Having both 35mm and 50mm?

[cirke]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You cannot step back to make 50mm like 35mm when there is a wall or canal behind you, just like you cannot step closer with a 35mm to make it like a 50mm when you are standing on the edge of the Grand Canyon

.. yes but in general you can or choose another angle

 

if you want to get a DOF = 40cm (someone's head)

 

24mm @ f/1.4 = 1m70

35mm @ f/1.4 = 2m45

50mm @ f/1.4 = 3m50

75mm @ f/1.4 = 5m20

90mm @ f/2 = 5.30m

[Archiver]

Another vote for yes, own both. My travel combination is 21/35/50, and I have multiple 35's and 50's from which to choose. I usually use the Voigtlander 35/1.4 and either the 50 Summicron or the Zeiss Sonnar 50/1.5.

 

Classic Leica sets would consist of the 35 and 50 Summicron, the 35 and 50 Summilux, or combinations thereof. If I were to blow a whole lot more money, I would buy a last generation 35 Summilux and current 50 Summilux, the 35 because it is smaller and still less expensive than the current 35 'lux.

 

Less expensive but high quality alternatives include:

 

Zeiss Sonnar 50/1.5 or Planar 50/2

Voigtlander Nokton 50/1.5 or Heliar 50/2

Zeiss Biogon 35/2, 35/2.8 or 35/1.4

Voigtlander 35/1.2, 35/1.4 or 35/2.5.

 

That last Voigtlander is a positively tiny lens, and many rate it as verging on Summarit quality at a fraction of the price. If you have the budget for Leica lenses, you can have a lot of fun with multiple lenses from Zeiss and Voigtlander, all with their own character and excellent image quality.

[batmobile]

I disagree, because the photograph fundamentally changes when the angle of view and subject distances changes. To take it to extremes, it would be to say that a portrait of a tiger with a 300mm lens from X metres would look the same from a 28mm from X centimetres. The two photos would bear little resemblance to each other, even though the amount of tiger face covering the frame might be the same.

 

The 'amount of subject' occupying the frame is only one factor governing what a photo looks like. Relative proportions, subject interactions and getting close enough not to have things between you and the subject being others.

 

The only time a 35mm lens and 50mm lens are almost identical in output is when shooting 2 dimensional subjects, like brick walls. For scenes with depth (i.e. almost everything we shoot), the two frames never look the same, even if photographer subject distances are altered so that a main subject is the same size in the frame. Objects closer and farther will be very different sizes relative to the main subject.

 

 

 

.. yes but in general you can or choose another angle

 

if you want to get a DOF = 40cm (someone's head)

 

24mm @ f/1.4 = 1m70

35mm @ f/1.4 = 2m45

50mm @ f/1.4 = 3m50

75mm @ f/1.4 = 5m20

90mm @ f/2 = 5.30m

[Susie]

I'll go against the general concensus and say, "No!"

 

Although I have several 35mm and 50mm lenses and usually take both focal lengths (amongst others) when going on holiday, I find I rarely use the 35mm.

 

For light weight trips when we're going by motorcycle I'll take a 21mm Elmarit (pre-ASPH), 50mm Summicron and 90mm Tele-Elmarit.

 

Too often I find the 35mm either too short or too wide, but hardly ever just right! A sort of 'three bears' syndrome!

 

One thing to remember is that if you alter your position to replicate the field of view of another lens, you will, at the same time, alter the perspective of the image. To me, this difference in perspective is often the reason to choose a particular lens rather than 'how much can I get in or leave out'.

 

Susie

[cirke]

I disagree, because the photograph fundamentally changes when the angle of view and subject distances changes. To take it to extremes, it would be to say that a portrait of a tiger with a 300mm lens from X metres would look the same from a 28mm from X centimetres. The two photos would bear little resemblance to each other, even though the amount of tiger face covering the frame might be the same.

 

The 'amount of subject' occupying the frame is only one factor governing what a photo looks like. Relative proportions, subject interactions and getting close enough not to have things between you and the subject being others.

 

The only time a 35mm lens and 50mm lens are almost identical in output is when shooting 2 dimensional subjects, like brick walls. For scenes with depth (i.e. almost everything we shoot), the two frames never look the same, even if photographer subject distances are altered so that a main subject is the same size in the frame. Objects closer and farther will be very different sizes relative to the main subject.

 

I am quite sure you will never know if a shot was taken with a 35mm or a 50mm ...

[bernie.lcf]

35mm vs. 50mm is a tough topic to discuss and impossible for someone to make a buying decision based on other people's opinion.

 

These are two different focal length that give you different perspective and require you to engage with your subject differently. One can listen to other people's opinion and then struggle with a focal length for years until one realizes that maybe other people are just other people after all.

 

If you are unsure, you should probably buy both (maybe try 35 and 50 one of those cheap cameras: Sony, Canon, Nikon, etc. before spending a couple of grant on two Summilux) and shoot, shoot and shoot some more until you find your personal favorite.

 

I have struggled with 35mm on various cameras based on what other people recommended (yes, what can I say - I was young) only to find out that I am fine with 35, but I prefer 50 or just a bit more than 50 - say, 50 on an M8 at 1,3x crop. This is just how I shoot what I shoot and it doesn't require me to move in so often, which is something I don't like doing because that's not so compatible with my personality.

[otto.f]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Will it be logical to have both 50mm and 35mm? for travel.

 

It's not a question of logic. If you walk into a nice 35mm for a reasonable price, you'll buy one, sometime. If not, you would not pose the question here.

[A Almulla]

I have both a 35 Cron and 50 Lux and only those two lenses.

 

If the lens is going to be used for travel I'd presume you'd want more of the background with your family and friends to remember those shots and thats why I love the 35mm for travel.

[freitz]

I have both a 35 Cron and 50 Lux and only those two lenses.

 

If the lens is going to be used for travel I'd presume you'd want more of the background with your family and friends to remember those shots and thats why I love the 35mm for travel.

 

Agree. 35 is the ultimate travel companion for me.

[batmobile]

Isn't this the wrong way around, because we are talking about image creation, not deconstruction? There is a big difference.

 

The photographer gets to choose what to present to the viewer and the focal length has a huge role to play in this process, not to mention the end result. At the very end of this process, whether the viewer can figure out whether a 35mm or 50mm lens was used, when presented with a single shot, is surely immaterial? Present the same shot on 35mm and 50mm and even a newcomer to photography will be able to identify which is which... and that clearly visible difference is the basis upon which the photographer makes the original selection/creative choice....

 

As a photographer, I very much notice the difference between working with 35mm and 50mm: it is truly night and day. Were they the same 'but for a little footwork' would anyone bother changing lenses? Sometimes I make do because there is no time, but I certainly switch when I can, because it changes the way of working and what can be achieved.

 

It is this difference that led Garry Winogrand to select 28mm as his preferred angle of view: the 28mm's effect on perspective (working distance) and scale fitted perfectly with his way of seeing and presenting things. He dismissed 35mm and 25mm as being too long and too wide respectively. It comes down to where personal preference aligns with mathematics. Others would choose differently, as you seem to, but that does not change the maths that supports our choices.

 

 

I am quite sure you will never know if a shot was taken with a 35mm or a 50mm ...

[AB007]

My fav combo is 28/50/90 or 105 for my M9. However, 50DR is stuck on my M3

 

I hardly use my 35/2 ASPH. Somehow I do not like using 35mm. Maybe I should get rid of it and get a 21 SEM instead.

 

I love using the 28/2.8 ASPH for travel or street.

[gyoung]

I would not go out without 35 & 50, they give the most 'natural' perspective on the world and I have taken about 80% of my pics with them over more than 50 years.

 

IMHO they complement each other perfectly

 

Gerry

[KM-25]

I would not go out without 35 & 50, they give the most 'natural' perspective on the world and I have taken about 80% of my pics with them over more than 50 years.

 

IMHO they complement each other perfectly

 

Agreed, which is why I am moving away from a single 50 1.4 & M3 to a 35 1.4 / M6 & 50 Planar / M3. I have just missed the 35mm 1.4 for far too long and want a smaller / lighter 50 for my M3.

[Carduelis]

I would not go out without 35 & 50, they give the most 'natural' perspective on the world and I have taken about 80% of my pics with them over more than 50 years.

 

IMHO they complement each other perfectly

 

 

Agreed as well. I use the 35 mm ASPH pre-FLE and 50 mm ASPH FLE Summiluxes and also lighter alternatives of 35 mm f2.8 and 50 mm f2 Zeiss ZM lenses.

[semi-ambivalent]

Agreed, which is why I am moving away from a single 50 1.4 & M3 to a 35 1.4 / M6 & 50 Planar / M3. I have just missed the 35mm 1.4 for far too long and want a smaller / lighter 50 for my M3.

 

I'd love to have a 1.4 and the 35 would be it, but my 'cron ASPH is holding up its end of the bargain so well I can't convince myself to write the rather substantial check.

 

A 50mm V4 Summicron will get you lighter and smaller; a perfect Mandler creation, born for film. (OK, OK, sometimes the bokeh is, well, what it is.)

 

s-a

[KM-25]

I'd love to have a 1.4 and the 35 would be it, but my 'cron ASPH is holding up its end of the bargain so well I can't convince myself to write the rather substantial check.

 

A 50mm V4 Summicron will get you lighter and smaller; a perfect Mandler creation, born for film. (OK, OK, sometimes the bokeh is, well, what it is.)

 

Any Leica lens in silver is a brick, the silver ZM is 1/3rd lighter than the Cron. I had the ZM 50 before, it was about the best bang for the buck I could have asked for, just ordered it again from Popflash.

 

I had the Cron Asph too but since I only shoot film in RF the 35mm 1.4 Asph is truly the best option.

[LocalHero1953]

Someone has to be a heretic.

 

I've always found 50mm a difficult focal length, neither one nor the other, a bit of a "meh" length. I switched from 50 to 35 as my single lens kit back in the 80's for the greater context it gave to travel, street and people shots. Since I got the Apo-Summicron 50 I have recently gained better (more mature?) understanding of what it can do, not least because I have forced myself to use it. If I had to take just one lens it would probably, not certainly, be that one.

 

For travel with two lenses, my priorities are street, people and landscape/townscape, and low weight/bulk, and there is no question but that I would take the 28mm Elmarit Asph and the Apo-Summicron 75 Asph. The 28 is tiny and I use it for city/street work. The 75 just seems to "see" the element of a scene that I am concentrating on, whereas 50 sees the whole scene that I am aware of, introducing more elements that present complex compositional issues. I use the 75 for portraits and, oddly, for some landscapes. The Apo-Summicron 75 also has a short close focus, so I bring an OUFRO for close-ups (food, flowers).

 

For most trips I'll bring more lenses, even if I pick just two for the day based on whim, what I will be doing that day etc. In order of preference they are 35mm Summilux FLE, Hektor 7.3cm/1.9 (for its soft focus and crazy bokeh), and Apo-Summicron 90, though I find the latter not much used in travel.

[semi-ambivalent]

Any Leica lens in silver is a brick, the silver ZM is 1/3rd lighter than the Cron. I had the ZM 50 before, it was about the best bang for the buck I could have asked for, just ordered it again from Popflash.

 

I had the Cron Asph too but since I only shoot film in RF the 35mm 1.4 Asph is truly the best option.

 

50 V5 chrome 335g.

50 V5 black 242g.

50 Planar 230g.

50 V4 black 195g.

 

Sorry, didn't catch the desire for silver. A third indeed. Won't argue about the 1.4/35.

 

s-a

[IkarusJohn]

If you use the frame lines preview lever, you will see that the field of view is very different between the two lenses, and for the same image framing, the images will be quite different - moving your feet is only part of the picture.

 

I do find the 35 can be a bit "natural". The trick with wides is that you need to take greater care to ensure your image actually has a strong subject. The image is about neither your camera or the quality of your lens, but your chosen image and how you present it.

 

Longer lenses enable you to isolate a detail - they can be a bit of a one trick pony. But for landscape or stitching, the 50, 75 or 90 is indispensable (also for those unguarded moment portraits). But I'd have to say that I find well conceived shots taken with wides tend to be more striking.

 

So, I prefer a 50 with a 28 or 21. If I take a 35, then I'm more likely to take a 75 or 90 with it, plus a 21.

 

Hope this helps

John

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[lct]

Matter of tastes as usual. 50mm looks more natural to me. Different beasts anyway. I use both when i bring three lenses usually. 35/50/90 with FF and 21(or 24)/35/50 with APS mainly.