Which lenses did you use with your 35mm film cameras?

It was only in my later years did I have more than just the standard lens, 50mm on 35mm and 80mm on my Rollei etc.

I started shooting film [movies?] before stills and there the standard lens equated to about a 90mm on 35mm and only after some years did I get the equivalent of perhaps a 35mm.

<p>As a street shooter the 24 and 35 were always my first choice. In my many years of wedding shooting, I found the 35-70 zoom to be the single most useful lens. the shots being 75% with the 35mm, about 20% at 50mm, the remaining 5% shot at 70mm.<br>

As a travel hobby shooter, and sometime commercial shooter. I carried 20,24,35,50,85,105,200,300 with 1.4X TC. On a typical day of shooting 10-20 rolls of chromes, almost every lens would see some duty.<br>

I always have loved both the 35mm and the 50mm. They always seemed the most natural to me.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>As a street shooter the 24 and 35 were always my first choice</p>

</blockquote>

<p>May I ask which most recent camera and lenses those were, Steve L.?</p>

<p>I shot a 35mm with a 35mm F2.8 lens for most of my photojournalism use..shot a lot of tri-x<br>

for the local newspaper and church news letters.. </p>

<p>Nikon F100 with a 35-70mm D f/2.8 zoom lens; best 35mm film combination I ever got to use.</p>

<p>24 or 28mm, 50mm, and 105mm on my Nikon F cameras. This combo worked from 1968 to when I got a D70. The most used were the wide angles for general purpose stuff, and the 105 for portraits. You can see lots of examples in my 70's folder.</p>

<p>Ms. Overland and Gentlepersons: </p>

<p>From 1938 until about 1962 I lived with a 50mm Cooke type three-element F:4.5 lens on an Argus AF. Looking back it is amazing how well I could frame a shot simply by walking forward or backward. Of course, by the early 1950s I could have bought a nice Kodak Retina with a superior 50mm (F:2.0 to boot) six-element lens and by changing the front element group have 35mm and 80mm focal lengths as well. But, family came first. Even so, had I been a millionaire there were no convenient 28-300mm lenses that would fit in the palm of my hand. </p>

<p>There were also some beautiful shots I could have taken of Task Force escort ships while standing watch on the bridge in the early Pacific and South Pacific years of WWII with a long telephoto lens. On the other hand, what would I attach the lens to? My cheap Argus had been confiscated as I left for Hawaii just days after December 7, 1941 and was not returned until the U.S.S. Enterprise returned stateside in late 1943. </p>

<p>Boy, are we spoiled today or what? Fussy, fussy, fussy</p>

<p>A. T. Burke </p>

<p>P.S. Although the Argus had an F:Stop of 4.5, the T:Stop was really about 5.6 to 6.3 on that crude uncoated lens. Some of my Kodachromes were a little dark. </p>

 

Honestly, I think this thread would have been much more interesting if it was titled:

 

"What photos did you make with your 35mm film cameras?"

<p>Mr. Burke, that was a sweet little story. A piece of the history of your life. How the world has changed since then. For better and for worse. Thank you.</p>

<p>For the past 20+ years my film shooting has been done with a Contax RST-II. I carried Zeiss 28mm/2.8, 50mm/1.7 and 135mm/2.8 lenses. I guesstimate that about half of the shots were made with the 28mm and the remainder split between the two longer lenses. I also carried, from time to time, a Vivitar 2X Macro-Focusing Teleconverter which allowed me to take macro shots with the 50mm.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>JDM, what kind of motifs did you use it for? It must have been a very expensive lens at the time, wasn't it?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Durn tootin', but worth every penny - I still use it on my Canon cameras today. I've used it in dark caves, interior shots, and gadding about towns at night. My favorite low light film was the GAF 500 which had grain pretty much in the golf-ball range, but you could get shots that otherwise would have involved tripods, reciprocity and all the rest. Later on, there were much faster color films, but at the time, 500 was king.</p><div></div>

<p>Interesting. i started with a real camera in 1960 the argus c-3 and fujita classic IV<br>

were fixed lens cameras. a few years ;latter I bought a SLR and was satisfired with the 50mm lens.<br>

since it was a Miranda D other lenses were not easy to find. I bought a preset tepehoto ( 135)<br>

but found it too long to be really useful.<br>

Later buy luck found a 35mm . the camera required P A D lenses which were rare.<br>

I really wanted something a "little long" and found a 80mm f/2.8<br>

preset and used and enjoyes that for portraits and so as not to intrude<br>

when taking "close ups" from farther back at weddings and social events. I could get natural effect photos which people likedn</p>

<p>later when I got a sensorex I could buy other lenses to wotk and fit properly.<br>

the first one I bought was the 85mm f/1.7. by then film was faster and I did not need a flash to get natural looking close ups.<br>

I think from the way I used my camera during those years either the 50 or 85 were the best lenses I used.<br>

I had both 28 and 35 mm lenses and sometimes I used the 35mm lens as a normal<br>

lens but rarely the 28mm. I once took a photo of a young woman with a slightly<br>

large somewhat pointy nose. and the Bugle Snoot effect turned me off to the 28mm lens.<br>

Now that I have more lenses than I can carry. I still prefer those two lenses.<br>

if something happened to any of the others., I would only replace the 85mm.</p>

<p>I have had a lot of 35mm cameras but I prefer SLRs because of the viewfinder and the ability to focus manually. Canon F-1, Minolta X, and Nikon F systems are great but I do not love them. What I like most are the Pentax KX and Nikon FM with 50mm F1.4 lens. These two guys can be found for a reasonable price, even though the Pentax is very hard to find in mint condition without some personal inscription.<br>

Among the common 35mm SLRs, I do not like : K1000, AE-1, A-1, OMs, Minolta X700</p>

<p>A very cool shot, JDM.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the GAF 500 which had grain pretty much in the golf-ball range</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That would not be much different from my D300 at higher ISO's. Golf-ball noise, that is ;-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Among the common 35mm SLRs, I do not like : K1000, AE-1, A-1, OMs, Minolta X700</p>

</blockquote>

<p>John T, can you tell us something about why you don't like these cameras? Is it because they lack functions or because of poor 'durability' (if that is the right word)? </p>

<p>My 35mm and medium format film lenses were and still are the most ordinary types. Mainly whatever the "normal" focal length is for a given film format, particularly with medium format as I've only owned TLRs and folders with fixed lenses.</p>

<p>In 35mm film SLRs mostly 28mm, 35mm, 50mm and medium teles ranging from 85mm to 135mm. Nowadays I'm more likely to use the 35-70/2.8D AF Nikkor for my film Nikons since it covers my comfort zone pretty well.</p>

<p>If I had to choose one lens for everything - regardless of format, digital or film - it would be a fast equivalent to the 35mm focal length for 35mm film. For some reason I seem to see things that way, and there's a bump in the EXIF data to support it. Probably why there isn't much difference between my film and digital photos, other than efficiency in workflow.</p>

<p>I do mainly city/landscapes so with my Nikon F100 it's been the 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 used a lot around the 18-20mm. When I shoot Nikon DX I use a Sigma 10-20mm and just go with the flow ... knowing the two will be different. </p>

<p>I know I don't have the best equip, but it does the job and pro's have used these ... </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Nowadays I'm more likely to use the 35-70/2.8D AF Nikkor for my film Nikons since it covers my comfort zone pretty well.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I already have this lens, but it doesn't do too well on my DX. I am looking forward to using it on some Nikon film cameras. Hopefully it will deliver on the FX format. It seems to be a popular lens.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If I had to choose one lens for everything - regardless of format, digital or film - it would be a fast equivalent to the 35mm focal length for 35mm film.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think that might be my choice too if I had to choose just one lens. I am seeing a lot of 50mm's for sale. There are not a lot of 35mm's to buy (sold by camera owners in a set with theirs cameras. On the bay and elsewhere you can find them, off course).</p>

<p>Among the common 35mm SLRs, I do not like : K1000, AE-1, A-1, OMs, Minolta X700<br>

John T, can you tell us something about why you don't like these cameras? Is it because they lack functions or because of poor 'durability' (if that is the right word)?</p>

<p>I can't speak for John but I have the same dislike for those cameras. <br>

1. The K1000 was supposed to be a cheap camera that could do the job. It's ok but seriously lack the finese of the better model like the KX or the MX. It's ok camera as long as it's cheap but when it's sold for more than the KX it's a bad deal.<br>

2. Never owned the AE-1. I worked at a 1 hr photo shop back in the early 80's and met so many people with this camera. They all had underexposed film. They actually came back with better exposure when I told them to use the recommendation inside the film boxes. It's difficult to use in manual exposure mode.<br>

3. The A1 is just to complex. Didn't use them much.<br>

4. Heard lots of good things about the OM's until I actually own an OM-2. Many people would praise its meter but I really hate its meter. I don't like the 2 meter system, one for your eyes and one for the actual exposure. </p>

<p>Ann, I've had (and still have) several different Minoltas, but the ones that have had the most use are an SRT, and later an X700 and an XD11 that traveled together. The X700, while very good, wasn't doing it for me in the "feel" department so it got displaced by a second XD11. </p>

<p>Ann, I used to use a Nikor 28mm for my 35mm street shooting (I also use medium format in the street with both a standard lens and a 28mm equivalent) but when I decided to pick up a Zeiss lens, I went with 35mm for two reasons. One is that the distortion such as leaning buildings is less pronounced with a 35 over a wider lens. Second is I tend to favor vertical shots in the street over horizontal ones. With a 28, this leaved too much empty foreground space unless one is practically on top of their subjects. I print full frame so a 35 gives me a bit more breathing room. However, as the example below proves even with a 35, shooting vertical in the street requires close quarters. In this shot I stood still and made the picture as they walked toward me. They had to split and walk on either side of me; that is how close the proximity was. In the street, you want to be close, but not so close that people run into you. </p><div></div>

<p>My favourites are a Yashica FX-3 Super 2000 with the Yashical ML 28mm lens (Once had the 21mm ML lens, a fine performer, but sold it in a weak moment) and the M4-P Leica rangefinder with 35mm Summicron lens. I sold the 50mm Summicron lens and regret it, but bought down to a 50mm Elmar-M f2.8, which is small (collapsible) and virtually as good.</p>

<p>For large prints and better quality than 35mm film cameras, I prefer medium format (Mamiya and Fuji rangefinders)</p>

 

<p>The combination I like the most is the 40mm f/2.8 "pancake" lens on my Pentax MX. The small size of the body paired with the flat lens makes it fit comfortably under my coat. Also 40mm is just slightly wider than the usual 50mm I use on other bodies and is suited well for street shots as long as there's sufficient light for an f/2.8.</p>

<p>I shoot Olympus OM2N and OM4. I have 24, 28 and 35mm f/2.8 plus a 50 f/1.8. I love the 24mm, it's easily the best lens I have ever owned, the 28 is close, as is the 50. The 35 needs a CLA so no idea what that will be like yet</p>

<p><strong>As a street shooter the 24 and 35 were always my first choice</strong></p>

<p>""May I ask which most recent camera and lenses those were, Steve L.?""</p>

<p>Most recent cameras: Nikon 8008S and F100. The lenses for street shooting were the 24/f28 AI, and my favorite Nikkor ever: the 35/F2 AI.</p>