Choosing Focal Lengths

[gib_robinson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I currently own a 24mm and 35mm. I have a 21mm and a 28mm on loan from a friend, but honestly a few days are not enough time for me to get a clear sense of which of the focal lengths I would find the most useful. (It complicates matters that I had to loan him my 24mm).

 

I would love to hear from those who have some experience of all those focal lengths which ones they rely on most and which they find expendable. Essentially I am trying to figure out whether I would find it most useful to own a 21, 28 and 35 or a 24 and a 35.

 

One sub-question I have is whether it makes sense to own both a 35mm and a 28mm.

 

Yes, image quality IS a consideration. I am very much drawn to the idea of owning the 28 f/2.0 and I like my 35mm Summicron.

 

Yes it also matters to me whether a lens has built-in frame lines. I do not want to end up with BOTH a 21 and 24.

 

I am well aware that the answers depend on personal preference. At this point, my preferences simply aren't clear . . . yet.

 

(I do own a 50, 75, 90 and 135 so I'm just thinking about the wides.)

 

Thanks,

 

--Gib

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[adan]

If you find it makes sense to own both a 75 and 90, then probably you won't be troubled by having both a 28 and 35. Me personally, I tend to skip two focal lengths between lenses, because I find, for example, that there is nothing I can't handle with a 21 and 35, or 35 and 90, that would require carrying the in-between 24/28 or 50/75 lenses.

 

In other times, I tended to skip one focal length - e.g. 20-28-50-105 Nikkors on SLRs. But even then I found the 20 and 28 competed for my attention and that was a distraction, so I collapsed the 50 and 28 to a 35.

 

I'd never choose a focal length purely for image quality. For example, I find the 50mm field of view dull as dishwater, so the fact that the 50 Summilux ASPH is the best 50mm ever made still doesn't attract me. I see no point in really REALLY sharp, dull-as-dishwater, pictures. (That's just me - if others like 50mm shots - vive la difference!)

 

To some extent the same applies to framelines - I would not get a 28 JUST because it is the widest lens that doesn't need an external finder. I'd have to be generally in love with the 28 FoV regardless of framelines.

 

As you say, specific preferences are just that. I'm illustrating some general principles, not advising on specific focal lengths.

 

Another principle would be to choose a key lens - the single most important focal length to you - and then build from that. For me the 20/21 is the key lens, and I derive my other lens preferences from how they work alongside a 21. But a key lens could be anything - 18, 24, 28, 35, 50, 75.

[lct]

...Essentially I am trying to figure out whether I would find it most useful to own a 21, 28 and 35 or a 24 and a 35...

Matter of tastes of course. For me it is 21, 28 & 35 but 24 & 35 is a good idea if you plan to acquire a 18 afterwards.

[DFV]

Dificult and very personal choice. Personaly I am not quite fond of 28 because it is too similar to 35 with the drawback of having to get even closer should you do a more personal shot. The 24 is my least favorite focal, not really a wide angle and too wide for comfort. In turn 21 becomes interesting again and doubles as a great city or landscape. 18 is an option if you do not have a 21. Below that on the M9 starts to become a problem due to Leica (obviously) not adding adjustments for third party manufacturers.

 

Personaly my choice is 21 and 35. Until now I have not needed to fill the gat in between.

[zlatkob]

... but honestly a few days are not enough time for me to get a clear sense of which of the focal lengths I would find the most useful.

....

I am well aware that the answers depend on personal preference. At this point, my preferences simply aren't clear . . . yet.

 

Which lenses one finds most useful depends on the use. The use relates to the subject matter, the photographer's way of seeing, and the photographer's desired results. Once you have a clear idea of those things, choosing focal lengths becomes very easy.

[gib_robinson]

Which lenses one finds most useful depends on the use. The use relates to the subject matter, the photographer's way of seeing, and the photographer's desired results. Once you have a clear idea of those things, choosing focal lengths becomes very easy.

 

Zlatko,

 

That is (excuse the expression) one way of looking at it. While it is true that the subjects I photograph dictate lens choices, I also find lens choices shape what I photograph. It's a reciprocal process. Sometimes I will chose a lens and let the subjects find me (and my lens). Sometimes I will walk through an area twice with different lenses mounted to see what my internal sense of the framing will lead me to photograph. That's partly why I am asking about lens choices. Lenses teach me things.

 

--Gib

[likalar]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Gib:

"Difficult and very personal choice"

 

I agree. FWIW, I use a 28, 35, 50, and on occasion a 90. For walking around, I'll choose one or 2 of the 3 shorter lenses, depending on what I think I'll want when I get outside that day. I often make the wrong choice, but live with it. 2 months ago, I was using the 28 a lot, but don't know why. I got some good shots. Last month the 50 was on quite a bit. I got some more decent shots. For vacation back east, I used the 35 and 50 a lot, but never touched the 28. I got a few pretty good shots. Not much help at all right? I guess my point is to get as many non-exotic lenses as you can, so you'll have them when you want them, because you may want them, on occasion, for no particular reason. I'm jealous of the people that use but one lens, and make great photos regularly. Maybe one day....

 

Larry

[Jeff S]

but honestly a few days are not enough time for me to get a clear sense of which of the focal lengths I would find the most useful.

 

 

One sub-question I have is whether it makes sense to own both a 35mm and a 28mm.

 

This is stating the obvious, but the frame preview lever can be useful with or without your friend's lenses, as can moving forward and backward on a regular basis until you gather some perspective, so to speak. It's better to make your feet hurt than make your brain hurt with every scene.

 

In general, less is more IMO. If you pick two lenses, and use them a lot, you'll eventually know what you're missing...if anything.

 

Jeff

 

PS How do you use 6 lenses now?

[gib_robinson]

This is stating the obvious, but the frame preview lever can be useful with or without your friend's lenses, as can moving forward and backward on a regular basis until you gather some perspective, so to speak. It's better to make your feet hurt than make your brain hurt with every scene.

 

In general, less is more IMO. If you pick two lenses, and use them a lot, you'll eventually know what you're missing...if anything.

 

Jeff

 

PS How do you use 6 lenses now?

 

Good point about the frame lines, Jeff. Thanks for the reminder, although I think I may have to borrow a 28mm (or buy a Voightlander) for a period of time to see what framing with that lens does for me when I carry it.

 

About owning six lenses. Really, only three are always with me: 35, 50, 75. The 75 I carry for macro as well as it's length.

 

I use the 90 indoors (classrooms, portraits). I rarely use the 135 but I carry it if I am shooting with gear in the car rather than walking long distances. I carry the 24mm about half the time when I walk around town in neighborhoods and most of the time when I expect to shoot landscapes.

 

--Gib

[michael_b_elmer]

Good point about the frame lines, Jeff. Thanks for the reminder, although I think I may have to borrow a 28mm (or buy a Voightlander) for a period of time to see what framing with that lens does for me when I carry it.

 

About owning six lenses. Really, only three are always with me: 35, 50, 75. The 75 I carry for macro as well as it's length.

 

I use the 90 indoors (classrooms, portraits). I rarely use the 135 but I carry it if I am shooting with gear in the car rather than walking long distances. I carry the 24mm about half the time when I walk around town in neighborhoods and most of the time when I expect to shoot landscapes.

 

--Gib

You already have an excellent selection of lenses: 24, 35, 50 and 75 (plus 90 and 135). The cheapest and probably most sensible thing would be to stick with those focal lengths and, eventually, to get the best lens in each of those focal lengths (24/2.8, 35/1.4, 50/1.4, 75/2.0 and 90/2.0 AA).

 

Based on my own experience, there would not be much practical need for a 28 mm lens. My 28/2.0 sticks in the bag most of the time - whereas my earlier 28/2.8 3rd generation found much use.

 

I do use my 21 mm Lux a lot even if I also have the 18, the 24/2.8 and the WATE. I switched to the 21 Lux from the 21 'rit, since the latter 21 mm lens did not find much use, so it is important to choose not only the focal length but also the proper lens in each focal length you want.

 

Just my thoughts. Discussions of lenses are always a bit confusing, since everybody seem to have found the ultimative selection.

[01af]

In my opinion, there's a significant difference between wide and super-wide. Using a wide-angle lens is like stepping back one step or two and simply getting the whole picture. A super-wide-angle lens sure is wide, too, but always adds something—an element of surrealism. Super-wide pictures always have the perspective distorted in an obvious, eye-catching, unnatural way. This allows for fresh and yet unseen interpretations of well-known subjects and thus is a powerful tool for flashy image composition ... but it can also get in the way and may become tiresome in the long run.

 

The borderline between wide and super-wide (on 35-mm full-frame format) is located right between 24 mm and 21 mm. The former is the strongest wide-angle that's not yet super-wide; the latter is the first of the super-wides. The difference between the two is greater than the numerical difference of the focal lengths suggests; they fall into two distinct categories. (By the way, fish-eye lenses is yet another category entirely.)

 

So the decision between 24 mm and 21 mm is not so easy. If you want to get away with only one lens below the 35 mm then you'll have to make up your mind carefully: Do you want just to go somewhat wider than 35 mm, or do you want that special fingerprint of exaggeration and surrealism that's inherent to super-wides? If the former then get a 24 mm lens. If the latter then get a 21 mm or 18 mm lens. If you're ready to afford—and to carry!—two more lenses then get a 24 mm and an 18 mm or WATE. Or replace the 35 mm with a 28 mm (which effectively condenses 35 mm and 24 mm into one focal length) and then complement it with a 21 mm.

[gib_robinson]

You already have an excellent selection of lenses: 24, 35, 50 and 75 (plus 90 and 135). The cheapest and probably most sensible thing would be to stick with those focal lengths and, eventually, to get the best lens in each of those focal lengths (24/2.8, 35/1.4, 50/1.4, 75/2.0 and 90/2.0 AA).

 

Based on my own experience, there would not be much practical need for a 28 mm lens. My 28/2.0 sticks in the bag most of the time - whereas my earlier 28/2.8 3rd generation found much use.

 

I do use my 21 mm Lux a lot even if I also have the 18, the 24/2.8 and the WATE. I switched to the 21 Lux from the 21 'rit, since the latter 21 mm lens did not find much use, so it is important to choose not only the focal length but also the proper lens in each focal length you want.

 

Just my thoughts. Discussions of lenses are always a bit confusing, since everybody seem to have found the ultimative selection.

 

You're right, Michael, about the cheapest and most sensible path to take. And, until I have a clear preference, I suspect that is what I will do.

 

I'm curious about why the earlier 28mm lens found a use whereas your current generation f/2.0 does not.

 

I also agree about selecting the right lens at each focal length. Of course, if money were no object, I would own several of the faster lenses.

 

Thanks,

 

--Gib

[gib_robinson]

In my opinion, there's a significant difference between wide and super-wide. Using a wide-angle lens is like stepping back one step or two and simply getting the whole picture. A super-wide-angle lens sure is wide, too, but always adds something—an element of surrealism. Super-wide pictures always have the perspective distorted in an obvious, eye-catching, unnatural way. This allows for fresh and yet unseen interpretations of well-known subjects and thus is a powerful tool for flashy image composition ... but it can also get in the way and may become tiresome in the long run.

 

The borderline between wide and super-wide (on 35-mm full-frame format) is located right between 24 mm and 21 mm. The former is the strongest wide-angle that's not yet super-wide; the latter is the first of the super-wides. The difference between the two is greater than the numerical difference of the focal lengths suggests; they fall into two distinct categories. (By the way, fish-eye lenses is yet another category entirely.)

 

So the decision between 24 mm and 21 mm is not so easy. If you want to get away with only one lens below the 35 mm then you'll have to make up your mind carefully: Do you want just to go somewhat wider than 35 mm, or do you want that special fingerprint of exaggeration and surrealism that's inherent to super-wides? If the former then get a 24 mm lens. If the latter then get a 21 mm or 18 mm lens. If you're ready to afford—and to carry!—two more lenses then get a 24 mm and an 18 mm or WATE. Or replace the 35 mm with a 28 mm (which effectively condenses 35 mm and 24 mm into one focal length) and then complement it with a 21 mm.

 

Yes, this does feel like the borderline I am standing on and it does seem as if the difference between the 24mm and the 21mm is greater than the apparently tiny focal length difference. In the limited time I have had the 21mm on loan, I have been struck by the spaciousness of the images and have found that there are situations in which I can control the distortion and preserve the spaciousness. Since I have never owned or used a 21mm on a FF camera, I find the 21mm fascinating but can't (yet) imagine trading in the 24mm.

 

There are, of course, a number of sub issues in the selection of the wide angles for me -- lens cost, coding, image quality, and color compatibility with the lenses I have, which are all Leica lenses. If I'm really going to explore my lens options between 35 and 21 (I think 18mm is beyond my imagination at this point), I will probably have to buy one or two. Given the price of the 28mm f/2.0 'cron, I am not inclined to buy it to try it. Would it be worth trying the Voigtlander 28mm f/3.5 or f/2.0 on the assumption that I could at least figure out how I feel about the focal length. Maybe. If so, I will have to step past my resistance to owning a lens other than one made by Leica. I have never even owned a Zeiss lens. (I do feel a bit sheepish confessing how picky I am) but I do feel the coding and color compatibility are issues for me. I don't fancy changing lenses and forgetting to change back and forth from auto to manual detection, etc.

 

Thanks for continued input. It's very useful.

[ezc203]

Personally, I shoot cropped (M8) and FF (MP) and here is what I think works best for me:

 

M8: 24 and 75

 

MP: 24, 35, 50, and 90

 

I love the 24mm. I know some mentioned that it kind of an "in-between" lens, but I don't shoot much Architectural or Landscape, so no need to go wider. Shooting People with the 24 (especially on FF) is a dream, has a eery sense of separation/seclusion of the subject. Love it.

 

The 35 and 50 are very different lenses. And both are classic focal lengths. (Must haves)

 

And the 75 (eff. 100 on the M8) and the 90 on FF are great tight portrait lenses. Can't live without them.

 

Again, this is strictly what works best for me. It took me close to a year of buying, borrowing, and trading lenses to figure this out, but I've heard of this thing called "love at first frame" good luck!

[lct]

...Given the price of the 28mm f/2.0 'cron, I am not inclined to buy it to try it. Would it be worth trying the Voigtlander 28mm f/3.5 or f/2.0 on the assumption that I could at least figure out how I feel about the focal length....

I you cannot borrow it, buying a cheaper lens is the best way to check out if you like its focal length. I did not keep the CV 28/2 due to focus shift and i have no experience of the CV 28/1.9 but the latter has an excellent reputation.

[Jeff S]

About owning six lenses. Really, only three are always with me: 35, 50, 75. The 75 I carry for macro as well as it's length.

 

I carry the 24mm about half the time when I walk around town in neighborhoods and most of the time when I expect to shoot landscapes.

 

Each person has his/her own style. According to the above, you always have 3 lenses with you, and about half the time you have 4. You find yourself retracing your steps with different lenses to think about different views. And now, you're considering adding another lens to the equation. Pretty soon you might need luggage to haul the gear, plus a calculator to determine the permutations:)

 

Another thought would be to work toward fewer lenses and instead get another M body. That way you could go out on any given occasion with 2 cameras, each with one lens only, with no need to switch lenses or retrace your steps. And, if you insist, keep a third lens in a pocket or pouch.

 

Jeff

[michael_b_elmer]

... I'm curious about why the earlier 28mm lens found a use whereas your current generation f/2.0 does not. ...

 

I have also wondered why. I used the 28/2.8 3rd generation on an M6 and sold that camera and lens together with a large number of other Leica cameras (more than 10 M and R) and lenses (15-20 M and R) in order to acquire the M8 and a complete set of updated lenses for the M8 and later the M9.

 

In short, I used the 28/2.8 3rd gen after having acquired the 35/1.4 asph but before getting the 24/2.8, which became more or less permanently mounted on my M8. And when I changed to the M9, the 35/1.4 asph became the lens normally mounted on the camera, whereas the 24/2.8 found less frequent use than on the M8.

 

When I updated to the M9 I expected to use the 28 (now 2.0 asph) to the same extent as I had used the 28/2.8 3rd gen. on the M6. However, this has not been the case.

 

I think Leicas "steps" between focal lengths are appropriate and normally find use for all focal lengths. So, I think the change in my use of the 28 mm lenses from the M6 (28/2.8 3rd gen) to the M9 (28/2.0 asph) must be the result of the different "fingerprints" of the two 28 mm lenses. The 28/2.8 3rd gen has a fingerprint of its own, whereas the fingerprint of the 28/2.0 asph is close to the fingerprint of the 35/1.4 asph.

 

I have already updated from 35/1.4 asph to 35/1.4 asph FLE, and although the fingerprint of the FLE seems a bit different and more full of character than that of the 35/1.4 asph, I am afraid that the fingerprint of the 28/2.0 asph is still so close to the 35/1.4 lens that my 28/2.0 mm lens will continue to sty in my bag. So I consider asking my leica dealer who has still got my 28/2.8 3rd gen in commission to give it back to me in order to see if that would lead to any change in my use of this focal length.

 

For me using cameras and lenses of the highest quality is essential, in the same way as I always demand from myself to deliver work of the highest quality. I, thus, agree with you, Gib, that one should stick to using coded Leica lenses on Leica bodies. Not only is it impractical to try to remember to change between manual and automatic lens detection etc., it also seems illogical to spend a whole lot of money on buying the best rangefinder camera and afterwards trying to find the cheapest lenses to use on it.

[tim_n]

 

Another principle would be to choose a key lens - the single most important focal length to you - and then build from that. For me the 20/21 is the key lens, and I derive my other lens preferences from how they work alongside a 21. But a key lens could be anything - 18, 24, 28, 35, 50, 75.

 

This strategy expressed by Andy Piper is exactly how I think about focal lengths. In my case, the "key" focal length is 35 mm, and anything else is supplemental and dependent on the situation. For me, carrying lots of lenses is a distracting burden, so I want at most one supplemental lens with me that will help with portraits (50), the distance from subject (90), or tight spaces (21 or 28). Depending on situation, I choose just one of these to have with me as the 35 mm partner, but more often then not, none of them.

 

I also agree with the philosophy of the poster above who said the time to acquire another lens is when you constantly see pictures you are missing for lack of it. To me, it sounds like you already have quite a range of lenses, but your eyes are the ones that count.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[gib_robinson]

This strategy expressed by Andy Piper is exactly how I think about focal lengths. In my case, the "key" focal length is 35 mm, and anything else is supplemental and dependent on the situation. For me, carrying lots of lenses is a distracting burden, so I want at most one supplemental lens with me that will help with portraits (50), the distance from subject (90), or tight spaces (21 or 28). Depending on situation, I choose just one of these to have with me as the 35 mm partner, but more often then not, none of them.

 

I also agree with the philosophy of the poster above who said the time to acquire another lens is when you constantly see pictures you are missing for lack of it. To me, it sounds like you already have quite a range of lenses, but your eyes are the ones that count.

 

Tim, I don't have a key focal length right now. That may be because I am photographing a wide range of subjects or because I am just getting reacquainted with my lenses on a FF camera. I didn't realize how cramped I felt with an M8. I am more at home at the wider end -- 21-50 than from 50-135. Yet the widest lens I have owned to this moment is a 24mm, which, of course, means I was shooting at 32mm on an M8. I feel like a genie has been let loose from its bottle and I have this voice saying "go wide" young man, "go wide." Not only is the M9 a FF body it i also produces superb files with great detail with wides. What can I say? I'm hooked in a way that reminds me of my first Leica experience: An M2 with a 35mm and a DR 50. Bliss for a hiker. Bliss with Kodachrome and FP4.

 

But, just this morning, I think I found a solution for all my hand-wringing about focal lengths. I spent another morning with the 21 and 28 and that's where I'm headed. I will sell my 24mm. I will, for the moment, keep my 35mm 'cron because it has been a key focal length in the past and its a good lens. I suspect I will continue to keep it.

 

I also discovered that the dealer where I have considerable store credit has a 28 f/2 Summicron ASPH used! I will pick it up Saturday. And I have a Zeiss 21mm on order from the same store. I will pick up that lens as soon as they get a hood and external viewfinder. I will then trade in my 24mm and external viewfinder which more than covers the cost of the Zeiss Biagon f/2.8 plus finder.

 

I have some reservations about buying the Zeiss lens but it has a good rep. and I have enjoyed using it this week. (There is some color variation from the Leica lenses).

 

Having just one external finder and one uncoded lens (I may hand code it later) seems OK. Would I love a current gen. Leica 21. Yup, but I am wiping out my store credit on the 28mm and my 24mm doesn't put me in the league of the 21 f/2.8 ASPH.

 

Thanks for keeping me company through my focal length debate. Any comments on either of my prospective lenses are welcome. From what I hear the 28 'cron ASPH is a jewel and the Biogon is well worth its price.

 

--Gib

[bill]

Rather than join in a mass debate, I shall just share these once more - they may help you in your choice.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

 

 

Yes, they are out of date.

 

No I am not going to update them.

 

Regards,

 

Bill