Choosing Focal Lengths

[wda]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

An interesting thread with a predictable variation of preferences. It seems to me that our neighbourhood and oft-visited places teach us most about lens focal length preferences. I can well imagine that in some old cities various wide-angle lenses would be used a lot more than standard or longer lenses.

 

I think the ideal is to have three or four well-chosen lenses and then to go out with just one or two of them as one member has suggested. It makes for lightness, reduces lens swapping and dust ingestion onto the sensor and leaves you free to find subjects to match the lens on your camera. That is one reason why I enjoy the X1; it meets about 80% of my unplanned shooting needs and complements my M8 for planned photography. I do think you can agonize unnecessarily about the unquantifiable differences between two closely spaced lenses, such as the 21 and 24mm or 75 and 90mm examples. It is a far too subjective debate to give a generic answer.

[Advertisement]

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

[tobey bilek]

24 and 35 will satisfy most wide uses. I feel the gap from 21 to 35 is too wide, but many pros will disagree.

 

You will need to search your experience to see if 24 has been wide enough. Buy an 18 to compliment it if you need wider.

 

This whole thing is a very personal choice and notbody can advise with 100% certancy

[gib_robinson]

24 and 35 will satisfy most wide uses. I feel the gap from 21 to 35 is too wide, but many pros will disagree.

 

You will need to search your experience to see if 24 has been wide enough. Buy an 18 to compliment it if you need wider.

 

This whole thing is a very personal choice and notbody can advise with 100% certancy

 

Yes, the gap from 21 to 35 seems too wide to me too. I will now have a 21, 28, and a 35. For now I will keep the 35, although it is possible that I will find the gap bewtween 28 and 50 acceptable. I find the gap between 50 and 90 acceptable but I own a 75 because I love the lens and find it a good close-up performer.

 

The thread has been very helpful to me.

 

--Gib

[01af]

I will now have a 21, 28, and a 35.

Sounds sensible for someone who feels 'at home at the wider end.'

 

I very much like Andy's concept of a key lens. I guess every photographer has one—albeit some are more aware of it than others. And yes, any focal length can be a key lens. I, for one, used to have a hard time deciding between 35 mm and 50 mm as my key lens but just recently I rather feel gravitating towards 50 mm. Still, 35 mm is my second-most-used lens so I definitely want to have both. To you, 28+35 could become what 35+50 is to me. I guess 28 mm will turn out your key lens.

 

 

I will now have a 21, 28, and a 35. For now I will keep the 35, although it is possible that I will find the gap bewtween 28 and 50 acceptable.

How about skipping the 50 mm and 90 mm altogether which would leave you with 21+28+35+75?

[rickp13]

 

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.

 

gib

 

you might want to take a look at andy's article on the leica lenses designed by mandler (canada), with particular reference to the examples from each. here's the link: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/customer-forum/45854-praise-mandler-lenses.html

 

after a lot of exploration, i finally settled on 4 mandler designs (pure coincidence) in 21, 35, 50 and 75, of which the 35mm is the key or cornerstone lens on an m9. to continue the learning process with each, i've recently taken 2 lens sets on two short trips: the 35 and 75 to mallorca and the 21 and 50 to the north sea coast. the 35mm was the clear winner in that combination, while the balance between the other two was more nearly half/half.

 

i also referred to a focal length/field of view chart created by bill palmer dated 2005 (no 18mm showing, for example). there's a copyright, but the chart was already included in earlier forum postings, so i hope i'm not breaking the rules.

 

short summary/my advice: pick your key focal length, then select a useful FOV below and above, not too close to the key lens. then use those three for 'months' before adding a 4th focal length.

 

good luck

 

rick

 

ps. another coincidence: the angle of view increases approximately 50% at each step from 75 to 50 to 35 to 21, which seems well-balanced.

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!

[gib_robinson]

I guess 28 mm will turn out your key lens.

 

How about skipping the 50 mm and 90 mm altogether which would leave you with 21+28+35+75?

 

Useful observation and suggestion. Thanks.

 

I will now have the luxury of developing my sense of a key lens and the group of lenses I carry over time. I have only had a month or so of shooting with an M9. (mine went back to NJ twice and was finally replaced.) I have a ways to go before I know where my eye and photographic life will lead me. Again, I don't think I understood how different shooting FF would be from M8 shooting for me. I knew it would be different, just not this different.

[gib_robinson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Rick,

 

I have read Andy Piper's remarks on the Mandler designs, but I just re-read it at your prompting. It's a wonderful thread. I love his wine comparison:

 

"But when it comes to the overall feel of the image, especially in digital or slide photography, I still find the Mandler designs to be "miles ahead" in terms of rich tonality and the handling of color rendition (as opposed to color correction). For me, it's as clear a difference as that between a Beaujolais and a Bordeaux - one is bright and gay, but the other has infinite depths."

 

And Andy's images in that thread certainly support his assertions. They are wonderfully alive.

 

Honestly, at this point, I am a contrast/detail, modern-design junkie. Whether that will pass, I don't know. I certainly used Mandler-designed lenses with my earlier film cameras, but right now, except for my 50mm, they aren't and if I had the money to spend, I'd probably go further in the same modernist direction with current-design 'luxes.

 

For me, I think it's part of a digital learning curve. I want to know my capture and processing techniques are sound, corner to corner, edge to edge. I want all the bite and in-your-face gritty detail I can get. Warmth, tonality, richness and depth are always welcome, but not the top priorities for right now. Do I miss "the look" of earlier designs, yes. Sometimes.

 

--Gib

[rickp13]

hello gib

 

i'm glad you had a re-read of andy's article and enjoyed it. i'm new to leicas, starting with an m8 in 2007, but it seems that there are at least two main paths one can take in choosing the lenses. you'll know what i mean if i call them them, with all due respect, "pre-asph" and "asph". both yield excellent results and we're all glad there are so many great lenses to choose from.

 

all the best

 

rick

[exile]

Nice chart Bill - it is a useful guide.

However, the difference in angle of view can be misleading from a practical standpoint. For example, the chart suggests that there is not much difference between a 35 and a 50mm, but I know that many M users like to have both a 35 and a 50. Even when just carrying two lenses. I see this as a slight change of normal or "key" focal length to the lens that is absolutely perfect for a particular situation, and since the "normal" focal lengths are used most often it is completely reasonable to include both a 35 and a 50mm to most often have the perfect lens for a given situation. I'm not sure that someone would have much sucess persuading these people that 40mm would be the best compromise for a normal, and they're missing the boat completely and could carry a 40mm and a 90mm instead.

I hope I have explained my thinking correctly. In a way, it is the opposite approach to looking at the size of gaps between lenses, or trying to cover both ends of a zoom range using prime lenses. Rather, it is more like choosing your most used focal lengths regardless of their proximity to each other, so there is an inevitable cluster around the "normal" range.

Real life example: I'm currently planning what to take on a weekend break, and I have the choice between a 35 and a 50, or a 35 and a 75. I haven't formally decided yet, but I know that I always use the 50mm more than the 75mm.

[wda]

Nice chart Bill - it is a useful guide.

However, the difference in angle of view can be misleading from a practical standpoint. For example, the chart suggests that there is not much difference between a 35 and a 50mm, but I know that many M users like to have both a 35 and a 50. ......

Although these two key focal lengths appear to be too close to use both, I find much depends on the environment in which you work. In tight urban situations - or similar - a 50 is often too long for other than detail shots. In wider domains the 50 becomes more important. Currently I find a good case for using both of these focal lengths for much of my work. The difference my be quite subtle, but it can make a big difference to impact.

[01af]

I'm currently planning what to take on a weekend break, and I have the choice between a 35 and a 50, or a 35 and a 75. I haven't formally decided yet, but I know that I always use the 50 mm more than the 75 mm.

Exactly that would a perfect reason NOT to take the 50 mm along for a limited period of time, such as a week-end. Force yourself to use the 75 mm more, maybe it will widen your horizons (well, or maybe not—but I think it's worth to spend a week-end to find out).

[jaapv]

It is very personal - for me the 35 is a "standalone" length, I will usually take it when I take no other lens. My normal bag is 28-50-90, where the 28 gets replaced by the 24 when I know I will be heading indoors or need the speed. I might add the 135 when going outdoors. In general I find the 35 too close to either the 50 on one side, the 28 on the other.

[jaapv]

Exactly that would a perfect reason NOT to take the 50 mm along for a limited period of time, such as a week-end. Force yourself to use the 75 mm more, maybe it will widen your horizons (well, or maybe not—but I think it's worth to spend a week-end to find out).

Well, it would more likely narrow your horizon, being the longer lens . But I see what you mean. However, the 50 mm lens seems to be a more likely focal length for this useful exercise.

[exile]

...for a limited period of time, such as a week-end... Force yourself to use the 75 mm more

 

I've done exactly that. I found that the 75mm is only better than the 50 for portraits in decent light (the 50mm is one and a half stops faster). I actually used 75mm a lot more on the M8. I think I will sell it and get a 90 or 100mm instead, but I'm still saving for a 21mm right now. My eventual setup could well be 21/2.8, 35/1.2, 50/1.5, small 90/100..... still deciding.

[rickp13]

It is very personal - for me the 35 is a "standalone" length, I will usually take it when I take no other lens. My normal bag is 28-50-90, where the 28 gets replaced by the 24 when I know I will be heading indoors or need the speed. I might add the 135 when going outdoors. In general I find the 35 too close to either the 50 on one side, the 28 on the other.

 

same for me. i'll normally take the 35/1.4 for all purposes 'cause it's wide enough, low-light capable, glows nicely at 1.4, and is physically very small even with lens shade. which other lens(es) depends on the destination/purpose.

 

cheers

 

rick

[adli]

On a one week sailing trip this summer I brought:

- 18 Super Elmar

- 35 Cron v4

- 50 Lux ASPH

- 90 Cron

 

My most used lens was the 35, followed by the 90. Those two covered most of my use. However, I wish I hade brought a 24 instead of the 18, think it would have been more usefull.

[sclamb]

On a one week sailing trip this summer I brought:

- 18 Super Elmar

- 35 Cron v4

- 50 Lux ASPH

- 90 Cron

 

My most used lens was the 35, followed by the 90. Those two covered most of my use. However, I wish I hade brought a 24 instead of the 18, think it would have been more usefull.

 

I have a trip coming up and will be taking the 24 Lux, 35 Lux, 50 Lux, 75 Cron and 135 T-E. I also expect the 35 and 50 will see the most use. If that does indeed turn out to be the case then I may well reduce the kit and keep the core lenses. Certainly no need to keep a lot of money tied up in the 24 Lux if it isn't going to see much use with the new 35 Lux in the bag.

 

Simon