Is 35mm All You Really Need?

[erl]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

We are defensive because this is Leicaaaaaaaaa!

Rubbish!

Most of my working life was with Hasselblad. That was where and how I learned to exploit focal length, and other tools, for basically the same reasons Tobey expressed above.

 

I don't read any defensiveness of Leica in this thread (but I may have missed it). What I do read is some polarized views about some basic facts surrounding focal length and the virtues of 'one lens'. I accept that one lens can have some benefits and virtues, I have done it myself, but the fact remains that it is limited, to the capabilities of just one focal length. All this applies to any brand, not just Leica.

[mikemgb]

I love a 35mm lens, when traveling and photographing streetscapes it is my favourite lens, but I couldn't make it my only lens. I do a lot of street photography at a local covered market, usually using my M2 and 50mm Summicron.

 

Today I went out there, but my M2 is out for a CLA, so instead I took my Canon QL17 that has a 40mm lens. It was awful, the view was too wide, if I got close enough to get the shot I wanted people spotted me and I lost the true life candid aspect of the photo.

 

I know this has all been said before in this thread but I had to interject my 2p. Like most others here I pick the lens based on what I intend to photograph that day, I would find it very hard to limit myself to one lens.

[Advertisement]

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

[tobey bilek]

I love a 35mm lens, when traveling and photographing streetscapes it is my favourite lens, but I couldn't make it my only lens. I do a lot of street photography at a local covered market, usually using my M2 and 50mm Summicron.

 

Today I went out there, but my M2 is out for a CLA, so instead I took my Canon QL17 that has a 40mm lens. It was awful, the view was too wide, if I got close enough to get the shot I wanted people spotted me and I lost the true life candid aspect of the photo.

 

I know this has all been said before in this thread but I had to interject my 2p. Like most others here I pick the lens based on what I intend to photograph that day, I would find it very hard to limit myself to one lens.

 

Crop

[NB23]

Rubbish!

Most of my working life was with Hasselblad. That was where and how I learned to exploit focal length, and other tools, for basically the same reasons Tobey expressed above.

 

I don't read any defensiveness of Leica in this thread (but I may have missed it). What I do read is some polarized views about some basic facts surrounding focal length and the virtues of 'one lens'. I accept that one lens can have some benefits and virtues, I have done it myself, but the fact remains that it is limited, to the capabilities of just one focal length. All this applies to any brand, not just Leica.

Yeah but this forum... this is Spartaaaaa!

[Paul J]

Absolutely. But. Trying to justifying the 35mm as the only lens you really need by quoting a few, rare examples of photographers who have only used a 35mm lens is defining a distinct 'box' on marginal evidence. If I take out one lens, more often than not its a 35mm because of its versatility and usability in many situations. But moving from that viewpoint to suggesting its all I need isn't simply a shift in point of view.

 

 

This isn't just about the 35mm lens. This is about finding a focal length that says everything one person needs with their photography and point of view. Wether that is one or a hundred, it doesn't matter. Their voice stands for itself and their equipment becomes secondary and just a means to an end.

 

These aren't rare examples in my list. You can do your own research and find most of the greats gravitated to one or a few lenses. They are the worlds most recognised photographers.

 

Arguing about it isn't going to change anything. If you don't understand it, just continue doing what ever you do and be happy.

Edited May 28, 2017 by Paul J

[mikemgb]

 

I love a 35mm lens, when traveling and photographing streetscapes it is my favourite lens, but I couldn't make it my only lens. I do a lot of street photography at a local covered market, usually using my M2 and 50mm Summicron.

 

Today I went out there, but my M2 is out for a CLA, so instead I took my Canon QL17 that has a 40mm lens. It was awful, the view was too wide, if I got close enough to get the shot I wanted people spotted me and I lost the true life candid aspect of the photo.

 

I know this has all been said before in this thread but I had to interject my 2p. Like most others here I pick the lens based on what I intend to photograph that day, I would find it very hard to limit myself to one lens.

 

 

 

Crop

 

Not really a good option on 35mm film, especially slide film.

[Ko.Fe.]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Rubbish!

Most of my working life was with Hasselblad. That was where and how I learned to exploit focal length, and other tools, for basically the same reasons Tobey expressed above.

 

I don't read any defensiveness of Leica in this thread (but I may have missed it). What I do read is some polarized views about some basic facts surrounding focal length and the virtues of 'one lens'. I accept that one lens can have some benefits and virtues, I have done it myself, but the fact remains that it is limited, to the capabilities of just one focal length. All this applies to any brand, not just Leica.

 

 

So, HCB who mostly used 50mm for his job with Leica and Garry Winogrand who used two 28mm lenses for years are "Rubbish!". 

But not to me. I can't call John Free photographs as rubbish, just because he is using nothing but Nikkor 50 Macro for decades now. He is gifted enough to tell the story withing his area of interest with single lens.  

 

Do you use Leica for macro, sports, astro and wild life?

Or for paid weddings, family portraits, where you have to switch from 35 to 135 to get paid for result? I think, this where "focal length exploit" makes sense.  Well, Jane Bown managed it with 85 2.8 lens and she manged single persons portraits like no others did. And it wasn't Hasselblad, but no status OM. 

Edited May 29, 2017 by Ko.Fe.

[wlaidlaw]

I finally bought a 35mm lens for my various LTM cameras. It is a mint condition 1960 vintage 35mm f2.8 Summaron. I gave it a quick try on my M240 just to check that the focus was correct, optical peaking focus against RF (which was spot on). I was amazed how good it is given its age. It is a fraction less sharp in the corners than my 35 ASPH Summicron but only a fraction and almost certainly, not noticeable on film. The thing that really surprised me was the virtual absence of vignetting. This shows that even back as far as the 1950's when Walter Mandler designed the 2.8/35 Summaron, Leica really did know what they were doing on 35 mm lenses. It is certainly my favourite focal length. On looking through the images I have taken with the 24-90 on the SL, I find a lot of them are taken in the 30-40mm range. In addition to the Summaron, I have a Black 35 ASPH Summicron, Chrome ASPH Summilux and a Summicron-C 40mm. 

 

 

For a lot of folk, the ultimate 35mm lens is the 8 element Summicron (1958-63). I looked for some time for a SAWOO (the LTM version) but these are rarer than hens' teeth, with only 563 made and very expensive when they come up, so I settled for the Summaron. 

 

Wilson

[01af]

Using only one prime lens is limiting. But that's not the point. The point is: Do you feel limited with only one lens?

 

I went for a four-day trip last week-end, mostly for photographing, and I brought two M bodies (M-A and M10) and eight M lenses. I hauled four lenses around (left the other four in the hotel room) and actually used only two of them: Tri-Elmar-M 28-35-50 mm Asph and Noctilux-M 50 mm Asph. The Tri-Elmar was set to 50 mm half of the time, to 35 mm 30 % of the time, and to 28 mm 20 % of the time. I am not trying to make a point; just reporting.

[pico]

Like many here I grew up with one lens due to financial constraints and fashioned my work within its perspective. I experienced no loss, no limits, and some joy. Today with no financial constraints I tend to suffer in the opposite degree - What lens shall I NOT use. Strange, is it not?

[EddieJ]

Like many here I grew up with one lens due to financial constraints and fashioned my work within its perspective. I experienced no loss, no limits, and some joy. Today with no financial constraints I tend to suffer in the opposite degree - What lens shall I NOT use. Strange, is it not?

 

I echo your point. I too today, find myself with no financial constraints   *however I find it difficult to spend  . Therefore I trade.

 

Photography is a trade off. Think about it.

 

I see one lens, 2 possibly 3 as an all round kit - wide, standard, tele *28, 50, 85 or 24, 50, 75 or 24, 35, 75 You can see the machinations.

At university *vocational education sector we have 5 full-time staff from various fields teaching.

 

Industrial, corporate - 35, 120 + 4x5

Photojournalist documentary - 35, 120

Fine artist - 35 (*yep I know, go figure)

Editorial, wedding - 35 + 120

Advertising - me 35, 120 + 4x5

 

Guess whom from the above had 1/ multiple lenses *single focal length 2/ multiple lenses *single focal length + zoom/s.

 

As posted earlier in this very thread I used primarily single focal lengths -

(120) 50, 80, 120 Makro, 180

(4x5) 90, 150, 210

(35) 20, 50, 105 macro, 135 DC, however I had 2 zooms 14-24, 80-200

(In Advertising 80% 120, 20% 4x5, 35 negligible.)

 

One could argue that the 14-24, 80-200 + a 50 would cover all. 3 lens kit. I read much hype/palava on the web - much of it on the 'holy trinity of lenses'. Perhaps one should think about the weight of carrying this around.

 

Horses for courses, I say.

I know many shooters who have gone the way of single lens, maybe one other for the weight, flexibility and to save their backs!

 

I'll finish off with Photography is a trade off. Think about it.

[Peter Kilmister]

35mm is good on a Leica. It was my first lens. Using the old adage of, "if is too far away, walk forward, if it too close, walk back" I captured some good shots.

 

Sometimes you have a river behind you and you can't walk back without wading ... even worse results if on the edge of a cliff.

 

Safety first. Lose your life or buy a wide angle? Eventually I bought a 24mm.

 

Get too close and it may endanger your life. Wild animals can be vicious. Jaapv is quite correct with his advice. Stay clear. Many birds and domestic animals get very scared by being too close to humans.  Eventually I bought a 90mm.

 

I tried a 135mm and couldn't find a reason to enjoy it. I'll sell it soon.

 

As I own a Televid 77mm spotting scope I have used a T adapter and a special tube and then coupled it to my M240. That gives the equivalent of a 600mm lens.  A photo I took of the moon last year received a lot of praise. As an Englishman used to understatement rather than bragging that is as good as it gets.

 

After several attempts at finding my favourite, including a disaster with the .95 Noctilux (heavy blocked the viewfinder, bulky, useless if not used wide open), I managed to get the 50mm APO Summicron in exchange and that is perfect for the full frame M240. Definitely my favourite lens is the 50mm APO Summicron.

 

The output of the 50mm APO Summicron is always rewarding, and the 35mm Summicron has similar assets.  You are the decision maker.  You decide.

[01af]

Like many here I grew up with one lens due to financial constraints ...

Same here. It was a 35-mm SLR camera with the common 50 mm standard lens.

 

 

... and fashioned my work within its perspective. I experienced no loss, no limits, and some joy. Today with no financial constraints I tend to suffer in the opposite degree—what lens shall I NOT use. Strange, is it not?

Strange indeed. When the 50 mm lens was all I had and all I could afford, I hated it. Only after I had all focal lengths (decades later, when the jewels of the past were for sale for a song on eBay), I learnt to appreciate the 50 mm lens.

[erl]

So, HCB who mostly used 50mm for his job with Leica and Garry Winogrand who used two 28mm lenses for years are "Rubbish!". 

But not to me. I can't call John Free photographs as rubbish, just because he is using nothing but Nikkor 50 Macro for decades now. He is gifted enough to tell the story withing his area of interest with single lens.  

 

Do you use Leica for macro, sports, astro and wild life?

Or for paid weddings, family portraits, where you have to switch from 35 to 135 to get paid for result? I think, this where "focal length exploit" makes sense.  Well, Jane Bown managed it with 85 2.8 lens and she manged single persons portraits like no others did. And it wasn't Hasselblad, but no status OM. 

Ko.Fe., please do not quote me out of context OR attribute statements to me that are entirely of your own manufacture!

 

I used the expression "rubbish" directly and solely to a comment by NB23. Nothing else.

 

You are the only one to use HCB and Winograd in the same sentence as "Rubbish".

 

You quote John Free as using only one lens in his area of interest. So what! His area of interest was probably limited. No matter, his choice, and cannot be criticized for it.

 

Jane Brown, whom you refer to, another single lens user for her specific field. Nothing wrong there. Formulaic work is done by many people.

 

Finally, you take an oblique shot at me for using Hasselblad. Fire away. It is a moving target! I worked 120+ hours a week, 7 days, for years and years. The Hasselblad was an indispensable tool (which I still have) and at the time no other camera could serve my purpose as well. It was a working choice.

 

The reason for me even referring to Hasselblad was simply to illustrate that that was where I learned my ability to select focal length to suit the work, not the other way round.

[michaelwj]

Are we still talking about this? 

A 35mm lens is great for some people, for paid jobs, art, or neither. So are other lenses. Geesh. I'm pretty sure we've heard everyones opinions and we don't all agree. So what. Welcome to life.

Isn't there anything else we can discuss?

[rsolomon]

I currently have a two kit system, 35 & 75 crons. I oginally set out for a two kit system so I'm happy. As I mature I'm considering a 3 kit system which would be a different setup. I feel knowing where you want to end allows an easy start point. In my case I wouldn't just add a lens.... I'd re-configure.

 

So a one lens system works the same , what would YOU like, there's no right or wrong. For me a one lens system would be a 50 / 1.4.....note I don't own a 50 but it would be my one kit system.

[erl]

Are we still talking about this? 

A 35mm lens is great for some people, for paid jobs, art, or neither. So are other lenses. Geesh. I'm pretty sure we've heard everyones opinions and we don't all agree. So what. Welcome to life.

Isn't there anything else we can discuss?

Yes, there is plenty else to talk about.

Which bag for ........ ? etc.

Start a new thread any time you desire.

Meanwhile, some here want to hammer the 35mm lens into history. Their prerogative.

The only reason I am still here is because I have been misquoted, badly. I felt the need to correct.

[lct]

[...] Isn't there anything else we can discuss?

 

Sure. What about « Is 50mm All You Really Need » ?

[pgk]

The only reason I am still here is because I have been misquoted, badly. I felt the need to correct.

 

And I don't like history being rewritten. Many of the photographers quoted used more than one lens and therefore, by definition, were no 'one lens photographers. It appears that when facts get in the way of theory/myth there is a tendency to rewrite history  . Without knowing there thought processes regarding lenses its really not possible to say that anyone utilised there one lens to achieve their vision and aping them on say so is hardly creative  .

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Guest]

Yeah but this forum... this is Spartaaaaa!

Can be bananaaaa, at times