Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/11/07

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

Subject: Re: [Leica]Why a 35mm lens?
From: John Collier <>
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 07:48:53 -0700

I wanted a 35 after using the 50 for ten years. I wanted that wider view.
When I raised the camera to take a photograph, I found that I was in the
perfect position for a 35* frame not a 50**. I agree with Rob that inertia
plays a big part as well; it is usually much faster to change your position
to accommodate the lens you have rather than changing lenses.

If you like your 50 and find it natural to use, I would not bother to get a

John Collier

* OK, I was in a perfect position for a 28 but there is no 28 Summilux. :-)

**I love my 50 but I just do not seem to use it that often, never actually,
since I got the 35. I keep the 50 because it works with all my close-up
stuff which I also never use. Sigh

> From: "Alan Hull" <>
>> From: John Collier
>> find that I use an M body with a 35 lens for about 99% of my
> shooting. I
> ---------------------
> John and others.  I find it interesting that so many luggers seem to
> prefer the 35mm lens.  When I was starting out in photography the most
> common advice was ... Fill the frame.  Followed by ... but do not get
> too close because of perspective distortion.
> May I ask those luggers who use the 35mm (or shorter) lens MORE than
> any other, if they can explain why they do so.  For instance, is it
> ease of use or do you actually like the results.
> For me, I find that anything less than 50mm is an "in your face "
> style.