Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1995/12/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I've often found myself out with a compact camera that has a 35mm lens, wishing it had a 50 instead. 35 does have easier focusing and greater depth of field but it also has a wider angle that covers about twice the are of a 50mm lens, and it can be hard to get a selective view with a wideangle. I don't think a 35 is a good substitute for a 50 personally. The lens I put on my M6 most often is a 50. (The lens I put most often on an R body is a 50...). On the other hand, you specify Summicrons. With the 35 I can put the whole camera and lens in the pocket of my flying jacket. A collapsible 50mm Summicron collapses down to around the same size, but can't focus as close as a rigid Summicron. Hope that helps. Joe. In message <951211002604_50527591@emout05.mail.aol.com>, DFeldman@aol.com writes >Having got the where to buy questioned settled to some extent, I'm going to >ask an even more basic question. > >If you were going to have only 1 lens available for at least a year, would >you choose a 35mm or a 50mm? > >At first, I was leaning toward the 35 because of size, easy focusing, and >because I seem to be wanting to step back these days when using my 50mm >Nikkor. > >However, I am now uncertain. I have not used a 35mm a great deal and wonder >if the perspective distortion will bother me. Also, the 50mm lens is $500 >cheaper (new). > >Any suggestions, opinions or stories would be welcome. > >Thanks in advance, > >David Feldman >Davis, CA >dfeldman@aol.com -- joe b.