Is there anyone NOT a fan of the 35mm FL?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Leica Photography : One Thread

This has become a huge mystery for me.

Why is the 35mm SO touted among Leica-users (Leicans? Leicalians? Leicalists?)?? People seem to choose the 35mm if they're forced to use just one lens and one camera.

There seems to be no other FL that gets the same kind of following. Is it the viewfinder, and just general 'handling?' I have found it's not very good for close-up portraits, and not quite wide enough for scenics. IMO, it's a good all-around snapshot FL, but if I'm in Yosemite, I feel I'm missing out; if I'm taking a head and shoulders portrait, I know I'm going to get a long nose or some distortion.

(Personally, up to now, I've always felt I saw the world at the 28mm, on my SLR. But, after shooting 35mm exlusively for some time (Hexar original), I found it hard to go back to 28mm.)

-- Tse-Sung Wu (tsesung@yahoo.com), April 11, 2001

Answers

To me, the beauty of the 35mm FL(or 40 in the case of my Minolta CLE) is that with care in subject placement you can get fairly distortion free images, plus the lenses are usually super sharp, small, fast, and easy to focus. They are also capable of capturing good depth of field when used in the middle apertures for scale focused grab shots. I also use this focal length for environmental portraits and low light work. It goes great with a 90mm for a compact 2 lens set up for travel. 28mm to me is to wide for general purpose shooting.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), April 11, 2001.

You're right that there is a peculiar synergy between the Leica M and the 35. The reason for me is that the 35 does best what I think the Leica itself does best - showing people in action within a context. Not portraits, not landscapes, not bugs'n'flowers - people in their environment. For this the 35mm is just about perfect. It's wide enough to show the setting, but it's just long enough that you don't have to stand on top of people to get them to dominate the frame.

Obviously the Leica M with a 35 can be used for landscapes. It can also be used for portaits - of a particular type. It's really not so hot for bugs :-) But for all these things there are other lenses and/or cameras that do that stuff as well or better.

I too found that I used a 28 in preference to a 35mm on my SLRs, but that my vision seemed to change when I switched to Leicas. I still love the 28mm on the Leica for the extra "push" it can give a scene, but if I want to grab one focal length for the day it will be the 35.

I almost feel guilty about not preferring the 50 - after all, that's the ultimate purist's lens. But the 50 just isn't as good at that "close to the action with context visible" thing as the 35.

Of course we all know what one lens deals with all these issues with a single click of the ring ;-)

-- Paul Chefurka (paul_chefurka@pmc-sierra.com), April 11, 2001.


I know that I am in the minority, but, my first choice is always the 50mm, then 35, then 28mm with 90mm seldom used. Most of what I do is Street Photography, http://www.streetphoto.net/ I do NOT consider myself a purist, rather what I want from my photos is to fill the frame which seems to be a technique that is lost on a lot of Street Photography. I would also like to say that it seems once you have been using a certain focal length most of the time, like 28mm or whatever, then that is what you seem to adapt to and favor.

-- Steve LeHuray (icommag@toad.net), April 11, 2001.

It the Leica viewfinder showed the entire 100% image of a 50mm lens, there would be a lot less 35mm used (then cropped).

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), April 11, 2001.

I love to do candid street shooting, and the 35mm lens is my favorite lens for this for several reasons. Most of my street shooting is in good light without bringing the camera to my eye. The extra depth of field allows me a deeper zone of focusing than say a 50mm lens at the same f-stop. If I can eye-ball 4-10 feet (no problem), I can walk up and shoot without focusing when the lens is set at f/8 and focused to about 6 feet. But for me more important is the framing accuracy when shooting blind. The long side of the negative with a 35mm lens is equal to the distance from the subject. If I am 5 feet from a subject, the horizontal side of the film will capture a 5 foot section of the environment. If you hold the camera vertical, you can get a 6 foot man fully framed at six feet from him... just aim towards mid-body. With just a bit of practice, this becomes very fast, and surprisingly accurate. While a 28, 24 or 21 would win as far as depth of field, the ability to frame without viewing has allowed me to capture my best candid photography. Additionally, the lack of distortion with the more tame 35mm lens, allows a more natural look, especially with people in the frame.

With all of that said, I will still grab my 50mm 'cron for more considered "formal" type shots. I couldn't say one is more important to me than the other... they form a team, and both players score often.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), April 11, 2001.



I'm not a fan of the 35mm and never have been. I am amazed that I like my Rokkor 40mm so much more since it is quite similar. Actually I always think of the 40mm as "a slightly wider 50mm" rather than being a 35mm manque. The good thing about a 35mm is that is it good for group portraits at events such as weddings and such like, otherwise I would much rather have a 50mm, but to be fair you can learn to like any lens if you try hard enough. Andrew is surely correct when he outlines its virtues - mind you, I think that about my 40mm too - but not really about a 35mm.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), April 11, 2001.

I've got to somewhat agree with Bill Mitchell. I've heard many people say they never use 35mm on an SLR but it's their favorite lens with the Leica. I believe the initial draw to the 35 on a Leica is the size of the framelines in the 0.72 finder. Thereafter I think with constant use, people develop a greater familiarity and proficiency with it than the other lenses and therefore come to prefer it. Many of us "old timers" who owned only a "standard" 50mm lens for a long time have the same facility with that focal length. I feel sorry for anyone starting out with a 28-300 zoom as sometimes too much choice can be limiting.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), April 11, 2001.

I think a case could be made that the 35 saved the M from extinction, at least a a professional tool, that and the quiet shutter. I was a CBOB' -college boy office boy, gofer - at Time when the Nikon F came out in 1959 and was praised as "a hockey puck" by the repairman most Time-Lifers used, Marty Forscher. In that outfit the staff photographers were treated like aristocrats and the equipment budget was generous. Everybody immediately ordered two Fs and a bunch of lenses, which were delivered on the run by Penn Camera Exchange. But the photo-nobility quickly found out it was hard to focus a wide angle quickly on an F, and so the F's got the normal and longer lenses but the shooters used an M2 for the 35 and the 21.....

-- david kelly (dmkedit@aol.com), April 11, 2001.

I've had a few 35s, and almost never use them. It and the 135 get my votes as the lenses with the least point of view, and therefore the least utility when trying to extract an image from the mess of life.

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), April 11, 2001.

What can I add? When I grab a one camera/one lens combo for travel or street or casual snaps, its the M with a 35 -- I own other M lenses, but the 35 just "works" for me in those situations.

By contrast, if I'm shooting the kids at a sporting event, it's the auto-everything Nikon SLR with the high-tech everything tele-zoom that gets grabbed. When I shoot scenics with my view camera, the 90 (equivalent to about a 25 in 35mm) is what gets used most. The second most used lens in LF is my 300 (equivalent to an 85 in 35mm). For what ever reason, I sold the 135mm (equal to the 35 in 35mm, my most- used lens) in my LF stable, and swapped it out for a 150 (about a 43 in 35mm), and for what ever reason, it sees a lot more use than the 135 did(?)

I think how and what we are shooting affects how we see our subject, and thus affects the gear choices we make to get that vision on paper. IMO, cameras, lenses, film and light then become tools to that end, and not choices that are "right" or "wrong", just personal preferences...

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), April 11, 2001.



clarification - I meant to imply the 35 lens on the M is my all- around, most used lens, but the equivalent lens in LF saw virtually no use.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), April 11, 2001.

Every one of us could have a special reason to like the 35, I feel I share many of the reasons you have posted, even when dislike this lens, I understand is not a powerful prespective lens, like could be a super wide or an extreme tele, but we may agree it is a lens wich prespective doesn´t add much to a picture (like a 50 too), and I belive it is the most powerful reason, why it adds a lot to direct street journalist kind of photography, when you look into it´s frame you dont get distracted by prespectives or distortions, and we can be more consentrated on what we are seeing.

-- R Watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), April 11, 2001.

Personally, I like my 12mm. Its not for everyone and I don't much like the weird perspective tricks, but if you hold it level, the photographs almost look like you could walk into them.

-- mark (mramra@qwest.net), April 11, 2001.

I've got this old Nikon catalog which introduces the 50mm section with the line, "Like your eyes only." Like whose eyes? I really like my 1969-79 50mm Summicron. There's shots for which it's right. BUT I feel that the 35mm best duplicates the perspective I usually see with my eyes when I first arrive on the scene. It takes in just enough to see what I saw. Later, I might switch to another focal length to explore other possiblities of the subject. The 50mm FL may be over-touted because of its "normal" status. But the normal lens is supposed to be equal in FL to the film diagonal, which in our case, is 43mm. This might help explain why Robin finds the 40mm so useful. It's really closer to "normal." In fact when we print to an 8 x 10 proportion, we are using only 24 x 30mm of the negative, and the diagonal becomes 38mm. Then the 35mm and 40mm can both be called normal. I won't be giving up my other lenses, but the 35 is very valuable to me.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), April 11, 2001.

I had been a long time SLR shooter with my FM2 using mainly the 24mm, 50mm, 85mm and 180mm lens. The 35mm never really entered my vision with my Nikon. However, ever since I acquired my M6, I have become strangely attracted to the 35 lens. It is now the camera I choose for most circumstances and usually with the 35mm lens attached. Other focal lengths have their merits especially on other cameras/systems; but, with my M6 the 35mm is king!!

-- Tommy Chung (dr_tommychung@hotmail.com), April 12, 2001.


Since I ‘ve read Bill Mitchell’s and Jay’s postings I ‘ve understood why I don’t like shooting with the M3 & 35mm and M4-P & 50mm. The M3’s VF shows the entire 100% image of a 50mm lens, while M4- P,M6’ shows only 86% and has 0.72 magnification vs 0.96 of an M3’s.

Thanks

-- Victor Randin (www.ved@enran.com.ua), April 12, 2001.


As a matter of fact lens with focal length between 35 to 40 mm is the most widely used lens in all of 35mm cameras. Just look at all the compact cameeras: Contax T/T2 38mm, Contax T3 35mm, Minox GT-E 35mm Rollei 35 40mm, Olympus XA 35mm.

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), April 12, 2001.

I prefer 50mm. One camera/one lens implies a 'normal' 50mm lens to me. Don't get me wrong, I very much like the 35mm perspective and the added DoF is a real big plus, its just that when I take the 35 (in SLR as I have no 35 for my M) I always feel compelled to take my 85mm along too. With the 50mm, I am free of all accessories, just one body and one lens in a tiny waist pack.

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), April 12, 2001.

While I like the work of other photographers who use a 35mm lens often, I very seldom use that focal length myself. I much prefer a 50 for my normal lens. Because I frequently use a limited depth of field, the extra DOF of the 35 is a disadvantage. And if I do want to use a wide angle, the 35 isn't wide enough.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), April 12, 2001.

Lenses in the range of about 50 to 60mm (or equivalent in larger formats) have been my most used lenses for many years. I recently bought an M6 with a 50 Summicron. The first few rolls of film (while I was borrowing the camera and considering buying it), I thought the lens was too long. I really considered an 35mm for a while even though I almost never use any lens wider than 50mm on other cameras.

After looking at the negatives, I realized how much more showed up on the negatives than I saw through the frame lines. I'm now pretty happy with the 50mm, but constantly have to remind myself to compose very tight at most distances I use.

I can't imagine using a 28mm with the .72X M6 and even the 35mm frame is hard for me to see especially considering that it doesn't show the whole frame except at shortest focus distance.

The other problem I see with lenses wider than 35mm is that they don't focus close enough. When I do use a wide angle, I like to shoot really close to my subject. The 28" minimum would often be a problem for me with a 28mm or wider lens. Most SLR lenses this short focus to around 1 foot and even most wide zooms focus to significantly less than 28"

-- John Sparks (jsparks@agilent.com), April 12, 2001.


The 35 is the lens of choice for the M2, M4, M5, and M6. The viewfinder on these cameras works very well with the 35. These models are most likely to be found in the hands of a working photographer.

An M3 fan such as myself might well favor the 50. I do, probably to the point of overkill, as I have a Canon f/2, a Summilux f/1.4 and a Noctilux. I find the quality of the images to be outstanding. The Canon 35 f/2 on my M4 doesn't get grabbed nearly as often as the M3 with it's Summilux. It's very much a matter of taste, there are no right or wrong answers here, but for me, the M3, with it's almost life sized viewfinder and correspondly more accurate viewfinder, is the ultimate in precise photography.

Of course, I own lenses from 15 to 135, and use them all, when appropriate, but if I'm traveling light, I take the M3 (with it's body cap) in one pocket and the 50 Summilux in another.

-- Tom Bryant (boffin@gis.net), April 15, 2001.


Maybe a little of topic but one of the gratest things i have done to refresh my composition and how I am seeing in the world ( I am soory for my english)was to take one body and one lens ONLY and shoot with this on assignment. Five years before I did this in Khazakstan. My editor was having heart attack, but he allow this to me and the result was the most free experience of my carreer. No choice to make just compose and shoot and make the frame work. I took with me My M4P and a 35mm f/2 Summicron (Canada). For six month I was shooting only with this. I had to make a choice on the lens I would take, I am thinking it was the good choice, but the exercise would work with any lens, it is about refining the eye. Please try this at sometime, as a photojournalist it was frightening to trust an entire assigment to one lens perspective, but maybe more scared was my editor, anyway it was teaching something about telling the simple story and expressing what I am seeing. Sometimes I think we make things to complex. I also had more room for my cigars and humidor. O and the editor, well he was complaining a little but I he gave the cover, you knoe editors will always complain.

Merci Bien Benoit

-- Benoit Lalande (lalandebenoit@hotmail.com), April 21, 2001.


Benoit, by doing this excercise did you tend to expose more film than the normal with several cameras, or was it about the same, I ask you this because I did once the same on a personal proyect, and the result was a lot more film exposed so a lot of more work done, even though the same prespective, as a result of that experience I only enriched this technich by adding a 28 and a 50 in two more bodies.But still is like carring only one lens, but with a little flexibilitie.

-- R Watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), April 21, 2001.

Mr. Watson...

Actualy I was shooting maybe 1/2 to my normal ratio, I found myself more selective. This traditionaly is not a thing that most editors like, in fact they are always screeming for more coverage, you know vertical, horizontal, wider, tighter of the same subject, I have always hated this process, but it is the business no?. I Knoe I am a better photographer for doing this, it grately improved my eye for what is important and is not. God I wish I could work without editors, sometimes it is breaking my heart when I see there choices of what I bring to them. I have done the same exercise with my Rollei TLR with the 75mm Planar using 120 rolls. It is very difficult to fight the urge to bring everything,all your lens,so you can have all the possibility in perspective, but this, how you say minimalist appraoch does something unique for me, it is making me to solve composition problems and in place of changing a lens, you must change your view and find a new perspective that works and also having the same or maybe more inetersting impact.

By the way I rarely work with anything longer than a 50mm , in 135 format, or a 80 in Medium Format.

Benoit.

-- Benoit Lalande (lalandebenoit@hotmail.com), April 21, 2001.


Mr Lalande; I don´t have the experience to talk about diferent way of working on the same subject, but working with one lens made me concentrate more on what I was doing then, and shoot a lot more, not in the way of doing the same frame horizontal and vertical up and down, but been free to aproach without change my prespective, and react to everything I could see instintively; actualy 99% of my shooting with the 35 and 28 is horizontal, vertical is left to the 50mm, and a lot goes through the 35.

-- R Watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), April 21, 2001.

I really disliked the 35mm focal length for a long time (20+ years!) because it seemed to be too wide to make to-the-point compositions, too wide to make for good portraiture, and a generally bland focal length that was also too narrow for effective near/far and landscape shots. I greatly preferred the 50mm.

But I've come to like the 35mm for its ease of use in environmental portraiture (the 50mm really makes you work hard to get the right composition-not always the best way to put your subject at ease) and in conveying a sense of place. And somehow, the 35 "look" simply does not look as wide-angle as it used to many years ago.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), April 23, 2001.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ