Focal length change?

[boomguy57]

I am relatively new to photography, and to this forum. But from what I can tell, there seem to be people who go one of two ways when asked what single focal length they couldn't live without. It's generally a debate of 35mm vs. 50mm.

I was for years a 50mm guy. It was my most used lens on any camera, any system. I have never really liked zoom lenses--ever since I started with photography--and the 50mm lens is the one I gravitated to, and the focal length that I saw the world best through.

When the X100 came out last year, I was enamored. Entranced. Man, I had GAS...bad. But what held me back (other than being cautious at new launches, I'm not an early adopter generally, as I prefer to wait for kinks to be worked out) was the fixed 35mm. I had tried the Canonet QL17, and the Yashica Electro 35, and even the Olympus 35 RC; all are 35mm or 40mm, and I just never got along with them. Last November, however, I took the plunge and got the X100.

Since then, it has been basically the only digital camera I have used. My D700 gathers dust, along with my trusty 50/1.4. After months of use, I have gotten comments on my X100 work specifically, with people saying that the camera seems to fit me like a glove. I couldn't agree more. I use it all the time and it is easily the most enjoyable digital camera I have ever used. At first, the 35mm focal length took some adjusting to. I was forced to get closer to subjects, which took me out of my comfort range (I'm pretty shy around people, but do like street photography). More of the environment entered my frame, which took getting used to.

But still...I'm a 50mm guy. I love the 50mm focal length. The X-Pro 1 almost got me with that 50mm equivalent lens, but I resisted...several times, in fact.

Slowly, I have come to accept that maybe--just maybe--the 35mm focal length is better suited to me. Perhaps the X100 has taught me to see things differently, to shoot differently, to make images that are different. When I went for two weeks to Portugal last month with my wife, I took my M6, but I left my Summicron 50/2 at home. Blasphemy! I took the Nokton 40/1.4 instead, and my X100 of course.

Can one change from one focal length to another in such a short space of time? Or was I maybe a 35mm kind of shooter all along, and just didn't know it? Does anyone else have a similar experience to share?

[DRabbit]

It was my only hesitation in buying the x100. I'm usually a 45-55mm shooter, comfortably.
I've actually said before that a tri-elmar type lens on the x100 would be awesome!

However, I think when you're confined to one focal length, you adapt. And if you have a good eye, you'll adapt quickly. The slightly wider perspective of a true 35mm is probably a bit more interesting by it's nature (at least I think so), and with a little adjustment time, you make it work just fine for you.

I also think it's easier for someone who is used to primes (vs. zooms). We aren't afraid to move around with our feet as necessary

Personally, my only complaint about the 35mm focal length is when I can't get closer with my feet... like if a body of water is in my way!

[mdarnton]

Where I was always a 50mm guy, recently I've become more familiar with 35mm. I think it has been a change in my environment, into something more crowded, which leads me to need and use less personal space. I hadn't thought about it much until that happened, and then I realized that I'm just in smaller spaces, standing closer these days.

[daveleo]

I shot 28mm + 50mm for probably 20 years (family stuff), then bought a Konica Hexar simply because it was so beautiful, and I discovered Shangri-La with the 35mm lens. I love that view angle (in FF format) and the depth perspective I end up with, given how I use it.
As was mentioned above, I think it's the closeness of where I shoot most of my pictures plus that I very much like to get in physically closer to my subjects.

Let's call that my Hexar Epiphany

[ssmc]

50 and 35 have a strange relationship. If you turn a normal 135-format camera with a 50mm lens from landscape to portrait, the vertical coverage is almost exactly what you'd get from a 35mm lens in landscape (especially since most "50mm" lenses are actually slightly longer than the spec). So you have probably been unconsciously "seeing" the 35mm FOV (or at least part of it, just cropped either side) every time you took a 50mm shot in portrait orientation (you can shoot a 3-frame panorama with lots of overlap using a 50mm lens this way and get a high-res 35mm field of view).

Anyway, that's my theory as to why I seem to have really taken to 35mm after decades of 50mm!

Regards,
Scott

[FTography]

The comfort zone you mention, I think, can be a very important factor in focal length preferences - depending on your application. From my own experience, I can say that at first I used longer focal lengths for fields that might have benefited from shorter focal lengths. I, too, enjoy street photography and felt that, after gaining more experience and confidence in shooting, I would get more 'daring' in getting closer to the subject(s).
Mind you, I am not a shy person, but it took some time to get used to approaching people so closely armed with a camera and a lens.
(It might be a very German thing to be so concerned with comfort zones and personal space, I do not know. )

Originally, I felt at home with focal lengths between 135 and 50mm.
Now, I'd rather use anything between 85 and 24mm.
I feel much more 'in touch' with what I photograph when using a wider lens, regardless whether it's animate or inanimate objects.