Sunday musings: lens sets again - 50mm vs 35mm starting point

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>Prime lenses have only one problem: they're rarely the perfect focal length for where your subject is at the moment you spot it. You almost always have to change your perspective a little to get the right composition. Still, for many, the advantages are far more numerous than the disadvantages.<br /> <br />One of the challenges is choosing lenses based around what we believe should be our 'standard' lens, if there is such a thing in reality. Most start with 50mm and maybe complement that with 28mm and 90mm. But some folks are realising that maybe 35mm or 40mm is a better starting point. So where do we go from there?<br /> <br />Well, here's an idea I've been thinking about:<br /> <br />21mm, 35/40mm, 75mm, 135mm.<br /> <br />The last is optional so you have merely three lenses that can do 90% of your work, depending on what approach you believe is the best one.<br /> <br />Compare that to this:<br /> <br />21mm, 28mm, 50mm, 90mm.<br /> <br />Suppose you leave the 90mm at home. That's three lenses, but without a portrait lens. But say you left out the 28mm. That's a big gap between 50mm and 21mm. Leave out the 21mm and you might be good to go, but the 21mm can be a life-saver in tight spaces. And remember, you can always crop if you must, but you can never go wider than your widest lens.<br /><br />So maybe you can leave out the 90mm and use the 50mm as a 75mm when needed - but that will mean losing half your pixels. Not a huge deal, I suppose. A 9Mpx image from an M9 is not going to be a huge loss - remember that the M8 has 10Mpx. And many professional cameras had no more than 6 Mpx at one stage.<br /> <br />Apparently, from what I have read, even if you based your lens set around 35mm, you still might prefer the 0.72x viewfinder over the 0.85x one, simply because it's easier to see the 35mm frame lines.<br /> <br />Whichever you choose, there are terrific lenses available for each focal length. Leica's 40mm is fantastic. The Summarits, apart from the sub-standard 35/2.5, are great (and I assume that the 35/2.4 is what the 35/2.5 should have been all along). So too the Voigtlander 75/2.5.<br /> <br />The best value 35mm lens that I know of is the Zeiss 35/2. It's almost the equal of the 35/1.4 FLE and to my eyes it's difficult to pick a winner. The Voigtlander 35/1.2 is excellent considering its aperture - but not quite as well corrected as the Zeiss which is about the same price.<br /> <br />Here are some reviews of various M mount 35mm lenses. I can't seem to find the data I want on all of them, but this is a good start:<br>

<br /> 
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2012/03/28/the-great-35mm-rangefinder-lens-shootout-by-brad-husick/<br>

<br />

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2012/04/09/the-great-35mm-rangefinder-lens-shootout-part-2-close-up-and-wide-open-by-brad-husick/<br>

<br />

https://talktog.wordpress.com/2014/06/03/lens-review-voigtlander-nokton-35mm-11-2-vm-asph-ii/<br>

<br />

http://lavidaleica.com/content/zeiss-biogon-t-235-zm<br /> <br />For the sake of it, one photographer's brief opinions of the CV 75/2.5:<br /> <br />http://photographsbypeter.com/category/voigtlander-75mm-f2-5-color-heliar-ltm/<br /><br /></p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>I can't comment on the M-lenses, just a few generic points from a mixed prime-and-zoom-shooter:<br>

When I shoot with primes (which is most of the time), I have a lens in mind when I spot a photo I'd like to take. So, I rather disagree with the idea that they're usually just the wrong length. I think for many who shoot primes a lot, the framelines for the various focal lengths are edged in our mind, and some focal lengths, you just see. And those lengths tend then to become the center point of the lens set.<br>

Second, I never quite got the idea that 35 and 50 mm would be mutually exclusive. For me, they are two distinct different focal lengths, which a different enough look. And I want and need both - those two make the cornerstones of most of my photos. My Leica R is 35 and 60mm (the latter chosen over a 50 because I liked the close focus ability), and I don't believe I will add other lenses. My most used Nikon lenses... 35 and 50. They're the classics to me, and I wouldn't want to give up one over the other just because of some conventional wisdom that they don't go together well.</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>I agree with Wouter that 35mm and 50mm are clearly different one from the other. Those two and a 90mm make up the complement of lenses for my M6. For certain kinds of picture I choose a particular focal length; but often I make do with what is on the camera: although this cannot easily be done with 90mm. I belong to a time when 28mm was called "super wide".</p>

[Troll]

<p>A significant part of the problem is that Leica viewfinders lie so much about the field of view. You don't really know what you're getting, so you may use a 35mm lens when a 50mm would have been perfect had your viewfinder shown the exact 100% field.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Several points come to mind. Firstly, when I started out three decades ago, one recommended set of lenses was indeed 21mm, 28mm, 50mm, 90mm. Another omitted the 50 and went 24mm, 35mm, 90mm. In both cases, 90 is not to be taken too literal - depending on the system it could have been 85, 90, 100, or 105. <br /> My initial set had been 35, 105, and 200 - and had I to do this over, I might replace the 35 with a 28. For many years, I did not have a 50 - and when I tried to make 50mm work for me, I had to finally realize that I can't.<br /> <br /> So, currently, for my A7, I have 21, 40/35, 90, and 180. The 40/35 came about because the Summicron 35 ASPH doesn't do well on the A7 whereas the 40mm Nokton does - and the 5mm difference is rather marginal. I can even imagine to do without the 40/35 altogether - though I might have to add a 28mm in that case. So, in essence, my current setup mimics rather closely the one you are musing about - instead of 75 and 135 - limits imposed by the rangefinder concept, I chose 90 and 180 though. On my Nikon FX, I am closer though: 35, 85, 150; there is no wider prime since I cover wide-to-ultrawide with a 16-35.</p>

<p>My personal observation is that there are apparently two focal lengths that seem "odd" and hence not very popular: 28mm and 135. Both feel "in between" when considering the typical set of primes that were recommended. 28 is either "too wide" or "not wide enough" and 135 feels "too long" or "not long enough". If one starts with the 50, 28 should be natural but many still opt for 35 instead (which I agree is different from 50 and not meant to be a substitute). The next step then usually is a 24mm. Again, starting at 50, a 90 or thereabout is next, and then the 135 feels rather "too close" to the 90 and on opts for a 180 or 200 instead.</p>

<p>On my M rangefinders (0.72 magnification viewfinder) I owned 35, 90 and 135. I wear glasses and with them the framelines for the 35 are already hard to see (and the 28mm aren't visible at all in a meaningful manner). 90 is already only a very small portion of the finder and the 135 needed goggles to allow at least some resemblance of framing an image (and to allow focusing). If I still used rangefinders, I could imagine making do with a 28 and a 75 - anything shorter or longer isn't a good fit on one anyway.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>In my opinion, the time-honored 35/50/90 lenses are still the best choice for a basic M kit. A 28 and 135 are useful outliers. 21 is a specialized focal length, and an acquired taste, which requires live view or an auxiliary viewfinder. It is hard to match the performance of a 50mm Summicron of any vintage, at what, for Leica, is a relative bargain. I can't imagine a kit without one (or perhaps a Summilux). The widest lens I use on a routine basis is 24 mm, but only with a Nikon DSLR. I have an adapter for a Sony A7, which gets around the viewfinder/rangefinder issue. If I venture out with one lens, a 35mm or 50mm is the usual choice.</p>

<p>I don't think a 28 is quite up to the optical quality of a 35 in the same class, especially toward the corners. It is wider than a 35, but not by much. I have one for occasions that need wider coverage, like for group shots in a tight area. You get the usual egg-shaped heads in this situation.</p>

<p>A 90 mm lens is very hard to focus when used wide open in a camera with a .68x (28 mm) viewfinder. A 135 is nearly impossible to focus sharply, even at f/4 or smaller. A 75 is in between, but of limited use, IMO. It is a nice focal length for scenery and panoramas (as experienced using a Nikon DSLR), but too short for portraits (the 90 is better). It is an expensive option, new or used, for jobs done equally well with a 50 or 90. I have a 135/4 Tele-Elmar, which was largely useless weight in my M9 kit. However, it proves very useful with a Sony A7ii. The amazing thing is what little range of barrel movement is used to achieve sharp focus out of a 270 degree rotation (like eyelash sharp at 35 feet).</p>

<p>IMO, Zeiss lenses deliver the same performance as Leica lenses, at 1/3rd the cost. They are generally larger and not quite up to Leica mechanical quality. Voigtlander lenses are a relatively inexpensive alternative.</p>

[paul_neuthaler]

<p>After many years of M and R photography, I have found the 35 to be most useful. You can crop it for portraits or leave it for pleasing wide shots. My favorite incarnation has been my M2 with 35mm 1:2.8 Summaron. I must say, though, that the slower (and much less expensive,) 35mm 1:3.5 Summaron is a wonderful performer as well.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>The only lens choice of any value to me is that dictated by choice of subject matter (quite variable between different photographers) and what I perceive as interesting. When I want to see like the field of my 21mm lens I will shoot mainly that. If it is 50mm, same process. During the shoot I might want to escape that approach and choose one that does better justice to my perception and desired result.</p>

<p>If I have the less than perfect focal length I will use the next best and move about to get the faming (if not the perspective) I want. Footwork is often underrated. Having a set of 3 or 4 objectives always with me often simply complicates the process. The absolute best lens from a quality viewpoint is also an albatross, as perfection has different shades. Better sometimes to accept only a couple of choices and work with them, rather than wishing we had something better. That and constant lens changing only slows down or nullifies the purpose of my photography which is personal interpretation of some scene.</p>

[astral]

<p>Nowadays I find that carrying more than three prime lenses is often unnecessary, although that may be mostly laziness. To test this, a few months back year I looked at the exif data from shots taken with a DSLR with zoom lens. I found that the vast majority were taken at (or very close to) the 'traditional' 24mm, 35mm and 90mm focal lengths, and very few at in-between settings. The 50mm lens doesn't fit well in my preferred line-up.</p>

<p>It seems that that my early expectations about what I 'needed' when I bought a veritable arsenal of lenses, and what I actually use day-by-day are really not the same. Maybe several decades of using prime lenses has 'conditioned' the way I see or <em>visualise</em> the sorts of scenes that I like to photograph. That said, I can quite happily go out with just a 28mm or 35mm lens and shoot all day long without feeling unduly inhibited. Sometimes being 'spoilt for choice' is a bigger problem than it needs to be: I was taught to <em>"work with what you have"</em>, and regularly remind myself of that basic advice. But there are lots of great lenses out there . . . it just seems that, in truth, "we" don't have to own them all.</p>

[Jochen_S]

<p>I think its a each to their own issue. I consider 35 & 50mm different beasts and am glad to own both. The 75mm framelines are too hard to recognize and the 28mm FOV too hard to scan for me in my 0.72 finders so I am not after these. Same obviously about the 40mm until Leica make a digital CL.<br>

At the long end a 135mm Elmar can be a steal, same about heavy 90mm 'crons. - 500 Euro to get you going? 75mm seem to short to be the only moderately fast long lens in the bag. That means a need for the bulky goggled 135mm Elmarit doesn't it?<br>

21mm seemed another must have to me. - I like that focal length and the slow (f2.8) Zeiss provides enough DOF to get along with an external finder. - I am "gap conscious" at my wide end but confident to mix something else in if really needed and I don't carry everything everyday. - Maybe that increased my need for a 50mm?</p>

[pensacolaphoto]

I often use the set 21-35-50-(75/85/90).

I prefer to use only one lens on each of my two cameras.

Often. The M9 gets the 35 (wide angle) while the M8 gets the 50 lens ( a portrait lens).

Sometimes, I replace the 50 with a 17mm SLR lens, giving me a 22mm view on the M8.

[johne37179]

<p>I take the photo in my mind long before I pick up the camera, or head to the location. I don't leave the lens choice to when I "spot" the subject -- those instances are snapshots. I think the concept of a prime lens for those instances is one that "sees' like your eye sees. If you are altering that point of view, then it is a lens that is either wide or long. One of the things that is great about Lightroom is that you can see what lens you use most often and leave that one on the camera. For me, that "prime" lens is a 10-20mm wide angle lens. I think a "prime" lens is what is "Prime" from your point of view -- and not for any other reason.</p>

[robert_haller]

<p>... I quite like those philosopical thinking about the lens-consortium you have (mostly ) at home in the cabinet.<br>

Simple and straight:<br>

50 - must have - as Standard right in the middle<br>

35 - should have - to provide "real" view<br>

All other lenes are "effect lenses", where you either have<br>

a short tele or a wide effect.</p>

<p>Most of us sometimes love to add some effect but mostly,<br>

the 50´s, especially the Elmar 2.8 and his companions<br>

are in the middle to the day.</p>

<p>Side thought - the 24 lenght gives a good kick of wide and<br>

also produces a clean Picture without stretching things in<br>

the corners - I love the 24 2.8 ASPH for that reason.</p>

<p>Good Shooting year 2015 to all !!</p>

<p>Cordially from Munich</p>

[stan_blevins]

<p>I use the 35-50-90-135 lens set, but on a Leica M3. My 35 has "goggles." Try this combination and you will never complain about the viewfinder again. The .91 viewfinder is terrific. I wear glasses and it's no problem. I have no issues with focusing the 90 and 135. I tried an M4, M5, M6, M6TTL and M7. None compare with the M3's viewfinder. I have an M9 and its finder is truly poor compared to the M3. For me (YMMV) the solution was use the Leica M3 and shoot film.</p>

[stric]

<p>It depends on the use of lens. I have both 35mm and 50mm Leica lenses and I like them both but if I had to pick between the two I'd for with 35mm. It is a more versatile option and in my opinion a great lens for travel.</p>

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>Thank you all for your thoughts. I guess, at the end of the day, one's experience has to trump theory. :-)</p>

<p>Here's an alternate idea: choose focal lenghts based on sensor size iterations instead of focal length. IOW, don't halve and double the focal length, but instead, halve and double the sensor size to derive the focal lengths from that. The number of lenses increases if you follow this formula, though. So you'll have a lens set of 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 75mm, 105mm.</p>

<p>So how did I come up with that? Start with 24x36mm and the 50mm lens. Halve the sensor's surface area and what do you get, approximately? You guess it - APS-C. The crop factor is not 2x, despite APS-C being more or less half-frame, it's 1.5x. So the next focal length down from 50mm is 35mm, and the next focal lenght up is 75mm.</p>

[glen_h]

<p>My favorite has always been 35mm. My first use of 35mm was on my father's Leica If with a 35mm lens. <br>

When I bought my first SLR, a Nikon FM, I bought it with the 35/2.0 lens, and for some time that was my only lens for it.<br>

The 35mm lens and Vivitar 283 flash (which covers a 35mm lens view) were my favorite for indoor photography.</p>

[anthony_brookes5]

This is a common question amongst 35mm photographers. I confronted it many years ago and decided that 50mm was the one for me. I used a 35mm Elmar on my Leica III for the first 10 frames, then switched to the 50mm Summar. Then when I had acquired an M6 I exposed the first 10 frames with a 35mm Summicron, the next 10 frames with the 50mm Summicron, and then 10 frames with my 40mm Summicron. The results confirmedexcatly what I had found with the Elmar and Summar . I was happiest using the 50mm. The main reason was that in all the other pictures I could see some mild distortion. Not much but enough to annoy me.

[Ian Taylor]

<p>eenie meenie miney mo</p>

[Brad_]

For me it comes down to wanting to have enough environmental context vs controlling clutter. A 35 is perfect for my shooting. A 50 begins to

feel like a telephoto making me need to stand further back (often into the street, which I hate doing).

[anthony_brookes5]

Brad - I agree. If you have been using a 35mm - to pack the frame - then taking a step or two back with the 50mm does seem odd. However looking at the images afterwards I came to the conclusion that my 50mm photos were better photographs.

[pensacolaphoto]

I am comfortable with the 50mm lens and also with 35mm lens. For about twenty years, I would totally ignore the 35mm

lenses. I then used the 50 as the normal lens, and a 24 lens for wide angle.

[wenhan_xue]

<p>I am flexible enough to take either 35 or 50 as standard lens for full frame. When I started Leica with M6, I acquired an 35, and the lens stays with M6 99% of time. When I got an M9, I decided to go with 50mm lens, and later on obtained an 28mm coupled with 50 from architecture and landscape to general purpose, such as street and travel. 28 is wide enough for me because I do not do much interior. 75 or longer requires extra efforts for focus so my combination is 28-35-50.</p>

[rahul_glad]

<p>I use my lenses as follows:<br>

50mm = candid street photography.<br>

35mm = travel/family photography.</p>

[scott_turner2]

<p>I really feel like focal length selection comes down to personal style. Certain photographers prefer certain lengths to fit their style of shooting. And it may change over time. I read an interesting interview with David Allen Harvey and Martin Parr talking about trying different approaches at different points in their careers: stepping back with a tele, standard 50, get close and wide. Depends on the look and the feel you want in the image I suppose.</p>

<p>I think what's really important is learning to visualize the compression that each focal length has, and how that can affect your picture. I'm a firm believer in prime lenses. There is no substitute for moving your feet. But there are times where quite frankly, I wish I could get the same shot with different compression without having to swap lenses. Zoom in and step back or zoom out and step closer. Same subject, different perspective. I think when you've gotten good enough with primes, zooms can be extremely powerful tools.</p>

<p>I agree with what's been said about 35/50. I think that's a great combo. I've shot it for several years now exclusively across multiple camera systems, and I never get tired of it. It's only recently I've considered adding a 28mm to get closer to my subjects. While I love my 50 dearly and would be in pain without it, if I could only have one lens, it would be the 35mm. </p>