Let's revisit the one lens debate- 35mm or 50mm

[kivis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If you had to choose only one lens but you only had 2 choices. Would you choose a 35mm or a 50mm? Why? Any lens in particular?

[TomB_tx]

On film 50 has always been most natural for me, Summicron for 40+ years. With digital I find 35 is more versatile, as cropping to a 50 or 75 FOV still gives good results. A Summarit 35 f2.5 is now my most preferred lens for its size, handling, and results.

[enboe]

35/1.4 FLE for today at least.  I tend to shoot people and places for which a 28 or 35 is best.  I do wish I had more close-up capability, however, for the occasional flower.

 

Eric

[microview]

Back with 50mm (Summicron APO) after 60 years of photography. Supplemented with 90 and Leica Q which provides 28mm. But still feeling I ought to have a 35mm too…. I tell myself I should forgo the expenditure of the 35FLE again (i briefly had one in silver) and forget the Zeiss 1.4ZM (too darned heavy I found) and settle for the 35 2.8 ZM – have owned before and never found 'too contrasty', as many profess.

[michaelwj]

35.

Cropping only goes one way.

And I don't really get on with 50s.

[james.liam]

35.

Cropping only goes one way.

And I don't really get on with 50s.

Seeing no change to the 35 Sunnicron ASPH after 20 years (!) Leica has a similar disposition toward 35's. Their focus is elsewhere. The 35 Summarit being a great example--personal favorite of that line.

Notwithstanding and WADR to the fanboys, I personally get on with the Zeiss 35's better than I ever did with Leicas.

[dugby]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Maybe you could consider a paradigm shift, and chose a Leica Q

[james.liam]

Maybe you could consider a paradigm shift, and chose a Leica Q

Got a 21 SEM & 50 APO.

The Ricoh GR is my 28 and I'm sticking by it.

 

That's my shift

[jdlaing]

No debate about it. 35mm.

[dpitt]

Why limit yourself?

Is it practical consideration like not wanting to change lenses in the field?

Or is it more a budget issue?

 

I can understand the one lens question if it is about choosing one lens to take with me to a certain event. But I always try to choose considering what I expect to be shooting. Every prime lens is limiting in some way.

 

If you choose wide, you can crop easily to  a factor of 3x the focal length on a Leica M.

But you will never have the same DOF possibilities as the longer lenses.

 

If you choose longer, then you might be hampered by the FOV and in some cases you can not get enough distance between you and the subject to frame it like you want.

But you get more play with DOF in return.

 

That is why I would choose the 50mm because it is middle ground in DOF and FOV.

But actually if I were you, I would not even choose. Take both!

Take one 35 or 50 as a modern variant,  and use a second hand older Summicron for the other.

Or both second hand and save some money... 

These oldies are so good. A bit more contrast in PP, a bit more care for flaring issues, and possibly a CLA to make them good as new... You would be surprised.

You might even like the combination of old glass on digital body more than the new glas (like I do in most cases).

[FrozenInTime]

I'm sure I would be content in a parallel universe where camera and lens development stopped at the 0-series Leica and no one had ever imagined a need for longer or wider or faster lenses.

[Carduelis]

If I use one lens, it will either be a 50 mm ASPH Summilux (or 50 mm Zeiss Planar) for open countryside or 35 mm ASPH Summilux for 'tighter' urban environments

[Stein K S]

35mm no doubt! However, the difficult choice would be "which one"... owning both the marvelous Lux asph pre-FLE and the beautiful Cron 35 IV...

[pgk]

Either. Whichever I ended up with I'd be happy to use. Probably use 35 more but 50 is fine. Revisiting this debate, even if you have both, won't always give definitive answer - I'm happy to use either/or.

[indergaard]

This one is easy: 35mm

It can simply do much more as a single-lens setup.

 

I've lived with a 50mm as my only focal length for almost 2 years. I did the same with a 35mm focal length.
​It's really, really hard to go back to only using a 50mm after that experiment. The 50mm made me feel very limited in comparison. The term "tunnelvision" best describes the feeling I guess, whereas the 35mm gave me the breathingroom I was comfortable with. I estimate that I would use the 35mm for about 75% of my shots today, and the 50mm for 25%, if I were to only use those two focal lengths.

​If anything, I've also discovered that I really like the 28mm focal length for many uses... The only challenge with this is that I'm unable to be comfortable with the 28mm framelines on any M, regardless of viewfinder magnification, and I don't like using EVF's only, otherwise the Q would have been an interesting option. An X-Pro2 with the 18/2 (28mm equivalent) is the best option I've found so far.

[Guest]

... Would you choose a 35mm or a 50mm? Why? Any lens in particular?

 

If you really can't make up your mind, take a Summicron-CL 2.0-40mm as best compromise.

If you hope on pretty much light for the whole day, take a MATE 4.0 28-35-50mm.

Perhaps you might see afterwards, that it's mostly of less interest, if you took 35 or 50mm, less important than motive and light.

[otho]

Probably Summicron 35. Light, small. Modern, big resolution sensors give possibility to crop. Probably, because Summilux 50 asph fle is a great lens. I like it so much...

[shootinglulu]

Easy, 28

[lct]

50 what else?  

« The 50mm lens is my life. A certain distance with people. The wide angle shouts, and the 90mm reminds me those ear trumpets that old ladies used to use in the past. »

(free translation of Cartier Bresson)

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[sblitz]

50