Do I need a 35mm lens.....?

[jdlaing]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'll keep it simple.

 

You need a 35mm lens.

[Peter Branch]

Only you answer such a question.

 

I've always had a 35mm lens in my Leica outfits dating back over 4 decades. For years I carried it round the world and hardly ever used it - now it is my most used lens. I've no explanation as to why this has happened - but it has.

 

FWIW my preference for use with the M240 is the 35mm f/1.4 Summilux-M Asph FLE. I've owned many of the other versions of Leica's 35mm lenses, both M & R, but not the current Summarit-M.

 

I sold my 35mm f/2 Summicron-M Asph as in my hands it never quite lived up to my expectations - perfectly competent and all that, but.......

 

The FLE never fails to surprise and delight me. Expensive but worth it. My only reservation is distortion which in some shots is intrusive. ACR 8.4 comes to the rescue - but it can be a bit tedious.

[MarkP]

I've been using my 28mm a lot more recently in the streets. The ability to pre-focus pretty much everything starting at 5 feet until infinity even on a cloudy day at f5.6 and still have a 1/1000 shutter speed allows for a level of spontenaity and quickness that you just don't have with a 35mm, unless you're in a 14 or 15 exposure value (i.e., very sunny conditions). You can get this with a 35mm on a reasonably sunny day at f11 or f6, but you need a much slower shutter, which in many cases is survivable at 1/125. But ratcheting up the shutter to 1/1000 allows you to shoot amidst motion (whether you are in motion or your subject is in motion) and still get crisply sharp results.

 

With this shutter speed and DOF, you can approach a subject and in a nanosecond shoot it and be gone. I also use a 28mm external viewfinder instead of the VF in the camera, as I have glasses and the external VF very quickly gives me the entire frame on a silver platter.

 

Not at all saying that this is the only way to shoot in the streets. It's just one of many fun workflows. But to get the most out of this particular workflow, one needs a 28mm, IMHO.

 

Great results can and are had with 135mm or longer. The longer focal lengths are fun to use as well. Just different workflows....

 

So was I right? That 35 just isn't getting the same amount of use as it did before the 28 came along? .

[Printmaker]

My old Nikon kit was 28/50/105 and my standard Leica kit is 35/50/90 with a 21 SEM and a 135 for those necessary occasions. Both kits work equally well. But the 35 mm lens on a Leica seems so natural... so perfect. It is and always has been my go to lens. So much so that after picking up a 28 Summicron last year, I traded it for the 21 SEM after a few hundred images just because it was so close to my 35 Summicron but at nearly twice the size (my 35 is a type IV).

 

However, if you feel the same way towards your 50, then a 35 might not be your cup of tea.

[NJH]

The difference between 35 and 50 is very pronounced, the difference between 35 and 28 much less so in practice.

[tookaphotoof]

Not sure about that. I find them all completely different. I'm having a hard time when using the 28mm. More than often I get the urge to crop afterwards.

Maybe I should commit myself shooting more with it but somehow I simply love my 35mm IV.

[tom0511]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My 35mm cron is the lens that stays on my camera 95% of the time. Every lens is a series of compromises, but this lens represents less of them.

 

same here. 35 Summicron by the way. The 35/1.4FLE might be better technically but I like both the ergonomics and also the chracter of the images and the color + bokeh which i get with the summicron. I only take the 35fle when light is very low.

[jchfriis]

My most used lenses are a 35mm on my M-E and a 28mm on my M8.

 

So yes, If you have a Leica RF you "need" a 35mm IMO.

[cpclee]

The 35 is the single most useful lens if I only get to have one lens. But if you already have 28 + 50 then I don't feel the 35 is essential. When I used to have all three of these focal lengths, I'd take either the 35 when I'm lazy or 28 + 50 when I'm not. Carrying and using the 28 + 50 is more work but there are frequently situations when these two focal lengths work better, pictorially, than the 35, and I haven't found as many cases when the reverse is true.

 

These days I don't have a 35 at all. And I haven't missed it as much as I thought I might.

 

My current setup consists of 28/2.8 ASPH, 50/2.8 Elmar-M, and 75/2 ASPH-APO, and I can't be happier. For the shorter focal lengths I want compactness. For the tele end I want the highest possible quality because I use it for portraits and these tend to be pictures that I blow up really large.

[NJH]

Not sure about that. I find them all completely different. I'm having a hard time when using the 28mm. More than often I get the urge to crop afterwards.

Maybe I should commit myself shooting more with it but somehow I simply love my 35mm IV.

 

They are but the point is there is a sense to carrying 35 and 50 but very little sense IMHO to carrying 28 and 35 lenses together. One has to crop a 35 an awful lot to get an image like a 50 would have taken.

[Guest Ansel_Adams]

A lot of people have carried both 28 and 35 mm lenses at the same time over the years including Salgado, who also carried a 60 mm lens.

[semi-ambivalent]

A 35 on my 0.72 MP looks like an SLR, with the VF pretty much matching the lens's view. The 50 however gives me this frame I can move around within the bigger field, to examine a developing composition. I can "pick out" something from the field and I could never do that with an SLR VF. You simply compose within the frame. So I use the 50 much more now than I did with the SLR, where the 35 had become my favorite. For BG/FG energy I jump to the 28. For a light kit, 35, otherwise 28-50-90 or 21-35-90. I don't think I know what I'm going to do until I'm heading out the door for the airport.

 

s-a

[A miller]

So was I right? That 35 just isn't getting the same amount of use as it did before the 28 came along? .

 

Ha, Ha, Mark. Very funny. Truth is that I am somewhat of a gigolo with my lenses. I go in and out of intense infatuations with each of them. The 28mm I have been using is one that I've had for a few years now. I never took the plunge for the cron or elmarit. The summaron is so compact and classic in its rendering that it actually works quite well on my MM. The only issue is that the lens is very contrasty, which doesn't work as well in holding shadow detail.

 

I like my 35mm lux fle a lot, seemingly more than you based on the posts that I have seen where you have written about it.

 

I agree very much with the remarks that the 35mm serves as an excellent hybrid between the 28 and 50, which comes in handy when one wants to travel light.

[lpeeples]

I'm the opposite of the OP. I currently use a 21 and 35 lux and sometimes carry a 75 cron. I love the 35 and always figured I can crop to 50. I'm always debating if I should add 50 (and 90). I eventually will when I get the funds for it. Its too good a lens not have. I think you can say the same about the 35.

[CaptZoom]

I think the question you're really asking is weather a 35mm lens is a better fit for you than a 28mm lens. I don't think you're wondering if the gap between 28mm and 50mm is significant enough to fill (because if it were for you, you would've filled it already). If my assumptions are correct, my suggestion is to not think in terms of millimeters but rather in terms of "short" and "long". If your natural inclination is to see the world through a long view (which I think is the case for you, hence the heavy cropping of wide angle photos) then the 35mm may well be a better fit for you than 28mm.

 

I like using longer lenses (50mm, 90mm, 75mm- ordered by use frequency). When I want to go wide, I like to use a 28mm lens specifically because it is significantly wider than a 50mm (which is my most used fov). That being said, I really like using 35mm for one specific project I do annually and no other focal length feels right for it. 28mm and 35mm combined are used less than any one of the other three longer focal lengths I use.

 

 

 

I have been trying to talk myself into either 2.0/35mm Summicron or 1.4/35mm Summilux FLE but I have been unable to do it, yet. BUT I JUST KEEP REVISITING IT!!! What to do. My two primary lenses are both 50mm (1.4/50 Summilux and 0.95/50mm Nictilux). The Summilux is my go to when I am out of town, but around my own town I tend to carry the Nocti. Also, when I am on the road I like to carry the 2.0/28mm Elmarit for street stuff and when I want a little wider FOV. I do however find that I end up doing a lot of cropping my street shots. Hence, I am always considering the 35mm. I have a 2.0/90mm Summicron that I use sparingly and mostly for B&W. In the end, the 35mm FLE is quite an investment and the 35mm cron is nice and small but more affordable, but is the hole between 28 and 50 big enough to need filling? That is the question. I'm sure I am not the only one who has had this question. Advise appreciated. Thanks and cheers!--linford

[M9reno]

Yes, you need a 35mm lens, if only to try it out and decide for yourself.

 

I have a 35 lux FLE which has never impressed me as much, as a lens, as its 50 lux ASPH brother. The lux FLE feels rather chunky and unbalanced, especially on a film M, and finder blockage is made worse in my opinion by the combination of lens size and wide field. A couple of times I have considered letting the lux FLE go, but am hanging on to it, in the hope that eventually I'll come around to appreciating it more.

 

My preferred 35 is the old f/2.8 Summaron from the late 1950's. In terms of size, build, balance, and most importantly picture it leaves nothing to be desired.

 

I have the 28 f/2.8 asph Elmarit, which I bought as a light travel wide-angle lens. It doesn't disappoint at all, though it is undoubtedly contrasty, so a lens I think twice before using in a contrasty situation like a Mediterranean summer. Here again its uncle, the old 28mm f/5.6 Summaron comes to the rescue, and again the trade-off is the smaller full aperture.

 

On the whole I think I normally see in 50mm, so shorter lengths only play a (still important) utilitarian role for me, as opposed to a creative role. I also constantly come back to the superiority of the M3s viewfinder. Not even my M6's 0.85x can match it for using a 50mm. I also wear glasses, and contact lenses (though I tried) don't work comfortably for me. In short, many reasons why I (personally) don't need a 35mm lens for expressive photography. Maybe this will change, I admit, so the 35 lux FLE is standing by.