Replacing 35mm

[RaymondC]

<p>Hi, at times I like to shoot film with small prime lenses. </p>

<p>What do you guys think about not getting a 35mm?</p>

<p>In more the older books I read that some view that 35mm looked typical b/c many people had that on their camera. So I thought a 28mm for general use and at other times a 24mm for landscapes like what John Shaw suggested in one of his earlier books. I just thought that is it really that necessary to get all the FLs ....</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Assuming either full frame digital or 35mm film, I like the 35mm focal length because it's very close to what appears neutral to me - the photograph records pretty much what I saw. This is why the approx. 40mm focal length was used on some popular fixed lens compact 35mm film cameras, including the Canonets and some Olympus compact rangefinders - it's very close to the diagonal of the 24mm X 36mm frame. To my eye, the 35mm focal length is close enough. I find it useful for candid people pix and scenics in general.</p>

[jean_yves_mead]

Trying to cover every focal length going has to be one of the biggest wastes of money there is. You'll probably find that there are one or two that work well for you, and a whole pile that are perfect for gathering dust in your cupboard'o'gear.

[georg_s1]

<p>Ray, <br>

a 28mm as a general-use-lens is a good idea. But so is the „ordinary” 35mm.<br>

Most of my personal pictures of the last months are done with either a 35mm-lens (or it's equivalent; I'm using a Fuji X100) or with a short telephoto of about 85mm. <br>

I would love to own a camera like the neat Fuji X100 with a fixed 28mm-lens (equivalent).<br>

Sometimes the 35mm is neither fish nor fowl.</p>

<p>Regarding the „typical look of a 35mm” - in modern times the typical look is characterized not by a single focal-length, more by a „digital look” resulting from the use of smartphones and do-it-all P&S.</p>

 

[lwg]

<p>I am a fan of a 24mm, 35mm and 85mm setup. I don't find much use for 28mm. 35mm is my most used lens when shooting 35mm film. But if you like the 24 and 28mm pair better, then go for it. It's not like you can't add a 35mm lens later for not much money.</p>

[eric friedemann]

Ray, rather than dragging around multiple wide angle lenses, you might consider a zoom. I shoot the Nikon 16-35mm

f/4.0 lens, which takes 77mm filters.

 

 

Georg, the Fuji X100 has the FF equivalent of a 35mm f/2.0 lens.

[luis_g]

<p>There's nothing wrong with not getting a 35mm. These are very personal choices, modulated by experience and feedback. I happen to like and use the 35mm length a lot, and have several for my different cameras, but I also use the 24-28-50-85 lengths regularly, and often use zooms (because of the disconnection between perspective and framing), not so much convenience.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>You don't have to have all the focal lengths. However, if you WANT them, and still want the quality/speed of primes for most of your work, you could just add a couple of zooms to your collection. You could do most of your shooting at 24 or 28 with primes, but if you want 35 for a particular shot, you've at least got it in the zoom. Just a thought.</p>

[rossb]

<p>With my F100 I use a 24mm and a 50mm lens. Between those two lenses I cover landscapes to people/portraits. I have not used a flash on it in a couple years now and the pack is pretty reasonable to carry around. I usually use zooms with my DSLR. I do use my flash with the DSLR if needed. Since I have a D200 cranking up the ISO is not a good option. </p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>It depends on what you shoot. I started before zoom lenses were popular. In those days I carried a 28mm f/2, 50mm f/1.4, 135mm f/2.8 and 2X converter. I shoot mostly urban subjects, and I found these three lenses covered a lot. Later I added a 17mm f/3.5.</p>

[SCL]

<p>Although 35 has been my favorite for decades, I think you need to go with what works for you. Over a long time I picked up a pretty wide range of primes, but I find I don't often use my 15 or 17mm lenses, periodically my 28, more often my 35. My 50 gets a lot of use in portrait work as does my 90 and 100. My 90 & 105 get called on for a lot of macro work. I found that my 135 and up just get called in for something special - but sometimes that can be pretty significant if something really moves me to use the longer fl lenses. Having said that, I do believe generally in the KISS (keep it simple, stupid) principle and rarely carry more than 2 lenses with me. Although I have some great zooms as well, I generally prefer to use the primes and zoom with my feet.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Mark's sort of list was once the 'standard' kit in the days before zooms, etc. For a while, 35mm was about as wide as you could get and keep the lens and mirror on an SLR from clashing.<br>

Now, I often use 35mm as a 'normal' lens on 35mm film bodies, but even 28mm starts to get a little "wide" for normal use, at least for me.</p>

<p>I've generally got at least a 35/50/135+ kit for most of the interchangeable lens systems I have, or for the later systems, the 35-135 sort of zoom.</p>

[flatulent1]

<p>I don't use 35mm very often. Sometimes I find I can shoot all day with a 24mm on a film camera, and the 50 and 135 in my bag just don't get used. Not having a 35 isn't going to bring the Wrath of Kodak down upon you. It's all about how you see things.</p>

[m_stephens]

<p>As others have said, depends on what you shoot and what you are looking to communicate. I think a 28mm or 24mm can provide more dramatic landscapes than a 35mm, but if you are also going to shoot faces with the same setup, you'd want the 35mm on there. If I had to have only one lens on a camera - and I have some like that - 35mm is mighty hard to go wrong. 35mm is easier to control around architectural items than a 24mm. So, "it depends" is the bottom line.</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>For years all I had were a 28, 50, 105 and 200. I preferred a 28 because it was wide enough to give a little bit of a "wide angle look" without being so wide that it always looked wide angle.</p>

[james_smith55]

<blockquote>

<p>Hi, at times I like to shoot film with small prime lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why? The Canon 17-40mm zoom ain't that big and it's pretty sharp. Obviously at f4 it's not that fast. It's not too expensive though... relatively.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Ray, rather than dragging around multiple wide angle lenses, you might consider a zoom. I shoot the Nikon 16-35mm f/4.0 lens, which takes 77mm filters.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I hear ya. I'd get a 17-40mm zoom first and then maybe buy one fast prime in that range. Just get the 17-40mm or the Nikon equivalent. Shoot with it. Then check the exif info after a few weeks or months and see which focal length you seem to use the most, 24mm, 28mm, or 35mm (I'm assuming the OP is shooting digital).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>So I thought a 28mm for general use and at other times a 24mm for landscapes like what John Shaw suggested in one of his earlier books. I just thought that is it really that necessary to get all the FLs ....</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Have you used a 24mm and a 28mm?! Did I misunderstand you? Are you suggesting getting a 24mm AND a 28mm? How much money do you have?! Anyone that gets primes that are only 4mm in focal length apart is either very wealthy or insane. I have a medium format camera and use nothing but primes on it. I have four focal lengths. In any one day I will usually use maybe one or two of the focal lengths. On a busy day three. I've never used all four. I had big plans about getting other lenses but I quickly realized it's a pain constantly changing lenses and frankly I can get a lot accomplished with just two lenses.</p>