M9 35mm vs 28mm when you are 50mm shooter

[gregbxl]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

hello,

 

another aspect you should take into account is the difference in DoF between 28 and 35 mm. if you like to have your focus point to stand out vs the background

 

for example, at 2 meter away, your focus zone is ~60cm @F/2 with 28mm while it is only 35cm for 35mm. This will change the look of your picture.

[Advertisement]

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

[mah]

M9- 35mm shot:

 

Boston | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

[W4Leica]

I admit that I do not have M9. I have a couple of M6 TTLs. My lens line up is 28-35-50. 35 is my general use. When I use 28 for architecture (I do a lot) and landscape, I bring 50 along with BW film as make up if 28 is for slide. So to my style, 28-50 is a winning team, W.

[MaxJ1961]

I use the 50 Lux and the 28 Cron.

[Washington]

Me, I have all of them.

I just pick one for ‘’the lens of the day’’ and that’s it!

[xtoph]

I was always a 50s guy, but with the M9 I feel myself moving to a 35. I guess I'm getting bolder and more comfortable working closer.

...

John

 

for years (slr) my primary lens was 50mm, and when i moved to the leica system i assumed i would continue with that. my plan was to get a 50 and a 28, which would be enough for me i thought. but then, i wasn't able to find a 50 for sale, and eventually with an important trip coming up, i went and got a 35 to go with the 28 i already had. then a couple of days before the trip, a used 50 came up in my area and i ended up with 3 lenses, which was never the plan--and i would have rejected the notion if i had had a choice, for being "too close" together.

 

but...

 

it turned out to be a very good thing. i find the 35 to be the most versatile lens by far on the m9/m6. if i could only keep one lens, that would be it.

 

why? partly it is because the m9 files are so detailed, i find i don't have to get in as tight as i used to. partly it is because i think the vf is optimal at 35--you can easily see around the framelines, but you can still focus quite easily too. more than that, the camera is so much less imposing, and physically so much smaller than, say, my 5d2+50/1.2, that i can comfortably work in tighter proximity with people without having them physically draw back, or display general discomfort--and closer is usually better. and, partly, it may be that as i get older i just am more comfortable either getting closer to people, or taking in more complicated scenes from a bit further back.

 

i have to say, too, that i really don't find the 28-35-50 setup to be too close together. for me, 50 feels like telephoto, and 28 feels like wide angle, and 35 is just about normal. i get dramatically different sorts of use out of the three lenses, and so far i have no real desire to go longer or wider. there's a good chance that if i do get a fourth lens, it will turn out to be another 35 (the summarit, for daytime street use and challenging backlight).

 

so, to the op, 28 is a wonderful fl on on a ff leica, and if you are only going to buy one more lens it makes a lot of rational sense paired with the 50. but, i would hate for you to miss out on the sweet spot which the 35 delivers for me (as i would have, but for the horrid supply chain problems with leica lenses).

[skinnfell]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

hello there, sorry if this answer comes rather late.

 

I have been considering myself a "50mm shooter" ever since I started in photography.

And there was a time when I had three lenses, all of them 50mm.

 

Anyways, for work , where I use canon I have been using the 35/1.4 almost exclusively, mostly because I consider this to be canons best lens. Never liked any of their 50s.

 

For my M9 i have 35 and 50 crons. They are quite different.

Here is my take:

The 35 is more of a classic reportage style lens, where the 50 is more of a "detail in context" lens.

The 35 can work magnificently as an only lens. If I could have only one lens, 35 would be it.

The reason I have both is that they have a field of vision which is almost impossible to tell apart in the finished pictures - they have the same "look" so to speak. This is helpful when I make a large series of pictures. I can make pictures from the 50 look like telephoto shots, and from the 35 I can get shots that look fairly wide-angle.

 

With the 50 I -sometimes- feel the need for a "establishing shot", which means to show the place or area I am in or some sort of overview.

 

To me the logical choice would then be the 28, but no wider than 28.

Then again, if you like the 50 so much that you feel like buying another 50 (like I did) then rather get the 35.

[iamfrombeijing]

i have a 50 cron and a 35 lux. for cameras, i have one MP and one M9. I always have the feeling that the 50mm cron renders a bigger picture on M9 than on MP. and the 35mm lux renders better pictures on MP than on M9. so perfect for me, i just have two combinations and need not change lens.

 

imho, the 35mm is already a bit too wide on M9. i could not imagine using a 28mm on my M9. I always want to see what is outside of the frame line, therefore, 50mm is ideal while 35mm is already too full in the viewfinder.

 

if i truly need a 28mm, i will use my dp1. with dp1, i have my combination of 28, 35 and 50.

[Burky57]

35mm is beyond doubt my lens of choice. Also like 28mm and often depending on what the subject is the WATE 16-18 -21 m. Seldom use a 50mm.

[diopter]

Every lens has its characteristics and so does every M shooter.

 

For what I shoot, I use my 50 lux a lot of the time and the use the 35 and 28 cron almost equally; but leaning more towards the 28 for that wider coverage.

 

I do portraits, landscape, abstracts. But then again, do you shoot what I shoot?

[3rdtrick]

I often couple my 28 Elmarit and my 50 Lux as a two lens kit. Both are new ASPH lenses. I also have a 35 Lux Pre-Asph that I prefer when I carry a single lens and will soon be adding a 75 Lux to make a nice two lens Pre-A kit. So my feeling is that if you are looking for a second lens with your 50 then the 28 Elmarit would be the choice but if you are looking for something to carry alone instead of the 50 then 35 would be the choice. I am really happy with my Pre-A 35 Lux.

Pete

[Guest stanjan0]

3rdtrick, your last post reads like those American comedians Abbot and Costello "WHOSE ON FIRST STICK"

[Nick De Marco]

I bought a used 28 Summicron ASPH precisely because I preferred 35mm and wanted the best on my M8. Even at a good used price I think it was the most expensive lens I have ever bought. Now I traded in the M8 and got the M9 (very happy btw). I thought I might regret getting the 28 cron insetad of a 35 cron (although I have some nice 35s, including the Zeiss Biogon, and the 40 cron). But I have found, for some reason, I like to use a 50 or the 28 most on my M9, and the 35 is less often reached for. If I had only one lens I guess it would be a 35, or 40. But using a 50 and a 28 when you need wide, I find any other lenses, whether wider than 28, or a 35, are less desired.

[Guest stanjan0]

Nick "Saugeasteachhisown"

[3rdtrick]

3rdtrick, your last post reads like those American comedians Abbot and Costello "WHOSE ON FIRST STICK"

 

Stan,

When you think about it, the "Lens Kit Shuffle" would make a great Abbot and Costello routine...

YouTube here we come!

Pete

[likalar]

Mostly I use a 50 summicron (current). When that's not on the digital M, it's either a 28 Elmarit M, or a 35mm Summicron Asph, split 50/50, as I like them both... I know their special traits, when and where they were built, and even partial serial numbers. One of these 3 is always on the camera, cap removed, all systems go, fully charged and ready to shoot.

 

On the other hand, I usually get my son's names confused, and often can't remember their birthdates. I went to use the car yesterday, and the battery was dead. While looking for the charger, I noticed the registration was expired. A postcard arrived stating I'm overdo for a dental check-up. I'll bet that many people here have similar, twisted photo priorities.

 

Larry

[tom0511]

If I carry 50 I would most often carry wider than 35 as a second lens (most times 24).

 

I once shot the same subject with different focal length from distances which would include the same area (the wider the lens the closer).

This is fun to see how the overall image effect looks like. Subject was a person, half body.

IMO 35 looks allready quite different from 50.

28 and 35 does not look that much different.

24 looks allready much more dynamic but not so natural, a clear wide effect.

 

Besides the effect of the image there is also the viewfinder. And IMO 35 and 50 frames work best in the M9, 28mm is allready pretty tight.

[viramati]

2 M9's with 28 cron asph on one and 50 lux asph on the other. I use this setup 90% of the time. will swap the the 50 for either the 90 elmarit-M or the canon 85 f1.8 for portrait work. will use 35mm cron rarely now but it does come out for weddings and some street work

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[frank_dernie]

I am mainly a 50mm lens shooter. I find 35mm much wider and 28mm almost always too wide for my taste. People who shoot mainly WA will probably have a different opinion but the OP wanted to know about 50 shooters. I have an old 35mm Summilux Aspherical which was my second most used lens after the 50mm until I got a tri-Elmar.

I wish the tri Elmar was 35-50-75, but I can see why that wouldn't work conveniently with the viewfinder...

Frank

[tom0511]

In street photography I personally think that you need to get in close and fill the frame. A long time ago I read a very illuminating comment from a photographer working in Northern Ireland. She wanted to photograph a paramilitary man but she wanted to do it showing his wife and baby who were with him. She put a 21mm lens on her camera and moved in closer to the man, who was happy for his wife and child to be photographed but didn't want to be shown with his family. Thinking that all the photographer was getting was a close up of the baby he allowed the photographer to take her picture. The 21mm of course gave the photographer a much wider field of view and she made an excellent picture of the man beaming with pride as he and his family were all photographed. This is an important and very clever use of an extreme wide angle in street photography and one that can be used to great effect. It seems a paradox but by getting in really close, it does almost make you disappear because the subject of your picture thinks that there is no way that you are photographing them, relaxes and you can then press the button almost invisibly.

 

I took the 1st picture using the same technique. The camera was an M8.2 with a 15mm lens on it giving the equivalent of a 21mm on full frame. I wanted a picture of the man with his baby child in the buggy. The street was deserted apart from the man and myself. If I had raised the camera with a normal lens it would have been really obvious what I was doing and I wanted him to ignore me and just act totally normally. Of course I could have used a longer lens from a distance but there would have been the chance that the man would have seen me and more importantly I also wanted to include some of the surroundings which to me were a very important part of the picture. I also think that using longer lenses can make a picture appear almost "snatched" and I didn't want this effect. I just walked up to the man as he was feeding his baby and shot the picture "over his head" no one felt threatened by me and my camera and I got the image that I wanted.

 

In the second image I used a 28mm again on the M8.2 giving the equivalent of 35mm on full frame. This was a different approach to the subject as she knew that I was photographing her. I didn't want to be too close and distort things with a really wide lens but I also wanted to include the group of men in the background but with the focus being on the lady in the foreground. I was talking to her all the time and pressing the button as and when things came together to make a picture and to me the 35mm equivalent was the right lens to use in these circumstances.

 

For the 3rd picture I used a 35mm lens on the M8.2 giving the equivalent of 50mm on full frame. The lens was pre focussed and then I just raised the camera to my eye and pressed the button all in one movement taking less than one second to do, with the subject unaware that the picture had been made. That's just my take on how I approach street photography using various focal length lenses and of course others will have their own equally valid and useful methods of working.

 

I find this interesting in one way but then I wonder if it is ok to photograph people who do not want to be on the image