bigger statement than anything shot with a 35.

But now that I have come to terms with my lassitude, embraced my inner slug you could say, I love shooting everything I would have previously been much more particular about, with a 35. And it's better.

Well, sometimes.

[Dogman]

Yep. It's a 35 or a 50 for most photos. Can't really say which I use the most.

[shadowfox]

35mm #1

28mm #2

I don't have a 28mm lens for my RF cameras, so I settle with the XA4 :)

[Darren Abate]

I've found that a 40mm Summicron-C pancake on my M6 is perfect for cramming into a pocket and being able to get just about anything I come across. If I don't have to travel compactly, then I have my Voigt 35/1.2 mounted.

[Jason808]

I've always thought that while a 28 is what I can see, the 50 is what I'm looking at. I just can't get along with a wide unless it's a necessary tool in close quarters.

[mfioritto]

I tend to shoot the most with the 35mm focal length. It just seems right to me. Back in my slr days I had lenses that ranged from 20mm to 300mm but the bulk of my shots were probably taken with the 35mm, 85mm and my 180mm in that order. I never shot with my 50s much but I'm on the hunt for one for my Leica. I currently have a 35mm 2.8 Canon and the 35mm 2.0 Canon. With either of those two lenses on my M6 it makes for a pretty compact package I can carry easily. I have a 28mm that I use occasionally.

[maddoc]

1. 50mm (135) / 80mm (120)
2. 35mm
3. 21mm
.....
4. 90mm

I am in the same boat as Chris101, 50mm + 21mm makes a perfect combination but 35mm is the "lazy" substitute for the other two... :)

Actually, taking photos of landscape I can best survive with 21mm + 90mm, that's why I keep the 90mm.

[Paul Chapman]

My #1 lens is the 28mm and my #2 the 100mm and I use those for virtually everything.

Cheers ;)

Paul

[Harry Lime]

Oddly enough my favorite focal length depends on what type of camera I'm shooting.

I love the 35 on a RF, but hate it on a SLR and I much prefer to shoot a 50 on a SLR, than on a RF.

Try to explain that one...

That said my favorite 35 is the Summilux-M ASPH 1.4/35. Leica really broke the mold when they made this one.
I'm apt to say that this may be the best lens I have ever used, in any focal length. It represents a perfect balance of speed, sharpness, tonality and contrast. If someone put a gun to my head and said 'pick one', this is probably the one I would grab.

When it comes to the 50 things get a little more complicated. My absolute favorite used to be the Summicron-DR 2/50.
But I wanted more speed, so I bought a Summilux-M 1.4/50 (last pre-asph) and it is one hell of a good lens. It must have been a jaw dropper, when it was released in the 1960's. Again, a perfect balance of speed, sharpness, tonality and contrast. Wonderful for b/w work.

My dirty secret is that my most used 50 has become an ancient chrome and black barreled Nikkor-H.C 2/50 on a Nikon F/F3... It's magic on a sunny day. Very sharp, good contrast and it glows. Gorgeous in b/w and it's fingerprint is very similar to the DR.

So, this is what ends up in the bag.

2 x M, 35 Lux ASPH, 50 Lux, 50 DR
(I shoot the DR during the day and the 50 Lux at night)

or

1-2 x M 35 Lux ASPH, 50 Lux
1 x Nikon SLR Nikkor-H.C 50

[Harry Lime]

I've always thought that while a 28 is what I can see, the 50 is what I'm looking at. I just can't get along with a wide unless it's a necessary tool in close quarters.

That's a very good observation. I feel the same way about the 35 and 50.

[aizan]

i've come to the conclusion that 35mm de-emphasizes composition, and it has opened up new ways of thinking about things.

[Doug]

Well, aizan, perhaps. I'll agree that a large-format focusing screen with a grid aids thorough study of composition. And I've noticed that with half-frame and 110-size cameras I simplify compositions, and de-emphasize textures and fine details.

And when out snapping with a small camera I can't help thinking that if the photo is worth the trouble of making it, isn't it worth using a larger bit of film for it? Of course portability is the tradeoff for image quality.

[aizan]

i'm talking about lenses, not formats.

[Al Kaplan]

I don't think that any focal length de-emphasizes composition. I think that most of us tend to find the coverage of few lenses intuitive. We don't have to think about what will be in the frame and what will be out of the frame. With those lenses we can just raise the camera to our eye, aim, and shoot. Other lenses make us think a bit more about what will be in the picture, it slows us down, and perhaps causes up to consider the composition more, because we have the time to do it. With myself it's always been a 35 and an 85 (or 90). The last few years the 15 has about replaced my use of the 21, which for many years was a favorite.

I think that most, if not all, people who shoot in a journalistic style get to the point where lens choice and framing are intuitive. I guess that composition is also.

[MJFerron]

I take photos of rustic scenes both close up and far off. 35-40mm usually does me well. I'd use a 50 more if I photographed people more than I do.

[Melvin]

The 35mm Summilux is the one for me. A very close second is everything else, including but not limited to 15mm Heliar, 75mm Xenar(120), 50mm Summilux. 35mm shows a scene naturally, but 50mm is better for composition and detail, and 15mm is just fun. As far as telephotos go, I examine them occasionally to check for fungus.

[europanorama]

when i switched to contax from olympus om i started with 35/1.4 zeiss(c/y) although it was 85/1.4 which i could test. it was a bit later when i could also purchase the longer highspeed lens. today i am going out with fixed lens canon af35ml 40/1.9 and 400 asa CN. this lens saved me more than once. unfortunately its a fully automatic camera. today i would restart using my zeiss eighter with new ektar 100 or adapted to canon eos dlrs(450d) or hopefully samsung nx.

[cmdrzed]

As a recent Leica convert, I have been using the CV 40mm Nokton SC. It is a bit odd on my M6 as the framelines don't match but it is a really swell lens. For me, the photos just look right with something around 40-50.

[Twigs]

The 25mm is my favorite. I like to get very close to the foreground subject and still show its environment. (The 50mm is always in the pocket, but it rarely gets used.)

My second favorite is my TLR, but that's because the format and operation slow me down to really think... quite often it goes back into the bag without taking the picture.

[Roger Vadim]

the Kodak 127mm Ektar on my Speed Graphic. translates into a 35mm in 135, but with a much more shallow DOF;)
Else 35mm -but I tend to use that postwar coated 50mm Sonnar lately more often, might be in a transitional mood...

[Frank Petronio]

40 on 35mm, 135mm on 4x5, and now a 35mm on APS dslr (wish it was a 28 but it can be the "portrait" lens lol).

[Brian Sweeney]

A Fast Fifty. Speed, size, and Bokeh. I find it the most natural to compose with.

http://ziforums.com/picture.php?albumid=90&pictureid=727

http://ziforums.com/picture.php?albumid=90&pictureid=728

[raid]

With a 50mm 1.5 there is a lot of versatlity in photography possible. Add a 19mm lens, and you have a perfect travel kit with two lenses.

[Todd.Hanz]

I like the 28/1.9 VC, plenty of sharpness and I like the FOV when close up. If size is an issue then it's the 35/2 asph., not the smallest available but the smallest I have available.

[rbsinto]

My favorite (most frequently used) rangefinder lenses in order of usage would be CV 21, followed by CV 35 and then Nikkor S 105.

[Hilm3]

Well, it depends on the camera!

The M3 is nearly ideal with a 50 Summicron pre-asph - the one with the detachable hood. The M5 wears the 50 Summilux so nicely, I never take it off. The M6 is perfect for me with a 35 Summicron, also pre-asph, especially on vacation.
The M7 and the R7 have their own 50s, too. So do the F2AS and the Nikkormat FT3.

The other lenses stay in the closet until a blue moon comes around.

Truth is that for the first almost 20 years after I got my first camera, all I had was a 50. Later I started accumulating stuff and my photography went to hell. There were long periods when I did not shoot. One day, going back through all of the pictures from the early days, I realized that my best work was with a 50, no matter what it was. These days, when I travel I take 2 bodies and 3 lenses - 35-50-90, and mostly never use the 90. At home, it is always a 50.

Hilm3

[Keith]

35mm and probably my Nokton. I don't care about the size of the thing at all but the little bit of barrel distortion it exhibits bothers me at times ... but not enough to make me reach for my 35mm Hexanon which has tab focusing ... I hate tab focusing! :p

I'd like a 35mm Summilux one day when I grow up ... or grow rich! :rolleyes:

[LeicaVirgin1]

Bill-

It's a 50mm Summicron f2.0 rigid, (current). I wear spectacles & though I own and use a 35mm lens, the 50 just seems to work better for me. With the 50, (when using a .72x finder), I can see what is outside the frame so I make fewer mistakes. Bresson can't be wrong!

LV1

[kkdanamatt]

28mm is the standard "long" lens for me. I'm always very close to my subject, and on the street I prefer the 21 or even the 15. I usually set the aperture at f/5.6-11 and zone focus. This technique frees me up for creative rather than contemplative photography.

[clicker]

With age the 50mm , in my youth the 35mm.

[maitrestanley]

Throughout my life of shooting 35mm film, I've used 3 focal lengths: the 28, 35, and 50. Each I used exclusively throughout different periods in my life. Never did I change lenses on the go - it was always 1 camera, 1 lens.

When I first started out, I was shooting with a Contax RTS w a 28/2.8 yashica attached to it. I was young and wanted to 'include everything.' To me, it was an easy focal length to use because I just pointed, shot, and would capture what I wanted in the frame...

Then I started to shoot more and more street and started to desire a faster lens - so I stuck the Zeiss 50/1.4 onto the Contax. It was 2 stops faster and I loved it - but i didn't like focal length at all. It felt so much tighter and so much more difficult because now I actually had to frame my shots properly. But after about 6 months of using it, i grew from a hater to a lover of the 50mm focal length. I loved its intimacy and how natural it felt.

Then I purchased an M6 and it came with the 35 summicron. I stopped shooting the Contax completely so I stopped shooting the 50mm. I had to learn to adjust. I continued to shoot street and suddenly, I could fit a lot more into the frame again. But it felt like too much. It felt too wide. Indoors, however, it was wonderful. Eventually, I need a dSLR set up for work so I sold the M6 and 35summi.

I shot digital for a while. A long while. I used a variety of lenses. A variety of zooms and a variety of primes. The dSLR taught me a lot. I shot a lot. I learned how to light - something that would be SO much harder if I was shooting film. I also learned how to shoot colour (i only shot bw film in the past). It was fast, it was convenient. It was instant and it was cheap. There were no film or processing costs so it made sense to work with digital.

However, the dSLR just lacked when it came to bw imaging. I don't know how to describe it other than to say it looked like plastic. I missed my Leica. I missed my tri-x.

I bought an M7 and a 50 M-hexanon. It's like reuniting with old buddies - film and the 50. It's the only lens I have for the M7 right now but I plan on getting a 35 in the future.

What I learned is I am a 50 and 35mm shooter. For the street, the 50 is the way to go. For indoors, the 35.

Guess it's time to start saving up for that 35/1.4lux : P

[CK Dexter Haven]

A 50. Otherwise, stuff leaks out of the frame.

I like that.

Until about a year ago, i would have said "50," as well. Never could get used to anything wider, even a 35, although i love pictures shot with 35s.

But, recently, i saw pictures shot by a friend who bought my G2 and 28mm, and also a series by "stpiduko" on flickr, and i had to try it. Now, the 35 doesn't seem nearly so wide, and i'm used to the 28. So used to it, that i bought a 24....

But, if i'm at home in NYC and just walking around, it'll be a 50 on an SLR, or a 50 or 35 on a rangefinder. If i'm traveling, it would be a 28 or 35, with a 50 in the pocket.

Someone, probably here, said it before me: stuff around home is ugly/boring, so i want to exclude it. Stuff in other places is more interesting, so i want to keep it.

[lawrence]

Eventually, I need a dSLR set up for work so I sold the M6 and 35summi.

That's no excuse for selling an M6 -- you should starve first ;)


I don't know how to describe it other than to say it looked like plastic. I missed my Leica. I missed my tri-x.

The problem with digital is that it's too smooth, to my eye unnaturally so. Maybe I'm just used to the look of film but there is no acutance in digital -- the boundaries between things look different and one thing merges into another. And also often there is too much information compared to a fast b&w film. I don't necessarily want a perfect description of the subject, I'm more interested in how it feels (but then I always did prefer Frank to Adams).

[Pavel+]

I must be strange. My brain tend to hone in on details and does not like extraneous stuff ... just one point to a photo ... my brain says. So I bought a 50 for my M8 ... but it still includes all this "stuff" in photographs, so I think that soon I will get a 75 ... or more likely a 90.

Perhaps I need more time with a rangefinder to appreciate a new way of seeing. I bought a 25 as well .... but the brain keeps rejecting it.

[notturtle]

35mm all the way because you can can just about give images the wide feel when you want to or a very normal perspective. I like to get in close and sometimes use the 28/21 when doing so. 50mm is for when I have been unable to get nearly as close as I would like. I feel like a distant voyeur with the 50mm, although it works for shots of individuals more isolated from their situation. I love context and longer lenses do not allow me to bring the subject and context together so easily.

In order of usage: 35, 28, 21, 50, 90.

[thomasw_]

I still like the 35mm focal length, but the 50 has become my favourite focal length as I have aged. Someone else wrote much the same. Not sure why other than that the 50 gives me the precision and breadth in composing that forces me to be very perspicacious about that balance. I use the 35 and 50 lengths as my bread-n-butter. Also I use a 75mm lens, but I have not yet even plumbed the depths of compositional possibilities with it.

50, 35 and then 75.

[amateriat]

#1 lens for me is 28mm: my choices at hand are the M-Hexanon f/2.8, the lens permanently mounted on my Ricoh GR-1 (while it was working), and, most recently the zoom on my Contax Tvs, racked out to 28mm. I suppose this puts me in the real-up-close-and-personal category, but that's not the only appeal of this focal length to me by a long shot.

#2 choice? Easy: 50mm. I like how the M-Hex f/2 draws a lot, but I'm also liking the little Contax' lens maxed out at (approx.) 56mm, just a bit beyond "normal."

I never cottoned to 35mm all that much, but now that I have am M2 which came with a v1 35mm Summicron, I'm exploring that combo quite a bit. So far, it comes in behind the 50 in terms of prioity, but not by that big a margin. I've yet to throw that lens on one of the Hexars...I might just do that and use only that combo for a week or two.


- Barrett

[ampguy]

Hi Bill,

I have the original M8 framelines, and with 40 Nokton (43?) and Pentax L 43, I much prefer the 35 lines.

I guess it depends on what the "normal distance" is for each of us, but indoors these 43's line up well with the 35, they will be tight for landscapes, but you can always check screen.

Most used Noktons come filed for 35, so if you're getting a new one to bring up 50 lines, I'd be interested in how you think it matches at your distances.

Truth is, while rangefinder lenses from 12mm to 135mm are easily available, folks often travel light with a rangefinder - one lens on the camera, just maybe another in a pocket.

I wondered what lens is that number one lens - and more important, WHY #1 - for various folks here on the forum.

When I first started shooting professionally, like many journalists I stuck to the 35mm lens. Then one day Burk Uzzle and I switched cameras to take pictures of each other. That way we each ended up with pictures of ourselves on our own film (not too egocentric). I picked up Burk's camera and yelled, "What is this lens?" It was, compared to what I was use to, a modest telephoto. It might take a little more effort to compose an image compared to the "get it all in" 35, but that very effort could make for a better, stronger picture. Burk said, "It's a normal; it's a 50." From that day on, I was a 50 user. Now, with the M8, I use the 35 as a normal. But someone (and please check in a give yourself credit) pointed out that the safety margin in the bright line finder of the first M8 actually made a 40mm lens (which brings up the 50mm frame) frame line a good choice and more accurate at normal distances. It works out to the equivalent of a 52mm lens on the 1.3 frame M8. I've ordered one from Cameraquest. And I hope it will be my new "normal" on the M8.

Once again, what's THE lens on your camera when you head out the door and WHY?

Bill

[FifthLeaf]

28mm. I'm not sure if this is sloppy or just "loose", but I tend to get in close, line up two or three elements where I'd like them and then let everything else fall where it may. The 28mm fits this style very well (and I can't stand the distortion you get with ultrawides).

[buzzardkid]

The M-Hex 50mm f1.2

Fast, great color rendering, sharp, even wide open. Pretty bokeh. Balances perfectly well on the M5 and does fine on the M3 and M8 too.


What, want smaller?

My other is a Kyoei W.Acall 35mm f3.5. Its so small, I have to remind myself not to grip the lens near the front ring while shooting, or my fingers will end up in the frame. Built like a tank, all brass and steel. Sharp, not a sixties lens at all at that!

[wlewisiii]

1) 50 on 35
2) 80 on 6x6
3) 105 on 6x7/6x9
4) 127 on 4x5

William

[F456]

Instinctively, 35mm.

BUT when DX came in at the start of Nikon digital, I started to find that I was getting better shots with my usual range of lenses in a DX crop because the pictures were more selective.

It goes a bit against the grain after first learning to compose pictures with the 40mm fixed lens on an Olympus Trip 35, but I suspect that 85/1.4 or 105/1.8 is THE lens for me, and I always love the results from 135 or 180mm.

However, gut reaction and experience with direct vision viewfinders (sublime - M system; ridiculous - OM Trip) still tip me towards 35mm!

I'm not mad about wider than 24mm or longer than 200 or 300mm.

Tom

[rickp]

mostly a 50mm (= 67mm on the M8), but more and more often the 21mm SA (= 28mm on the M8). either offers a nice useful view of the world, and one of them fits in my pocket :).

it's interesting to see how the M8 users frequently choose 35mm or wider for their nr. 1 lens.

greetings from hamburg

rick

[F456]

I don't mean to hijack your thread Mr. Pierce, but along with your question, I would be interested if those who prefer 35, could they say if it is really that focal length, or are they like me, lusting after something wider, but not ready to lay down the bucks yet?

I like 35 because it gets the information in WITHOUT looking wide. To me it just looks natural. HCB reckoned even the 35 ultimately felt like flexing your muscles; so presumably it felt a bit wide to him. Hope the digression is in order!

Tom

[Brian Sweeney]

I typically shoot 50mm, but also typically pack a 35mm lens.

I have a 28mm in RF mount, almost never use it. For SLR's, I have 20, 21 (mirror up for the Nikon F), 24, and 28. Quite a few 28's, including the Konica 28/1.8 which is tack-sharp. They get use for scenic shots and indoor group pictures.

I find it easier to frame a wide-angle lens on an SLR. Typically use a screen with grid lines on it to keep an "even keel". I have a more difficult time with the framelines of the RF in keeping the camera level. I've rotated the images in photoshop by 1degree to straighten them out. It's amazing what a difference it makes in the final composition. I should use the Nikon "Bubble" level that I picked up.

[kshapero]

I have a CV 40mm/f1.4 for my ZI and a CV 40mm/f2 for my Nikon FM3A. Love them both.

[chingwa]

I settle with a Leica 50mm f/1.4 for both its image quality and the useful f/1.4 aperture. I hope it is smaller in size though.

[Kent]

Anything between 35 and 50mm. I just love the 38, 40 or 42mm lenses of fixed lens cams.

[Rob-F]

Often it's a 35. In France I carried two Leicas (IIIc) most days, one with a 35, the other with a 25. One day I just carried one IIIc with a 28. I had a 50 along but didn't use it (OK 3 shots). Some days I just took an M7 with a 40mm. The latter is a really good choice for a single walk-around lens.

[Juan Valdenebro]

Mr. P, first allow me to quickly thank you for your comments here in RFForum, they are so very clear... I remember when I read your thread on exposure, when you stated how usual it is taking the incident reading just as a guide to WAY more exposition... And some more real advices that can be named treasures for younger or less experienced people, as me in RF world, as not often shared even in forums: I just wanted to tell you that several times when reading you, my perception is that you have naturally the soul of a master, you believe in giving... A very clever mind and a good heart mix is unusual these days. Thanks!


Back to this thread, the question of the lens or the two lenses, is the one I had in mind every day and night for the last three months when trying to decide my first RF purchase. The final decission, after intense posting and researching was: I ordered a bessa r4m and a bessa t for the 15mm Heliar and the 40mm Nokton. Reasons, regarding this thread and appart from these camera/lenses combinations advantages and abilities:


I see two kinds of visions concerning optics and angle, one is looking at (more passive and distant, “thinking of the subject”) and the other one is being at (more active and close, “being with the subject”), cases of a normal lens and a wide angle lens... I mean, we learn to make a fast normal useful for a landscape at f/8 AND for a portrait at f/2, but two small lenses are more comfortable, and for sure not “too much” for any ocassion in my opinion.


I really want to go shooting with my new RF cameras and lenses soon (they must arrive this week!) to see if I made a good choice... Never before have I held a RF, not even looked through one! (I own and shoot in all other formats) I am so curious to see if the cameras are really smaller than my FE2, that I haven't gone -never- to a local store to check bessas size: I want to enjoy them ONLY when I'm sure they'll sleep with me that night. I mean forever if possible...


My actual “the only lens” light packing, is a very very small shoulder bag, vertical shape, leather, old and non photographic look, with a mechanical Nikon SLR with the 50mm f/1.4 Ai, AND, the 20 2.8 and 105 2.5, and for no bag, pockets.


Have no idea if I will ever feel the need for a portrait RF lens...

[wijayane]

28 most of the time but a 35 is never far from reach.

[shayallen]

I keep going back and forth with the 35mm and 50mm and like them both. On different days one or the other is my favorite. I am liking that with the 50mm I don't have to get so close when doing street stuff... I am still trying to get comfortable there.

[35mmdelux]

Perhaps its the subject-to-photographer distance but I prefer 35mm focal length. I work equally well with it outside or indoors without having to change lenses.

EDIT: On a trip the 21/35 would go for sure.

[kbg32]

28mm for film, 21mm for the M8. It is just the way I see the world. I can remember the day I first looked at the world through a friend's 28. That was it. I was hooked.

[scott kirkpatrick]

On the M2, 35mm -- it just fits. On the M8, I use the 28/2.0 most often, with some use of the 35 and 21. On days when I am crazy enough to try to shoot sports (kids basketball at courtside) with the M8, I use a 50/1.5 and 35/2.0.

scott

[kermaier]

When I was shooting 35mm film SLRs, it was a Canon F-1 with:
70% 50mm
20% 85mm
10% wider (24mm, 28mm or 35mm)

Now that I'm shooting digital RF, it's an Epson R-D1 with:
50% 35mm (Summaron f/2.8 or UC-Hex f/2)
40% 50mm (too many to list - depends on mood and lighting)
10% wider (25mm or 28mm)

So I guess that's mostly equivalent in terms of effective FoV.

::Ari

[eleskin]

Until this year, 80% of my shooting was done with the 35mm Summicron v4 Canadian (M6 then as of 2 years ago, M8). Now I am using a Noctilux that I bought recently as well as the new Voigtlander Super Wide Heliar. One thing strikes me here. I am now using two extreme lenses that behave quite differently. The 15mm Heliar can be used by shooting at the hip if you will, and the Noctilux requires very precise focus and framing. What amazes me is when you use these two lenses together with the same subject, the photos complement each other in spite of being so vastly different. I also keep my 35 with me as well, but the Noctilux and 15mm Heliar are being used much much more, and I am blown away by the combo!!!

[Wes Medlin]

It's always a 50mm. The second lens in the pocket changes from time to time. When I was younger, it was almost always a telephoto. Now it's more likely to be a wide angle. But the #1 lens on the camera is always a 50. Several of the cameras I own I don't have any lens for them but the 50.