I know that each of us has to decide for themselves about focal lengths. But can anyone give me something to think about in regards to choosing a 35 or 28 to add to a 20/50/90 lens setup. In trying to think of photographers who use those focal lengths, Harvey is the only one who comes to mind specifically. And 35 is mostly his lens of choice. Can anyone think of other shooters? It just sort of seems that the 20-25 jump is kind of large while the 35-50 jump is small. But I like the look of 35 shots, with their absence of a "wide-angle" look.

-- Josh Root (rootj@att.net), July 12, 2001

Answers

Josh,

21 to 28 to 50 to 90 sounds like a good spread. However the choice of 28 vs 35 will depend on wheither you like the look of a wide normal or a long wide. I like both.

The 35 focal length does not produce as much distortion compared to the 28. Especially when you hold for vertical/portrait shots. Up close it's easy to produce "egg head" shots of people in the 28. It's more not holding the plane of the film perpendicular to the ground rather than anything else, but it's noticable from 28's and wider.

Also which body you have and wheither you can live with another external finder or wear glasses will play an important factor.

Only bodies younger than M4-2's will have the 28 frameline. Even so I find with the exception of the new .58 (or Hexar), with all bodies it's hard to see the 28 framelines. Many find the 28 is better served with an external finder anyway as this better represents the actual view of field.

The 35 sits well on all bodies and the framelines can be easily seen. For some this even holds true with the M3.

Cheers

-- Simon Wong (drsimonwong@hotmail.com), July 12, 2001.

What do you shoot predominantly? If it isn't low-light candids, get the Tri-Elmar. You'll have dazzling performance, the 28-vs-35 dilemma is immediately solved, and you can leave the 50 home except when you do want low-light shots.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), July 12, 2001.

For me the 28 can be a little like the 21, talking about distortion; but the 35 is not like the 50, so it may be a diferent kind of lens to your system,

35 shotters: Robert Frank, Susan Meiselas, Alfred Einsested, Salgado, Koudelka is more a 28/35, actualy there are few photographers that tend to work with one lens only.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), July 12, 2001.

In my expeience, the "jump" from 35 to 50 is bigger in application than it first seems on paper. It is about the same as going from a 24 to a 35, which most would agree is a decent spread.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), July 12, 2001.

I notice that I meant to write "The 20-35 jump is large while the 35- 50 is small" But I hope everybody got the idea.

I'm not a big fan of the Tri-E. Good idea, but I like a faster lens. Athough I could just have it and have a fast 35 or 50 with me. But still.......like I said, I'm not a big fan of it.

I've really only used 28mm on my GR1 p&s camera. Sometimes it seems great (I took a porch shot the other day that I can't wait to get out of the camera). But I'm not sure that there's much with a 28 I couldn't do with a 35. Having said that, I'm sure I'll be proved wrong.

-- Josh Root (rootj@att.net), July 12, 2001.

I'm using a 20/50/90 kit right now, and it's really hard to imagine getting a 35. I prefer my normal to be a long normal, and my backgrounds not to intrude.

I keep thinking of getting a fast 28 (28/1.9 or an SLR lens, not the rapaciously expensive Summicron), but the 20 really does pretty well for me. I can stand off and crop in printing or get close and campy. I don't really NEED to fill any gap, because I don't perceive one in ordinary use.

When it comes down to the meat of the issue, I don't think a 28 or 35 would get me any images I miss now with the 20/50. It would add more weight and keep me from improving my darkroom by spending my cash, tho.

It doesn't hurt that my favorite photographers were/are 50 people as opposed to 35 people...

-- John O'Connell (boywonderiloveyou@hotmail.com), July 12, 2001.

I have 21/35/90 and will add a 28 next. 28 is nice because it's the widest you can use without accessory finder weight and bulk.

On the other hand I have not really had a problem with the 21-35 gap - not that much bigger than a 24-35 gap.

D.A. Harvey uses 28/35/50 BTW - calls the 50 his 'telephoto'. So does Salgado. I think MOST of the Nat. Geo/Magnum group use about that combo (Alex Webb, Stuart Franklin) They certainly all use both the 28 and the 35 at some point. So I wouldn't worry overmuch about 'spacing'

Then again, who are you kidding - you own Leicas now - you'll eventually get BOTH a 35 and a 28!!

But the 28 may make the most sense as your most immediate addition.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), July 12, 2001.

Josh, you said you like the look of 35 shots. This suggests to me that you know which lens you want next. Jack raised an important point when he said that the gap from 35 to 50 is wider in practice than it is on paper. I think that's true. With wide angle lenses, a few millimeters means a lot. You could get the 28 so as to cover a wider range initially, and then fill in with the 35 later. But 35 is such a great lens on the Leica that you're going to get one sooner or later. It is sufficiently different from the 50 to see a lot of use.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), July 12, 2001.