Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/11/07
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 12:01 AM 11/7/00 -0800, you wrote: >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. Strange how every eye seems to have its own perspectival preferences. I shot for years with a Hexar, but I never really liked the 35mm focal length. I intend to get either a Summicron or a Canon 35/2 sooner or later, if only to find out whether 35 feels somehow better on a Leica. But I've always preferred the 28mm, and the 50. And, recently, the Cosina/Voigtlander 75. I like the perspectival distortions of a 28, perhaps because they're obvious -- you can't pretend that you're not using a wide angle. The 15mm Heliar was just too peculiar for me; the shots I liked best had the subject bullseyed in the center, so as to draw the eye away from the radical bending. For a time I enjoyed a 24mm -- a N*k*n autofocus -- but even that's beginning to feel too wide. In large format, it's a different story, as you can iron out the perspective. I'm beginning to like wide lenses on my 4x5's: the 100mm Wide Field Ektar is a particular favorite. I think it really does reflect a personal aesthetic, even a style; most of my favorite photographers seem to have restricted themselves to one or two focal lengths. cheers, DC