Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1995/12/11

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

To: DFeldman@aol.com
Subject: Re: 35 vs. 50 summicrons
From: "joe b." <joe@azurite.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 18:47:06 +0000
Cc: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us

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.

In reply to: Message from DFeldman@aol.com (35 vs. 50 summicrons)