35 or 50?

[zdenek]

I would like to know what lens, 35/1.4 ASPH OR 50/1.4 (ASPH?) is more

universal for taking "current" pictures? Please, share your

experiences. Thanks.

Zdenek

[leon chang]

What do you mean with "current" pictures?

 

What I know is that the 35 will include a bit more of the subject's surroundings, which is what I prefer. As for the 50, it's always a bit too wide or too short for me. Ofcourse you can move in and out, but that's not the issue. The 1.4 apertures guarantee low light possibilities with relatively good DOF. Then again, use a 2.0 aperture with faster film and you're there also.

 

All depends on what you need, what you like and what you can finance... . Good luck.

[leon chang]

If you start out in Leica M- photography it may be an idea to start with the 50 f/2.0 Summicron. It's expensive but not overdone. This way you can learn and appreciate. After that you may decide you don't really need the 1.4. The 50 'cron is an excellent starter's lens IMO, if you appreciate the 50 mm focal lenght that is.

[john_jovic]

"Current" pictures...

 

Why there is no way you can shoot "current" pics with just a 35 and 50 lux. You need a complete working outfit consisting of every M lens to cope with any circumstance. You'll also need every M body dating back to the early '50's. In case you also want accurate framing you might want to get a few R bodies along with every R lens. Thought obviously only one of every focal lenght, not every apature of every focal lenght, I mean, lets not be silly.

 

JJ

 

PS aren't "current" pics all digital?

[steve george]

I only ever really used a 35mm when using SLR's, but when I went rangefinder for most of my pics budget dictated a 50mm Summicron rather than a 35mm. Now I'd not use anything else and wider lenses seem "too wide". Before I got my Summicron someone told me you never regret buying a 50mm Summicron - I can confirm that's my experience.

[leon chang]

Zdenek, pls. re-phrase your question for the sake of serious answers....

[les_lammers]

Zdenek,

 

The 35 may be more useful if you will have only one lens. It really is personal preference. Are you certain you need f1.4? If not, you could get a 50 Cron and 35 Cron and save a lot of $$$, just use faster film in low light.

 

Les

[john_jovic]

Leon, are you suggesting my answer was not serious, how else can you shoot "current" pics??? Hmmm???

 

OK, you got me, just kidding.

JJ

[john_brewton]

Zdenik, I shoot with a 50 'cron and a 28 Elmarit. I'd happily trade both for a 35 to lighten my kit. However, since not too many want to trade I'm okay with what I have.

[leon chang]

John, your answer was fully in line with the question ;-)

[dennis_couvillion]

Zdenek:

 

Either lens would be an excellent choice. In fact, buy one now with the idea of supplementing your kit with the other later on.

 

Regards,

 

Dennis

[frank_scheitrowsky1]

Zdenek = FrankG

 

A man has nothing in this world but his honour.

[michael_kastner]

I'd say get a 2/50 plus a 2/35. If you're still not sure, then get a 2/40 as well.

[ken_ford1]

"Zdenek = FrankG"

 

A little fast with the accusations there, aren't we?

 

I suspect "current" is a mistranslation - perhaps the word is "documentary" or "reportage"?

[al_kaplan1]

Spend a day walking around with a camera that has both 35 and 50mm framelines. When you see a "picture" you like visualize how you want to frame it. Only then do you raise the camera to your eye and see which frameline outlines your picture the best. Different people "see" differently. I prefer the 35. You might discover that you really should be shooting with a 21 or a 90.

[simon larbalestier]

Zdenek

I don't have the recent ASPH version of these lenses but I use both the 35 and 50 1.4 pre

ASPH luxes -they compliment each other very well.

I use a 50 2.8 Elmar if i want to get a bit closer than 1.m to the subject. When you shoot a

lot with the 35 and get used to that frame size, the 50 feels a bit like a tele hence the

reason why i think they compliment each other when shooting. Using two M bodies it's

easy to switch between the two.

I hear the current ASPH's are even "sharper" and have more "colour resolution" which i

don't doubt but i shoot TX 400 maybe 100 if the lights good enough in contrasty SE Asian

sun - so the older glass with less contrast, works very well for me with b/w film and a

Nikon 5000 ED film scanner. If you want some examples let me know and i'll post them as

i'm scanning recent images from my last trip to Cambodia.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "current pictures"?

 

Simon

[paul t]

By "current" pictures I/m thinking you mean pictures-with-currency = news

pictures = reportage. <p>

35 v 50, it's the oldest debate, next to supprting green or blue in the chariot

race. Personally I think you should hold off on buying ultra-expensive lenses

until you find what works for you. But for more opinions you might want to

check out <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=

00Eokt&tag=">the last 35 or 50 thread</a>,

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00FPKC&

tag=">plus another variant, 35, 45 or 50</a> ,

 

 

 

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=002fN7&

tag=">and for a wider-angle debate, maybe think about 28, 35 or 50?</a>

[terry_rory]

I would go for 50mm but both would be better.

[al_kaplan1]

Simon makes a good point about older lenses. Just because the f/1.4 aspherics are the latest and most expensive doesn't mean they're the best for you. The one lens you might want to stay away from,though, is the first model of the 35/1.4 Summilux. It's soft wide open and flares a lot. Still, for pictures to be reproduced in a newspaper you'd likely not notice the difference on the printed page, and it can be a nice effect for some shots. You could buy a pair of older Summicrons for what one of the "fastest latest bestest" goes for new. If you don't mind a bit of cosmetic wear on the mount you can save even more. They're only tools, after all.

[inspiration point studio]

Which lens to choose depends on what effect you are trying to achieve. A 35mm lens is more forgiving when it comes to focusing and the background comes into focus more when compared to a 50mm. I think these days, most people prefer to use 35mm or wider lens for reportage shootings. Also when it comes to adding more lenses in the future, people tend to going with a grouping of 24mm, 35mm and 75mm, or an alternate grouping of 28mm, 50mm and 90mm. So, think about how you want to grow your lens collection also.

[Rob F.]

Leicas from late M4-P on (including M6, M7, MP) have an undersized 50mm frameline. It actually shows you the area that would be covered by a 58mm lens. For this reason I prefer to use the 50mm on an old Leica, like my M2, which has a more accurate 50mm frame. The 35mm frameline is much more accurate than the 50 on the later cameras. I have found the 35mm focal length to the most versatile, and would recommend it as the first lens, and as the basic one for Leica shooting.

[mingus1]

Personally I have always appreciated the 50mm more than the 35. My suggestion would be to borrow a digital zoom, go out for 2 days shoot 500 shots or so, pick the one you like and look at the data to see at what focal length they were shot.

I did this a while ago as a reckonmendation from a friend, took out his E-1 with a 14-54 lens, which is similar to 28-108mm in normal camera language, shot some 800 pictures chose the ones I liked most and most of them were shot between 40 and 60mm (film-language)

[icuneko]

I agree with Al's suggestion about trying (renting or borrowing) both before deciding. I always was a 50mm normal type. For decades. Then heard

that 35 is "better " for most situations. So I tried a 35mm lens for about a year or so. Found I don't really "see" photographically in 35 and sold it

and went back to a 50 (actually a 45, close enough). The only way to really know what best suits you is to try both for an a while.

[fjords]

I might suggest one lens (35mm asp) and two bodies; one film M, and one Digital M, that

way you could enjoy the 35mm with the film M, and with the same lens 47mm on your

Digital M (The wonders of a 1.36 crop factor:-)

[mingus1]

Actually I liked the 45 on my Contax, although I'm a 50 man on the Leica , if they would have a 45 I'd go for that. The 40 is a bit to wide.

Maybe it was also the quality of the Zeiss 45 which I found was excellent.

 

Another influence might be if you digitalize and then crop, then a 35 would perhaps suit your need, and then again I don't crop ever .... and don't intend too