Bye Bye 35mm?

[250swb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

6 hours ago, JoshuaRothman said:

For years—maybe even decades?—my default lens has been a 35mm. When I moved to Leica, my first lens was a 35mm, and since then I've invested the most money in my 35mm lenses, first the FLE, now the reissued Steel Rim. I was "sold" on the M system in part because of the natural match between 35mm and the 0.72 viewfinder.

Yet over the past eight months or so, I've found myself using 35mm less and less. Instead I'm using 28mm and 50mm. It's to the point where I have to force myself to use 35mm. A few things are driving this change:

• We had a second kid, and all of a sudden family life is different, spatially speaking. To capture a scene in which everyone's interacting, 28mm is often better, especially because I'm so often right next to my kids. With so much kid chaos, I'm somehow more drawn to capturing wide scenes of everyday life.
• Conversely, I find myself wanting to isolate individuals more decisively. For that, 50mm is better.
• I moved from the M10 to the M10-R, and now cropping in a bit from 28mm to something around 35mm is painless.
• Owning the 28mm Elmarit ASPH and 50 Summarit f/2.5, among other lenses, I now have a two-lens kit that's so small that there's practically no convenience penalty over using a single 35mm lens. It's so easy to take both lenses with me.
• I've simply gotten better at using 28mm: I get in closer, get more involved in the scene, and my photos now have a dynamic quality that I don't get as often with 35mm.

I find that, aesthetically, I'm even preferring the more decisive separation of my output—which is basically candid documentary photography—into wider shots and tighter shots. I never understood what people meant when they said that 35mm was "no man's land." Now I think I do. It's amazing how much my way of seeing has shifted....

Separate from this change, as part of an overall downsizing, I've sold two of my three 35mm lenses, and now have only the Steel Rim reissue left. It's not going anywhere anytime soon, but it is collecting dust. I'm curious whether anyone else has forsaken 35mm for 28mm and 50mm.

Our thoughts and preferences evolve, it would be scary if they didn't. For a long time a 35mm was my preferred focal length, now it’s 28 or 50. If you feel like getting out of a rut do it, it’s your aesthetic judgement and nobody else’s.

[Advertisement]

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

[JamieDumont]

6 hours ago, JoshuaRothman said:

For years—maybe even decades?—my default lens has been a 35mm. When I moved to Leica, my first lens was a 35mm, and since then I've invested the most money in my 35mm lenses, first the FLE, now the reissued Steel Rim. I was "sold" on the M system in part because of the natural match between 35mm and the 0.72 viewfinder.

Yet over the past eight months or so, I've found myself using 35mm less and less. Instead I'm using 28mm and 50mm. It's to the point where I have to force myself to use 35mm. A few things are driving this change:

• We had a second kid, and all of a sudden family life is different, spatially speaking. To capture a scene in which everyone's interacting, 28mm is often better, especially because I'm so often right next to my kids. With so much kid chaos, I'm somehow more drawn to capturing wide scenes of everyday life.
• Conversely, I find myself wanting to isolate individuals more decisively. For that, 50mm is better.
• I moved from the M10 to the M10-R, and now cropping in a bit from 28mm to something around 35mm is painless.
• Owning the 28mm Elmarit ASPH and 50 Summarit f/2.5, among other lenses, I now have a two-lens kit that's so small that there's practically no convenience penalty over using a single 35mm lens. It's so easy to take both lenses with me.
• I've simply gotten better at using 28mm: I get in closer, get more involved in the scene, and my photos now have a dynamic quality that I don't get as often with 35mm.

I find that, aesthetically, I'm even preferring the more decisive separation of my output—which is basically candid documentary photography—into wider shots and tighter shots. I never understood what people meant when they said that 35mm was "no man's land." Now I think I do. It's amazing how much my way of seeing has shifted....

Separate from this change, as part of an overall downsizing, I've sold two of my three 35mm lenses, and now have only the Steel Rim reissue left. It's not going anywhere anytime soon, but it is collecting dust. I'm curious whether anyone else has forsaken 35mm for 28mm and 50mm.

I could have written this post word for word — except the second child part...

I have the close focus Summilux and my frustration started with the lack of a hard stop at 0.7m surprisingly. Loads of my photos are taken right at the rangefinder minimum, so having the hard stop turns out to be preferable to bouncing between rangefinder and live view. That got me looking at Summicrons but they didn't save me much size (another FLE gripe).

I idly considered a 28mm Summicron whilst looking over my previous images. I've been using the 21 SEM a lot lately, and enjoy the wider angle — something that I used to struggle with. Even so, 21mm is often too wide and the 28mm seems a sensible compromise. Would I lean into the 28mm perspective too often? Possibly. Could it become a crutch the same way f1.4 on the Summilux can be? Unlikely, but maybe. Would I just eyeball composition on my M2? I guess I'd have to.

Interesting that someone else finds themselves in the exact same debate at the exact same time.

[pgk]

If I had to live with one lens it would be a 35. I haven't always thought this though.

Edited June 19, 2024 by pgk

[250swb]

2 hours ago, pgk said:

If I had to live with one lens it would be a 35. I haven't always thought this though.

I think that would be the answer from a lot of people including myself, but that wasn’t the question. People are answering because they can’t imagine changing their own preference instead of being able to accept or imagine a preference can change over time.

[hansvons]

4 hours ago, patrickcolpron said:

I do miss my early photography years (over two decades) of only one lens, one camera and only two film stocks. I was free, careless and more importantly, I was happy. 

That's why I defaulted in my stilly journey to 35mm. Being neither fish nor fowl is a non-issue to me. 35mm is right in the middle, and that's perfect. 50mm is too narrow and 28mm too loud, if that makes sense. So, 35mm. And I'm happy 😊.

[BWColor]

I’m not a 50 guy, but that is what I use with my M3.  I love 28mm, but I wear glasses and a spherical correction doesn’t do it for my astigmatic prescription and other than my Bessa, or my Visoflex 2, I really can’t comfortably see the 28mm frame lines.  It is even challenging using my .58x M6TTL.  I’ve traveled with one lens, 24mm f/1.4 GM on my old Sony A9 and  love 30mm on medium format digital, but glasses and Leica rangefinder viewfinders aren’t my thing due to my glasses.  Young kids, small spaces and 28mm are a great combination.  I use to use 21mm stopped down, external viewfinder and it worked perfectly.  Have fun…

Edited June 19, 2024 by BWColor
Clarity

[harmen]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As Hans pointed out, you may be onto something by consistently using the same lens(es).  I greatly enjoy switching lenses and using one particular one for a while, before moving to another a few weeks later.  I do the same with medium; it could be Tri-X, Porta 160, or digital.  Where it causes some trouble is when putting images together across multiple years and locations that all work together as a theme.  The variety in photographic effects somewhat distracts from the topic.

[Anakronox]

I basically dropped the 35mm a couple of years ago and have settled on 28mm as the lens that’s going to be on any one of my cameras 95% of the time.  50mm is boring, bland, and lifeless and I will forever crusade against it.  Except for when I use it once a year to remind myself that we’re not on good terms😅

Most of my photography is street though and I prefer getting close to the subject, rather than hanging way back.  28 and 24/25 let me get right in there, something a 35 or longer doesn’t.  Bokeh is basically the last thing I care about either.

[AndreasG]

Same with me, over the years the Elmarit 2.8/28 ASPH has become my favourite lens, it is now my standard lens on my digital M.

[Pika898]

I went the other way, 50/28 to a 35. 

50 feels too tight for my use and 28 a tad too wide.

Also, I prefer to travel light and not fumble around changing lenses so 35 with cf was a perfect fit. 

Edited June 21, 2024 by Pika898

[PeterGA]

I think the 24mm focal length is the most interesting for candid, environmental and documentary photography.

[Ernstk]

I've forsaken 35mm for 21mm (Elmarit-M) 80% of the time. The other 20% still being my 35 'Lux pre asph.

Ernst

Edited June 26, 2024 by Ernstk

[Leslie22]

For the past decade the greatest number of shots taken with 35 & 50 .... by far. Last year I discovered F1.4 on the 28 ... it's fast becoming 28 & 50. I still use the 35 , but not as often these days.

[Ernstk]

12 minutes ago, Giacomo Busoni said:

Why ? 

To me, it's a much more natural angle of view. It's closer to what I see with my eyes and I love the results that I get.

After the 21mm, even the 35mm feels like quite a constrained viewpoint.

Ernst

[jimtong]

Not me, at least not yet. I am a 35mm shooter as the M 35 APO is my bread and butter. But for street photography, I mainly use the 50Lux. For travel, 28/35/50 goes. But 35mm is still my desert lens.

[jakontil]

I have been shooting with 50mm and 35mm most of my time, though i confess the 28mm will fit the my frame better… but somehow i prefer the 50mm looks at most

 

[DadDadDaddyo]

Great topic, one that's always useful.

There was a long period during the 80s when I was equipped with an M3 and a 50mm collapsible Summicron, and that's it. I captured many, many great shots, and never really gave it much thought. 

The second focal length for me was 90mm. Here, too, the 50 shows its virtues, in that there are things you can do with a 90 that you can pull off with a 50, but which would be more difficult with a 35.

I've long been conscious of a tendency towards over-inclusiveness in framing, brought on, I think, by an assumption that it's better to be able to show more in your frame. I think folks sometimes pick a wide angle of view based on this assumption. For myself and my own work, I've found it to be a trap; when your field of shows more, there's a natural tendency to try to frame in a way that neatly arranges all those multiple elements in the wide frame. I've benefitted from being forced into selectivity by using a 50, or even a 90, in settings where many folks, I think, would habitually reach for a 35.

This probably reflects a tendency on my part to attempt to balance the multiple elements found in a wider angle view, to the extent that the whole scene becomes the subject, to the extent that the original element that motivated me to raise camera to eye, while still in the frame, is no longer the subject. When I've battled against that tendency by forcing myself to be selective rather than inclusive, it has produced direct benefits in my results.

This is not a hard, firm rule for all situations, and certainly not for everybody, but it was actually a critical insight for my own work at the time they it occurred to me. 

Anyway, to address the OP's question, I'd counsel against eliminating a focal length as useful as 35mm. For the times when it's needed, it's exactly what you want. For me, a perfect three lens kit is 35, 50, 90.

But that's just me. And for sure, a 28, and even a 24, sure can come in handy sometimes.

But a lot of things about my own work improved when I put myself into the position of having to be selective, especially in settings where, before, I'd assumed that as wide an angle of view as possible was called for. 

But yeah, hang on to that 35...

[lct]

17 hours ago, DadDadDaddyo said:

[...] For me, a perfect three lens kit is 35, 50, 90.

But that's just me [...]

Plus me and many old timers, i suspect, who used to use an M2, an M3 with goggles, an M4 or an M4-2 (M5?). 28mm framelines appeared first in the eighties (M4-P) if memory serves but i may be wrong. Thanks to EVF, i'm now using 15/16, 21, 28, 75 and 135 more than i ever did in the film days but 35, 50 & 90 (or 21, 35 & 50 in APS) sit always in my bags. FWIW.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jaapv]

Although the function of 35,50,90 has now been taken over in part by standard zooms and the Q. 

[hansvons]

18 hours ago, DadDadDaddyo said:

I think folks sometimes pick a wide angle of view based on this assumption. For myself and my own work, I've found it to be a trap; when your field of shows more, there's a natural tendency to try to frame in a way that neatly arranges all those multiple elements in the wide frame. I've benefitted from being forced into selectivity by using a 50, or even a 90, in settings where many folks, I think, would habitually reach for a 35.

Thanks for your insights. Those are good points I have also encountered many times. However, I'm glued to 35mm even though framing a tidy, precise composition is harder. For one, I shoot in portrait mode for almost everything, forcing selectivity, including landscapes. Secondly, I can't let go of the field of view of 35mm, which comes closer to human sight than 50mm, although 50mm resembles objects' distances better/the same. 90mm, on the other hand, works like a mental zoom that we do when we look at a subject closer. For that, it does have a place in the bag, but I don't need it for my work.

Lastly, I can't afford to change lenses, as this would jeopardise critical moments in my photography. So, again, I use 35mm almost exclusively.