Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/11/08

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

Subject: [Leica] Why a 35
From: Robert Appleby <robert.appleby@tin.it>
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 10:09:00 +0100

>>>
H C-B did okay with a 50 and so did Robert Frank.  A very personal
thing.  If you feel comfortable and naturally situated where a 50 works
for you--that should be your lens.

donal
<<<<

Donal, is that right? Frank always looked very 35-ish to me, for instance
(I haven't seen the book for about ten years, but...) the picture of the
man praying at the river's edge, the mining town through the lace curtains,
etc.
Raghubir Singh used a variety of lenses in his early days (Nikon FM2, BTW)
but ended up using a 21 (by the look of it) almost exclusively in his last
work.
It's interesting that so many photographers (in their personal work) come
down to one lens or maybe two. It really is a reflection of the way you see
things, quite apart from the gain in reaction speed and a belief in the
value of footwear over other types of equipment. And that lens is most
lkely to be in the wideangle range these days.
Rob.