I no longer know if I see in 35mm or 50mm

[Dikaiosune01]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I will be in the market for a summilux; 35mm or 50mm??? I realize, this is another one of those questions about whether someone should get a 35mm or a 50mm lens that posters get berated for. I’ll risk it because I do not trust my judgement and would appreciate your comments for a fresh perspective on the matter. I don’t know if I’m seeing in 35mm or 50mm.

I have always been a 50mm kind of guy. For many years, I regularly used a zeiss 50mm plannar. It was my staple. About a year ago, I was curious about the 35mm field of view. So I picked up a Voigtlander 35mm colour skopan f/2.5. At first, I had to force myself to use the 35mm and often found myself reaching for the 50mm half way through the day. Then, over the past two months, I began to find myself getting really comfortable with the 35mm. At times, I forgot I still had my planar in my bag. Now that I’ve just about saved enough for a summilux of my choice, I’m not sure if a 35mm or a 50mm would be more suitable for me.

I'm thinking it has a lot to do with the environment that I'm in. In some tighter spaces, indoors, public transport, etc I get more comfortable with the 35mm (which is 95% of the places in Hong Kong where I shoot). But 50mm let's me stand a step further back allowing me to shoot from a more comfortable distance minimizing my invasion into their personal sphere.

Some of the concerns I’m worried about…

- Focus shifting from earlier 35mm summilux's

- Focusing smoothness

- Seeing framelines as a eye glass wearer. (But I’m kind of getting use to not seeing them with the 35mm lens.

[DigitalHeMan]

You'll end up buying both eventually anyway. Try them both and buy the one that feels most right. Only you can answer the question.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tobey bilek]

Use the preview lever.

 

I don`t think someone can tell you what to like.

[Guest Ansel_Adams]

I think the 50mm Lux ASPH is a much better lens than its 35mm counterpart, and the narrow DOF works better at 50mm than 35mm for portraits, etc.

[swamiji]

Well I used to think I saw in 50mm, I took off my glasses and now I see in 28mm.., YMMV

[Dikaiosune01]

You'll end up buying both eventually anyway. Try them both and buy the one that feels most right. Only you can answer the question.

 

If only I won the lottery.

 

Use the preview lever.

 

I don`t think someone can tell you what to like.

 

 

 

I suppose I was wondering if anyone else went through a similar dilemnea where I can draw from their experience.

 

 

 

I think the 50mm Lux ASPH is a much better lens than its 35mm counterpart, and the narrow DOF works better at 50mm than 35mm for portraits, etc.

 

which is kind of interesting considering how much more expensive the 35mm Lux FLE is than the 50mm. And It has been impressed upon me that people seem to gravitate to the LUX FLE more.

 

 

 

Well I used to think I saw in 50mm, I took off my glasses and now I see in 28mm.., YMMV

 

I use a 28mm elmarit for my wide too. Which i usually use for landscapes and traveling. Not so much when I'm out and about for daily use. I also never carry the 35 and 28mm at the same time.

[Guest Ansel_Adams]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

which is kind of interesting considering how much more expensive the 35mm Lux FLE is than the 50mm. And It has been impressed upon me that people seem to gravitate to the LUX FLE more. .

 

I would imagine that price is not necessarily an indicator of performance or desirability, but rather sales volumes and how much an item costs to produce.

 

If you want a LUX FLE then get one.

[DMJ]

Well I used to think I saw in 50mm, I took off my glasses and now I see in 28mm.., YMMV

 

:D:D

[Rob Roskopp]

I've been a 50-shooter for a long time, but since I've got the 35 summilux-FLE this became my favorite walk-around/travel/everything lens. It's just more versatile, and it makes great images.

But I also own the 50 summilux-apsh., and I really love it as well. For everything you need more focus/character etc. I use the the 50.

 

So if you already have a 28 and another 35 for walk-around, I would first go for the 50 Summilux first. This is the focal length that requires rather more character than the 35 (imho).

[leica lux]

So if you already have a 28 and another 35 for walk-around, I would first go for the 50 Summilux first. This is the focal length that requires rather more character than the 35 (imho).

 

I sign that as well. The 35 FLE is a great single-setup lense, it's a great performer for almost everything.

On the other hand, the lense characteristic is more vibrant in a 50mm lux.

[Jeff S]

Why do you want/need a Summilux, of either focal length?

 

Jeff

[A miller]

My high level rule of thumb is that cameras are meant to shoot people, places and things. For level-setting purposes, my gross overgeneralization is that, as b/n the two focal lengths, my 50mm lux asph is for people and my 35mm lux fle is for places and things.

 

I like the rendering of my 50mm lux better. I think, however, it may be more the rendering of the focal length than the actual lens. For wider angle shots that the 50mm is just too tight for (but the 35mm is just right), the 35mm lux fle reigns supreme.

 

Bottom line is that i would start with the 50mm. You'll most certainly move on from there at some point

 

Best,

Adam

[Carduelis]

I tend to use both 35 mm and 50 mm lenses. For landscapes, the 50 mm lens gets used the most whereas for urban shots which are more confined, the 35 mm lens seems handier.

[250swb]

I used a 35mm for eighteen years as my 'standard' lens, then I changed to a 50mm and have been using that for 17 years, so odds are I'm about to metamorphose again and start using a 28mm, or the 35mm again, its exciting.

 

I don't look at these things as anything to do with a favourite, but where it fits with the images I want to make, and how it fits with other lenses I might carry. It should be an intellectual decision, not caught up in how awesome a lens might be, because that path just means you end up demonstrating a lens rather than making photographs that mean anything to you.

 

Steve

[gberger]

My wife and I argued endlessly, as she apparently "saw" things in 35mm while I "see" in 50mm. I have both, and the 50 is on my camera. When projected, 50 Lux Asph slides are something else again.

[philipus]

Some of the concerns I’m worried about…

- Focus shifting from earlier 35mm summilux's

- Focusing smoothness

- Seeing framelines as a eye glass wearer. (But I’m kind of getting use to not seeing them with the 35mm lens.

 

Hi Jason

 

As I recall, you shoot mainly film, right? I am only shooting film and got myself a 50 Summilux Asph as my first lens.

 

Then a few months later, curious about the 35mm focal length, I did the same as you and tried the CV Skopar, probably one of the best lenses for the money, incidentally, and I liked it a lot. The trouble as the rather slow, for film, widest aperture.

 

One reason for considering the 35 Summilux was that it would enable me to shoot in more cramped and darker surroundings, like indoors. Sometimes I had found 50mm to be a bit narrow esp. indoors. I asked here about the pre-FLE and whether there were big differences between it and the FLE. At the time there the price difference between the FLE and the pre-FLE was not that great so I bit the bullet and got the FLE.

 

To be honest, having now shot for 1,5 years with the FLE, I can't say that I am much of a 35mm person actually . In case it is of assistance, have a look at my write-up on the FLE here - philipus.com | Leica Summilux-M 35 mm f/1.4 ASPH : The Most Versatile M Lens?). Nevertheless, it is a fact that the FLE is a simply amazing lens, absolutely amazing.

 

As for flare resistance it doesn't reach the level of the 50 Summilux Asph but it is no slouch either. There's no focus shift. That said, in my research I found several photographers who have used the pre-FLE without having much of a focus shift. So for film I think either the FLE or the pre-FLE would likely be equally good.

 

The focus action is smooth, however my lens is comparably tight. My 50 Summilux Asph, which also features a floating element, is looser.

 

Now, as for which of the two Summiluxes you should prioritise, given that you have the Zeiss, well that is a tricky, tricky question.

 

What I can say is that if I could only have one lens for the rest of my life, it would be the 50 Summilux Asph. It is, for the money (esp now with the 50 APO), the best lens in the world. It is absolutely sublime. There are sometimes comments that it is clinical but nothing could be further from the truth in my experience.

 

At the same time, you might take the route I took and try out the 35 FLE. It is after all not too difficult to sell it without losing much money.

 

Hope it helps some.

Best

Philip

[MarkP]

I used a 35mm for eighteen years as my 'standard' lens, then I changed to a 50mm and have been using that for 17 years, so odds are I'm about to metamorphose again and start using a 28mm, or the 35mm again, its exciting.

 

Steve

 

This is my experience too.

 

35mm had been my standard lens for 20 years on a Nijon F3/T and Contax T3 (much better lens than the Nikkors). Then I switched to Leica in 2010 with a 35 Summilux ASPH (FLE). Within 6 months I'd bought a 50 Summilux ASPH (FLE) and 50mm has become my standard lens.

 

I'm much more likely to use the 28 Summicron ASPH (or even a 21) to accompany the 50 instead of the 35. So 28 and 50 have become my main lenses. Having said that the 35 still gets some use.

 

There are no rights or wrongs

[sblutter]

How about getting both lengths affordably 1st - then make the investment

 

There are lens tests avail for every iteration online. In my collection of lenses, along with a lot of Leica - Voightlander and Zeiss filled in some seldom used lengths and are great (35 back up, 75 and 21 respectively)

[Steve P]

It's such a difficult question for others to answer because it's inevitably personal. You could try coming at it from another angle; which of my existing lenses is my favourite? If it's the Planar, get the 35 Lux, if the Skopar, get the 50 Lux. You know you're going to get the second Lux further down the line anyway.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Jennifer]

As has been said this a very subjective question. I think it hinges on how many lenses of what FL you have or propose to have and what sort of photography you tend to do mostly. For myself, starting off from scratch with a two lens set up I chose a Summilux 35 FLE and an APO-Summicron 90, the 35 being, IMO, a flexible 'take anywhere' length and the fast 90 a lovely portrait lens with dreamy bokeh. Given these FL's I'd not have much use for a 50, which I've always considered a bit of a neither one thing nor another sort of length. Funds permitting, my next will be the Super-Elmar 21 and that should about do me for the foreseeable future.