Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,011   Posts: 1,524,647   Online: 938
      

View Poll Results: Do you prefer 35mm or 50mm focal length in 135 format?

Voters
87. You may not vote on this poll
  • 35mm

    42 48.28%
  • 50mm

    45 51.72%
Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst 12345678910 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 110
  1. #31
    Jerevan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Sweden
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,858
    Images
    9
    I am a 50's man, the Nikkor-H 50/2 to be more specific.
    “Do your work, then step back. The only path to serenity.” - Lao Tzu

  2. #32
    Pioneer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Elko, Nevada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    971
    Images
    4

    Nikkor 50

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerevan View Post
    I am a 50's man, the Nikkor-H 50/2 to be more specific.
    I agree, a terrific little lens.

  3. #33
    Leigh B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,035
    Images
    1
    35mm.

    If it ain't on the negative, it won't be on the print no matter what you do.

    - Leigh
    “Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something.” - Plato

  4. #34

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    St. Louis, Mo.
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    766
    Quote Originally Posted by TheFlyingCamera View Post
    If I could afford the 35mm f1.4 for my Contax, I'd have that. Since I can't, I'm happy to stick with the 50 f1.4. I like doing portraits with shallow depth of field, and a 50 is the shortest focal length you can get that really starts to give you the spatial compression for a good portrait. Were money no object, I'd have three lenses for my Contax - the 50 1.4, 35 1.4, and 85 1.4.
    What about the 35mm f2.8?

    I use to shoot Contax and owned the 25mm/2.8, 35mm/2.8, 50/1.7, 100/3.5 and the 180/2.8. All were fine lenses!

  5. #35

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    charleston sc
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    98
    50 never have been big on wide angle.

  6. #36
    Newt_on_Swings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,792
    I would go for the 35mm, though I prefer a bit wider, 28mm or 24mm.

  7. #37
    narsuitus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    539
    The first lens on my first SLR was a 50mm. I was never happy with it because it was too “telephoto” for my shooting style. When I traded my first SLR for a Nikon, the first lens I purchased was a 35mm f/2. It was my favorite lens until I replaced it with the 35mm f/1.4 shown in the foreground of this photo.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/11336821@N00/7011397917/
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Nikon F2 146b hdr retouch sml.jpg  

  8. #38
    fmajor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    259
    On 35mm format, a 35mm lens is so versatile for what i like to shoot. I really love my 50mm's, but if i'm restricted the lens that's gonna make it is something wide enough (actually, 35mm is probably my fav focal length anyway....).

  9. #39
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,258
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by Alan Gales View Post
    What about the 35mm f2.8?

    I use to shoot Contax and owned the 25mm/2.8, 35mm/2.8, 50/1.7, 100/3.5 and the 180/2.8. All were fine lenses!
    Alan-

    this was just trying to fit the hypothetical of the question. In a world with no financial restraints, I'd have pretty much the whole lineup from the 16mm to the 200 f2 and 300 f2.8. But I'd have to sell the house to do that, and I'd much rather have a roof over my head.

    Actually, depending on a couple factors, I'd either go the 1.4 route or the 2.8 route - 35, 50, 85 f1.4s or 35 and 85 f2.8s with the 50 f1.4 . And who could skip the 28 f2? But in reality, the Contax SLR kit is probably going to stay a one-lens kit - when I travel, I'll use the G2 outfit instead. Thinking of which, I've got a serious itch to hit the road and put some more film through the G2. THAT's a fantastic camera outfit. And were I forced to pick just one lens for it, I'd keep the 21mm f2.8.

  10. #40

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    St. Louis, Mo.
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    766
    Quote Originally Posted by TheFlyingCamera View Post
    Alan-

    this was just trying to fit the hypothetical of the question. In a world with no financial restraints, I'd have pretty much the whole lineup from the 16mm to the 200 f2 and 300 f2.8. But I'd have to sell the house to do that, and I'd much rather have a roof over my head.

    Actually, depending on a couple factors, I'd either go the 1.4 route or the 2.8 route - 35, 50, 85 f1.4s or 35 and 85 f2.8s with the 50 f1.4 . And who could skip the 28 f2? But in reality, the Contax SLR kit is probably going to stay a one-lens kit - when I travel, I'll use the G2 outfit instead. Thinking of which, I've got a serious itch to hit the road and put some more film through the G2. THAT's a fantastic camera outfit. And were I forced to pick just one lens for it, I'd keep the 21mm f2.8.
    Sorry, I was just suggesting the 2.8 because of price. If someone really wanted the 1.4 and couldn't afford it, the 2.8 might have been within their reach.

    Best regards,

    Alan

Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst 12345678910 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin