Having both 35mm and 50mm?

[stephengv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Has, anyone use both 35mm and 50mm lens? I have a summicron 50mm and a 21mm Viogtlander. Been thinking of buying a 35mm Summarit 2.4 or 35mm Summicron. Will it be logical to have both 50mm and 35mm? for travel.

[jdlaing]

Has, anyone use both 35mm and 50mm lens? I have a summicron 50mm and a 21mm Viogtlander. Been thinking of buying a 35mm Summarit 2.4 or 35mm Summicron. Will it be logical to have both 50mm and 35mm? for travel.

 

Definitely.

[Advertisement]

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

[FrozenInTime]

Has, anyone use both 35mm and 50mm lens? ... Will it be logical to have both 50mm and 35mm? for travel.

 

Yes - I would even say having multiple 35mm and 50mm lenses to choose from before a trip is the norm

[nic]

Yes, without discussion.

[a911s]

Yes.

 

Magnum photographers do know something...

[DMJ]

Yes.

[01af]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes, definitely.

 

And I would prefer the Summarit-M 35 mm over the Summicron-M 35 mm Asph due to flare resistance.

[cirke]

I have 35 and 50 Summilux, I nearly never get them both when traveling

a 28 Summilux will be a better choice for me

[Numbers]

absolutely

[dem331]

To get the same horizontal field of view (measured in distance) with a 50mm as with a 35mm you have to step back by distance to subject * 0.43.

 

So at 3.5m distance to subject you step back 1.5m, at 7m 3m, and at 14m 6m. So most people say you can just zoom with your feet. But the perspective change when you take those few steps is very significant, you produce a totally different image.

 

If you change lenses to capture those things that are far away (wildlife, sport) or very big (a cathedral) or to avoid moving, then it is not worth having a 35m and a 50mm lens.

 

If you change lenses to get a different view on the subject, the difference between a 35mm and a 50mm is very significant.

 

I remember in the 70s the standard lens set was 35-50-135 and 35 was considered a real wide angle -as it is.

 

(PD. somone please correct me if I have said something tecnichally incorrect )

[Peter Branch]

.......I remember in the 70s the standard lens set was 35-50-135 and 35 was considered a real wide angle -as it is. .......

 

In the 1970's there were two different "Standard Sets" for those cameras that had interchangeable lenses.

 

The first was the classic 35mm and 90mm pair which had been advocated by Leica since the 1930's.

 

The second, not initially endorsed by Leica but often sold as sets by others at a small discount, was 28mm, 50mm and 135mm. This emphasised the "advantage" of the SLR over the RF.

 

When Leica started to sell SLR cameras they also effectively endorsed this 3 lens set by selling lenses in these focal lengths that were relatively less expensive. After a while the price of these Leica lenses was significantly increased in a single step.

 

Today, other than Leica, zoom lenses dominate the market.

[dem331]

You are probably right Peter. I just remember my father and uncles all had 35-50-135 sets, but they may have been bought earlier. I am thinking of the Canon R and later the FL models. Probably late 60s? I am not sure that Canon even made 28mm lenses back in those days.

[skinnfell]

I thought that was pretty much standard issue for Leica photographers...?

 

No, joke aside. Most people start with one of these lenses, but sooner or later discovers that if you use it a lot, you will want or need both.

They are decidedly different because they are situated on either side of the "normal", the point of which is neither tele nor wide. (43 point something mms).

 

In other words, a 50 is a very slight tele and a 35 is a very slight wide, respectively.

The amount of context included, and the working distance to you subject is a lot different between the two, yet the results are hard to tell apart. This makes the 35/50 combo very good if you want your pictures to have a visual resemblance.

 

In my opinion, get both the 35 and the 50 in place before even considering other lenses. I have a total of six leica lenses, but these two are between them responsible for at least 90% of my pictures.

 

As to WHICH 35 to choose, is a whole different discussion. My hot tip right now is to get the current summarit on a discount before it gets "upgraded". Even in its non-discounted state it is a very good buy, if one can ever say that in Leica land.

[indergaard]

I have 35 and 50 Summilux, I nearly never get them both when traveling

a 28 Summilux will be a better choice for me

 

Same here. I always default to the 35 when I want versatility. The 50 is a lens I use when I know I want a 50. If I don't know what I want or need, I always choose the 35.

[01af]

In the 1970s there were two different "Standard Sets" for those cameras that had interchangeable lenses.

 

The first was the classic 35 mm and 90 mm pair which had been advocated by Leica since the 1930s.

 

The second, not initially endorsed by Leica but often sold as sets by others at a small discount, was 28 mm, 50 mm and 135 mm. This emphasised the "advantage" of the SLR over the rangefinder camera.

No, Enrique is right—the most-often sold three-lens kit in the late 1960s and in the 1970s indeed was 35-50-135. the two-lens outfit 35-85 or 35-90 was often talked about or endorsed but rarely bought because 85 mm, 90 mm, or 105 mm lenses for SLR cameras used to be terribly expensive, compared to those ubiqituous 135 mm lenses. Back then, I always felt the difference between 35 and 50 mm was pretty small and that between 50 and 135 mm rather big. A 28-50-135 kit would have been a more balanced outfit but, due to costly 28 mm lenses and cheap 35 mm lenses, didn't become popular before the late 1970s when also the first zoom lenses started to actually replace prime-lens kits.

[james.liam]

The perceived field of view of the 35 vs 50 on a RF, at least for me, seems more pronounced than when I used SLRs. Not certain why, perhaps it's the longer MFD.

 

My preferred combo lately has been a 50/28 but instead of swapping lenses, I carry the Ricoh GR along (in a pocket) and have never found it wanting. I use the 35 for very different settings/projects and as a stand alone.

[TomB_tx]

I started with a Leica M4 in 1968 instead of the (still current) M3 because of the 35 framelines, and used the 35 and 50 Summicrons as my primary M lenses for 40 years. I also had a 90 T.E., but used it less. I find the 35 and 50 quite different, and the ideal lenses for the Leica M.

I'd highly recommend the 35 Summarit - which has replaced my 1969 Summicron for my M9. On the M9 I use the 35 most of the time, while on film it was the 50.

My SLR kits over the same decades tended to be 50 - 135 - 200, but also 20 or 24mm. The ultra-wides on SLR didn't need an accessory finder. I kept the Leica M for the mid-wide lenses, and used it more than the SLRs.

[Peter Branch]

No, Enrique is right—the most-often sold three-lens kit in the late 1960s and in the 1970s indeed was 35-50-135. the two-lens outfit 35-85 or 35-90 was often talked about or endorsed but rarely bought because 85 mm, 90 mm, or 105 mm lenses for SLR cameras used to be terribly expensive, compared to those ubiqituous 135 mm lenses. Back then, I always felt the difference between 35 and 50 mm was pretty small and that between 50 and 135 mm rather big. A 28-50-135 kit would have been a more balanced outfit but, due to costly 28 mm lenses and cheap 35 mm lenses, didn't become popular before the late 1970s when also the first zoom lenses started to actually replace prime-lens kits.

 

It was a time of rapid change. Within the Leica lens range there were always "inexpensive" 35mm and a 90mm options. You are correct the ~90mm lenses for SLR's were very expensive relative to the 135mm option, though they were often faster.

 

In the late 60's I owned a Canon 100mm f/3.5 LTM lens which was not expensive. Tests run on it in the Kodak Limited Research Lab showed it to be a benchmark design with outstanding performance. Significantly better than the then current 90mm Elmar, though it was nothing like as well built. In a recent thread it was brought to my attention that there was also a 100mm f/1.8 LTM which I subsequently established was very much more expensive and hence quite rare. The Canon lens for their SLR that I used was 100mm f/2 which was also much more expensive than the f/3.5 LTM.

 

Towards the end of the 70's 28mm lenses were becoming available. One that had a very high reputation at the time was made by Pentax. I don't remember the speed. Pentax, amongst others, certainly advocated the 28mm, 50mm & 135mm combination by this time.

 

It was a phase that did not last long.

Edited November 21, 2014 by Peter Branch
Puncuation

[spydrxx]

I started "Leica Life" with an M4 in 1968 accompanied by a 35mm Summmaron. I occasionally borrowed a friend's 50 Summicron , but not often, as I felt much more comfortable in the 35mm range. I looked at the 90 Summicron, which seemed gorgeous, especially on a Visoflex, but big, heavy, and expensive, so I took a pass. My friend also had a 135mm Elmar, which I found more useful than the 50 and 90, and the next year when I had a need for a longer lens, I picked up a used 135 Tele-Elmar, which served me well for the next 10 years. So for 10 years it was either wide or long, and in between was zooming with my feet. I finally got a 50mm almost 25 years after starting with the Leica. I really never mised it, but today it is my most often "go-to" lens, closely followed by a 35, then 90, and finally 135. I think each of us makes lens choices based upon what our photographic vision tells us is the best way to proceed.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pico]

My favorite set is a classic 35mm Summilux and 50mm Summicron type-3. The 35 Summilux because it is tiny, light, quick to focus and I like its rendering. The Summicron performs beautifully, but I cannot recommend the type-3 if you have big hands or work with gloves because it is hard to focus due to the tiny focus ring.

Edited November 21, 2014 by pico