Laying on the sofa, looking at the horrible wet and windy weather gods have sent our way up north again. Such a difference to last April/May. No lock down due to Covid, but a lock in due to lousy weather. Right now I am nursing a horrible cold, thinking about getting up at 5 am tomorrow to go to work. This video of yours is such a welcome distraction. I agree with everything you said wholeheartedly, but I am more of a 35~40mm man. One of the best focal lengths, or lenses for that matter, that I have is my Leica 75mm F2 Apo Summicron M which I bought years ago. One of the better decisions of my photographic life. The performance of this lens has to be seen to be believed. Your Nikkor-M F9 is a gem BTW, and very very difficult to find these days. Look after it.
I know what you mean about the weather, I find it very hard to get myself out in bad conditions at times. I didn’t realise the 300mm f/9 was quite sought after now, it was easy to pick one up 5 years ago so I think I got lucky!
Steve you are correct. Many photographers carry zooms and proud they are, but like you I prefer a prime to help composition. My favorite M42 are Takumar and use the 28 , 59 , and 85 mm then in the M mount have 2 35 , several 50 and the 90mm , large format that am still trying to get out and do are the 75 , 110 , 150 , 210 and that Nikon 300mm F9 you have. Indeed those are the most used excepting the Voightlander 40mm and Zeiss 40mm ... The 40mm VC Classic was only lens on one trip. I struggled with bad light in shadows. Thank you for your wonderful sharing , thank you !!
For landscapes, I prefer a wide-angle lens with a horizontal angle-of-view of approximately 65 degrees. The Fujinon 65mm f/5.6 lens on a 6x9cm rangefinder has a 65 degree horizontal angle-of-view. The Nikkor 28mm f/2.8 lens on a 35mm SLR has a 65.5 degrees horizontal angle-of-view. The Panasonic 14mm f/2.5 lens on a micro 4/3 mirrorless has a 63.4 degree horizontal angle-of-view. The Nikkor 18mm f/3.5 lens on an APS-C camera has a 66.5 degree horizontal angle-of-view The Fujinon 90mm f/5.6 lens on a 4x5 inch view camera has a 70 degree horizontal angle-of-view. These are the lenses and cameras I use for landscapes. The lenses have different focal lengths, the image sizes are different formats, and the images have different aspect ratios; however, they all have similar angles-of-view.
My early photography was about illustrating my walking adventures and was mainly done with a Pentax ME Super on mono film. The 2 lenses I carried were a 28 & 50 mm and that covered everything I felt I needed. It is great to get them out occasionally and use them - they feel so good and the click of the shutter is heaven. I do miss the darkroom but the convenience of digital processing of scanned negatives is so convenient. Thanks for sharing.
Thanks Keith, I find those two focal lengths work well when I’m in the mountains of Snowdonia and need the wider view. Closer to home I need a longer lens as there aren’t the big vistas.
My must-carry prime lens shooting kit comprise of a 28, 50 and 90. Fast manual lenses but with beautiful glass and lovely character. More than sufficient for my purposes. I do admit it is tempting to start buying all these extreme wide angle and super tele lens once you start out in photography. Thankfully years ago, my level headed thinking prevailed. Your insights are important for those contemplating photography.
I do prefer to use prime lenses but the sheer convenience and flexibility of a zoom is a huge advantage when photography isn’t the primary purpose of the outing.
I wasn’t looking to have my focal length choices to be validated or upended, but we’re in agreement regarding the three lenses which do the job almost all the time without looking at the extreme fringe use cases. I do prefer a normal lens that’s closer to 40mm than 50mm, and I agree that there’s a noticeable difference between the two. I have made use of 24mm lenses before, but I have to be in the mindset of producing something more panoramic or an environmental portrait for 24mm to work. Like you, I don’t enjoy the boring compositions that wide angle landscape photographers fall into, with a random foreground object, stretched corners, and a background pushed far away into obscurity.
I love my 24mm but when using it for landscape work I find myself shooting portrait orientation on taller flatter subjects and it works well. But I do love that 24mm for Automotive work.
I’d probably go down as far as 24mm if using a 40mm as normal just to give a better spacing. When I shot with the Mamiya 645 I had the equivalent of 22mm, 35mm, 50mm and 90mm.
Three great choices, which I am sure thousands of photographers would agree with. My favourite 6x6 landscape kit is made up of 40-80-180mm, so slightly wider and slightly longer than what you prefer but I do try to avoid perspectives that look unnatural. The other focal lenghts I have for this system spend far too much time not being used, I am afraid.
Hi Steve. Sorries, very late on this thread. What you’ve opined has a lot of wisdom and common sense to it although some photographers will have their own particular style ie exaggerated angles. Of all the lenses I’ve used, the nifty fifty is a firm favourite (70%). Others include the 28mm(20%) and the 90mm (10%). I’ve got the 21mm as well but its hardly ever used. Do keep on your sharing your experiences. It is important for the rest of us. Cheers
I also enjoy Nick Carver’s work on film. I’m sure you’ve seen his work on TH-cam Steve. Someone asked me recently why I still bother shooting with film. Apart from the obvious answers I told him that I like the fact I get instant archive of my photographs. No back up onto the cloud or back up on to hard drive and then backing up the back up. Just a simple negative and scans if I want them. Digital to me is taking an image. Film is making one.
I also enjoy Nick Carvers work Simon, he’s one of the more talented photographers on TH-cam. If someone asks me about why I shoot film I just tell them I like it, saves a lot of time 😊
Another great learning video. Even when the main point is not new, the approach and all the little asides never fail to teach me something. The closest equivalents available for my Bronica GS-1 are 50, 100, 150 mm. However the 50mm is still too wide for my particular interests, so the 65mm is my main alternative. Luckily the 65 and 100 have the same filter thread diameter (72mm), helps reduce the clutter of adapters in my bag!
I have 4 favorite prime ranges: 35mm, 50 ~ 55mm, 85mm, 135mm for 35mm FM2; and equivalently 65mm, 105mm, 150mm, 250mm for Bronica 6x6 SQ; I also do not like too wide angle, and prefer 35mm max for film, and maybe 24mm for digital. Moderate angles do give timeless aesthetics. And I also prefer shots where the viewer cannot easily identify the location, as with most wide angle shots. Details, forms, and patterns are favorites. Usually I choose a pair: most likely 50mm and 135mm, 35mm and 85mm depending on the day, mood, and subject matter expected. Sometimes I only go out with only one prime, and that would most likely be 85mm or 50 ~55mm.
35mm is my favourite focal length. I bought a 35mm Rokkor Prime for my Minoltas. My next lens for my Nikon FE system will be the 35mm. I have a 28mm and and beautiful 50mm 1.8. Digital I use Fujifilm X100T with a 23mm fixed lens. I used to shoot a lot with the Canon 85mm 1.8 for weddings and portraits. A beautiful lens. I’ve got my films processed at a specialist film lab locally, but I will scan them myself when I get back to my lab after lockdown. A whole years worth of negs to go through. 10 films. Not many, but I’m selective what I shoot of film and I’ve been known to have a film in a camera from 6-12 months.I do like wide angle, but much less these days. The converging verticals annoy me somewhat. 35mm is just wide enough without the distortion.
35mm is a good overall compromise Simon, never appearing wide but also allowing a fair amount of coverage. I like to pair it with the 85mm to give me plenty of options with the 35 getting about 65% of the usage.
My 35mm (and M4/3) list includes: 28mm Fujinon F/3.5 (Hasn't arrived yet) Takumar Super Multi Coated 50mm F/1.4 (LOVE) Pentax SMC 50mm F/1.7 (Classic and reliable) Helios 44-2 58mm F/2 (Bonhers but fun) Tamron Adaptall 2 90mm F/2.8 (hasn't arrived yet) Super Ozeck 135mm F/2.5 (Doing a really good job) Sigma Pantel 135mm F/2.8 (Hasn't arrived yet) The whole lot cost me about £150. I also own a Yashica Minister 700 which has a 45mm F/1.7 lens and I adore that focal length. Great video as always Simon. Do a similar one showing us how you use those 35mm lenses adapted to your M4/3 gear please
Nice selection of very affordable lenses Morris, I also have the 90mm Tamron which is a very solid piece of equipment. I no longer adapt my lenses to M43 as I found there to be little if any advantage over the native fit optics.
I’m a bit wider and longer Steve as my 3 prime lens are the Zuiko 24, 50 and 135 for my Olympus OM system. Sometimes I go a bit crazy and only carry my 20mm and 200mm lens. And the camera I carry with me at all times in the car is a Canon 300v with the 40mm pancake lens which is a cracker of a lens.
That’s a bigger spread Neil but I like the idea of going with two extremes also, there’s never going to be any difficulty choosing which one works best for a particular scene! 🙂
@@SteveONions Like yourself Steve I cut me teeth using the 24mm. When I was shooting digital I had the 24mmm TS-E mk2 Canon lens which is the sharpest lens I have ever seen. Raging I sold all my Canon EOS gear as found my original EOS 3 film camera and had to get lens for it. I go a 19-35 zoom and the funny thing is without looking at the zoom barrel to composes the image I always seem to land on 24mm. You should try the two extremes as it sure does get you thinking.
I made similar choice of trinity of primes. 28mm , 35mm and 85mm. I tend to force myself to go out with only two of them. It's easier to shoot when i'm restricted :-) Great video again !
Yes Tomek, a 2 lens pairing is ideal for travelling light and reduces the amount of switching. If I do this a tend to keep the wider one attached unless a shot really needs the extra reach.
@@SteveONions I agree. It is often mountain hiking that i do. Two primes must be enough 😊 to travel light . And i start the route with 28mm attached and 85 in the bag .
A few decades back I worked at a midsized newspaper. I had access 35, 50, 70-210mm lenses. The camera was a Pentax Spotmatic and never felt under equipped. Some years later I acquired a Konica with a 40mm. I really liked that lens it just seem 'right'.
My first new camera way back in the day (Zenit E) came with the Helios 44-2 to which I added 28mm and 135mm prime lenses. I was always of the mindset to "zoom with my legs". Not always possible, of course, but still a good mantra if you can do it.
Very interesting, like you I mostly use these focal lengths. Like you I began with a 50mm lens and made many good photographs with it. I have a 45mm lens on a rangefinder Agfa, it is a solinar, their take on the Tessar it is my favourite standard lens. I am a Tessar enthusiast I have several on 35mm and medium format. My favourite wide angle lens is my Tamron 28/2.5 I have several mounts and use it on most 35mm systems. It was interesting to find a few years ago how the standard lens had been rehabilitated. I recall in the 80's when zoom lenses got to a decent standard how many people ditched their 50mm lenses, called them boring and only of use when a wide aperture was needed. I have my 80's zoom lenses I liked so much back then, some are good, most make flat immages. My most used lens right now is a 45/1.8 M.Zuiko on four thirds. After all this I still recall the advice I got from Tim Hughes, a professional photographer, who advised me to buy a Pentax K1000 and 50mm lens. He said it was of good quality and versatile, a good palce to start. I still have the K1000 and 50/2 lens, many good photographs and 40 years later this is my favouite kit. Thank you a keep on making your photography videos.
I feel the same about tessar lenses Richard and the 75mm Solinar on my Isolette III was probably my favourite lens of all time. I also owned the 28mm 2.5 Tamron which had a very interesting look, quite smooth in the corners but it did flare terribly if the Sun even made an appearance.
Good discussion as usual, Steve. I just wanted to mention that my wife gave me your Holme Fell prints for Christmas. We framed them and hung them in our cabin in west Alabama. Beautiful photos. We love them. Hope we get to visit the Lake District one day and see it in person.
I’m really pleased you like the prints, I’ve had those three up in my office for a few months now and they remind me of a great day out. I hope you get to visit the Lake District one day also take in Snowdonia, they are only 3 hours apart and have a lot of great places to shoot. All the best. Steve
Steve, yes those are my only 3 lenses I use for my 4X5. Last year I have both a Bronica SQ-A with a 80mm because I like hiking. Now I have the impression the those images are not quite sharp. So before buying some other lenses I need to find out why.
It’s worth doing a few tests if you have any doubts Patrick. You may have a faulty 120 film back that isn’t putting the film in the correct plane or it could be the lens itself.
Good video as usual. I’ve been tossing around the idea of purchasing a tilt/shift lens for DSLR to get closer to 4x5 look. In the Ansel Adams book examples he gives the focal lengths he used for many of his iconic images with various size cameras. Converting images from inches to mm’s, he typically used “normal” lenses. Some were in the 45mm range you mentioned. I guess great minds think alike! PS: Pentax 50mm 1.4 8 element M42 mount is my favorite film lens. Absolutely agree with comments about zoom pincushion.
The standard lens just works so well for me Dan that I can foresee a day when it is all I’ll carry. There is nothing about the way it renders the scene that will date or appear cliched, it’s perfect.
I always took prime lens for granted until I was left with a zoom. A couple of years back I left a small camera bag on a train in Belgium. It had my FE2 and 3 lens in and never saw it again. That left me with a 35-200 AIS, a cracking lens, but! So, as the camera and primes have been replaced, so has the taking for granted. Cheers Diz
Thank you and i agree totally. My loved ones on my nikon SLRs are the 35 mm and 50 mm and i have a 90 mm macro lens. So im close to your choise of 3 :-)
Hi Steve. I'm a 50mm shooter in the main and similarly 'cut my teeth' on a Pentacon f1.8 decades ago. I also prefer to stay at 28 or 35mm and have a beautiful Super Komura 90-250mm f4.5 zoom for longer stuff. Much enjoyed the episode and it chimes perfectly with my own preferences. Look forward to the next release! As an aside and given your affinity with more elderly film cameras, I have a lovely Agfa Clack I've modified to accept 49mm screw in filters. Not sure if you know anything about the Clack but your exposure options are one shutter speed of 1/30(ish) and f16 and f11 (debate rages about that but my exposure tests seem to bear out these numbers). An open offer exists to borrow it, along with the ND filters I use to control exposure (so far on three rolls of Ilford XP-2 Super). Take it easy.
Thanks Steven, glad you’re liked the video. Thanks too for the offer to use the Agfa, I would take you up on it but I have a very similar Ilford Sporti that’s yet to have a run out so maybe in the future. All the best.
Yep. Same here. Sort of. 28 & 50 I'm happy with. Still struggling to find a telephoto range I'm good with. I think it's possibly the trickiest to work with. Have 28/50/135 for my Canon FD system and don't feel the need for anything else although the 85 keeps winking at me...
I've always used zooms and my argument was that I would be missing shots if I only had primes. Having that limitation can be a good thing though. With a big zoom range it can become overwhelming as to what I should point the camera at. I find I'm exploring the scene more with primes finding different angles and taking my time.
I’m happy to use both lens types depending on the situation. I do find the longer focal lengths are better covered by a zoom as it’s hard to carry enough primes to meet my needs. It’s easier at the short end where moving forward or backward a little can make a huge difference to the framing.
Nice presentation, Steve. I tnd to agree with you on primes, as that's what I grew up with . I tend to use my standard lenses the most, Olympus 4/3rd's 25mm (50mm), Medium format 50mm and 4x5 150mm . KB.
Sadly the only 25mm prime that's available for 4/3 at a reasonable price is the f2.8 pancake. The Leica Summilux is still commanding at least 400 EUR on the second hand market. m4/3 is another story with some nice primes available, but they still need software correction to get the best out of them.
I’m the same Ken, I find the ‘normal’ view very appealing and it’s my starting point for all compositions - I only go wider or longer if I really need to.
@@SteveONions Thanks Steve. I took a serious look at my landscapes from years ago, photographing with a 28mm and a large portion not impressive. Now that I've gotten into film again, staying with standard lens on all formats. KB
35, 50 and 90 for me steve (35mm format) - 50, 127 and 250 for 6x7 format. The best sort of zoom - a good pair of legs. Cheers mate and thanks as usual.
As always I enjoy your videos. They are always informative and practical. I have much the same set of primes. However, I don't have a 300mm for the 4x5. I only have a 210mm. So, 90mm, 150mm and 210mm. I also have a 135mm and I have really gotten to enjoy that point of view. For my digitial I have zooms, except for a 50mm prime and 90mm macro.
For 35mm format my preference “””FFL are 38/45/135/2x:. But my first lens was when I was a student with no money. There’s an area in NYC that’s all camera stuff. The shop keeper showed me a 135 and peeled off the price sticker after I clearly looked at its. Then said he’ll take a value less than half the stickier.. it was a 135mm FFL but PRESET.which is a pain to operate. I became used to the second preset ring and got a few years out of it until it fell apart.
Steve, I remember you talking about the quality of the 50mm zenzanon, and that it may be considered as a weak point in the lineup. I'm using the SQ-system myself, and I've been eyeing the 65 mm Zenzanon PS. How does that compare to lets say the 80mm/2.8 for image quality?
Well I’ve not done a proper side by side comparison with the 80mm and only taken the 65mm out a few times truth be told. That said I’ve so far found it to be of excellent quality, quite easily one of my best.
Folks laugh at my three favorite 35mm full frame lenses ... the 31mm, 43mm and 77mm by Pentax. In 645 medium format I like the 55mm, 75mm and150mm. .. with the “short standards” getting most of my attention! We have much in common and I always look forward to your content ... thanks!
My first camera kit in 1978 was a 28, 50, and 135. I don’t think I had a zoom lens until sometime in the 90s and that was on a p&s. Since then, nothing has been more detrimental to my creativity or sends me into vapor lock faster than an expensive fast zoom lens. And yet I keep falling for the same fairy tale time and time again, always telling myself “this time it will be different”.
I’m sure both of us can recall conversations we had decades ago with those silly old stuck-in-the-past Luddites who gave us this exact advice. Did we listen? No we did not. And now here we are.
When I bought my Bronica SQ, it came with a 50mm and 80mm lenses. I made sure to get the 150mm lens as soon as I could. Oddly enough, I got the 150mm lens before I picked up an 85mm FD lens for my Canon 35mms. Great video. Thanks.
For some reasons the 85mm FD doesn't seem to be as common as the 85mm Nikon F mount. I've never bothered to pick one up for my system because the scarcity drives the price up. Could be a UK specific problem, as far as I can tell the 35mm which isn't too common in the UK is fairly common in the USA.
@@oJ862 Ya, I have 2 clean 35mm lenses that I got thrifting. That's what kept me away from Nikon. Canon lenses were inexpensive, easy to find, and great lenses. Before I could really build up a Nikon collection, I had fallen in love with Canon "A" series cameras. Really, anything with an FD mount.
@@comfortablyblind6853 in my mind the fd lenses are every bit as good as nikon lenses of the time, in fact the price makes them even better. Only problem with fd is the lack of choice when it comes to picking up a mechanical body.
@@oJ862 Do you mean, fully manual like the Canon AT-1? I think the FTb is fully manual as well, but batteries are much harder to come by. I can still pick up the 4L44,* or equivalent at Radio Shack of all places. Smith and Edwards here has them too.
@@comfortablyblind6853 I mean not battery reliant like the F-1 and FT-b. My AE-1 and T90 are great but I have a constant back of the mind feeling that if they get rained on they're toast. AFAIK Nikon seems to offer more in the way of cameras that will run without a battery. Also in regards to the FTb, I'm pretty sure they have a voltage regulator so a 1.5v alkaline battery will work in them.
Interesting comparison. Although you say that the focal length of the same (I can understand) it might be confusing for some. I tend to say "field of view equivalent" I understand the "too much wide angle" point, I have a 45mm with my M645 and find it a bit too wide from time to time. Although I think it also might have to do with the film size. I got a RB67 recently, with 50,65 and 90. I used the 65, thinking the 50 is too much. Many people told me the 50 is a great lens, so I decided to take it out. It indeed is nice, I didn't have a feeling of being too wide, although the VoF is equivalent to a 25mm on 135.
I also had the 45mm for the 645 Uwe and preferred it to the 35mm. It’s funny how on certain formats and aspect ratios you can accept different fields of view, in 4x5 I really do not like wideangles at all.
I have had 5 or 6 35 mm cameras given to me and all but one had a 50mm lens. when I was stationed in Germany I shot lots of photos with a 50mm, (it's all i had on my I om-10) a 135 prime would have been nice some times but mostly the 50 was fine.
Only my personal experience but I am sure it holds true for most people who have only ever shot digital... when starting out the "wider the better" but as years have gone on I have found that I have found my wide is now 24m ( I owned a 10-22 on apsc and 17-40 on FF) but unlike yourself I can stlll like one of them dramatic stone in the foreground widey's... and always will - but that's me 🙂 It's easy to see why the focal lengths you have picked are your *go to* choices and I would say that is partly due to growing up and being used to those focal lengths.? Anyway,an interesting little episode. Atb Al
Thanks Alan. I think very wide lenses are the most difficult to use effectively, so much is included in the shot you need an excellent composition for it to feel uncluttered.
Interesting video. I want aware that modern lenses are designed to be corrected with software, but it makes sense. I often find modern lenses to be rather difficult to focus manually on older bodies. Also, I like your point on restricting yourself to drive forward better compositions. I actually find that I compose far better with my Ikoflex TLR than with my interchangeable lens SLRs. Thanks for another video.
Great video.... A very good review of these focal lengths, u are right on target with this.... I am always unhappy w/ extreme WA lenses at any focal length... I really agree on the 300 F8 Nikkor... I use on my 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10... amazing and very compact. Thanks again for a very informative subject
I suspect having that angle of view consistency across formats greatly aids in your ability to consider possible compositions even before looking through the viewfinder or ground glass. A good practice, indeed. Though it typically is not a factor in your images as a landscape photographer, primarily, I was hoping that you might discuss the quality of the bokeh for those lenses. I know that you typically shoot middle-to-narrower apertures and use a tripod, but I'd like to know how they perform wide(r) open. I'm particularly ignorant regarding large format lenses and the way they render out of focus areas.
I’ve never considered bokeh to be honest Bob as I don’t shoot wide open very often. I’m also not particularly sensitive to the effect like some other people. That said I did like the out of focus areas when using a tessar design 75mm Solinar on my Isolette III.
In 35mm film I very much prefer 40mm for my standard lens. There’s something about it that just looks right. That and I’m a Canon shooter, and Canon just so happens to make a small EF mount 40mm prime that pairs really nicely with many smaller rebel film bodies. It’s a great combo.
@@SteveONions I still have :) I use the 85 the most but I like the other two. The 50 has to be stopped down quite a bit for better performance but its ok most of the time
I have three lenses from 3 different film formats and all three lenses have the same focal length ... 90mm. The 90mm f/5.6 Fujinon lens performs like a wide-angle on my 4x5 inch large format view camera. The 90mm f/3.8 Mamiya-Sekor lens performs like a normal lens on my medium format RB67 SLR camera. The 90mm f/2 Leica lens performs like a slight telephoto lens on my 35mm small format rangefinder camera.
Hmmm mildly controversial there Steve, but I must say that I (mostly) agree with you. Certainly the 12mm Samyang (18mm equivalent) I have, which is an excellent lens is my least used, although when I need it, I need it. All lenses have their uses, even the extreme ones, but in reality most of my images fall within the arc of focal lengths you describe.
You skiped your MFTs. I use 15mm & 47mm and do'nt feel the miss of 25mm. Even use my PK 31mm on MFT to explore that angle but don't warm to it. In MF landscape my 150mm (S) seems to get the most use, nice seperation. Keep up the interesting work.
I used to have fixed focal lengths for the M43 Neville but sold them years ago - another problem I suffer with digital is wanting everything to be easy, hence the use of zooms (not good).
@@SteveONions Yes, I like film because it is not too easy. Somehow being forced to engage my brain I then find it easier to think about lighting and composition. Even considered an X-Pro as the screen is normally hidden which prevents "chimping" hence encourages imagining the result rather than accepting the screen as good enough. But then I saw the cost so that was the end of that!
Nice video content, and well presented, although I do wish you'd not conflate field of view with focal length. Especially jarring when you're referring to the equivalent angles on different formats by saying their focal lengths are the 'same'. It's not possible for a the focal length of a 50mm lens and an 80mm lens (ignoring your well-made point re: 45mm equivalency) to be the same since the number is a physical measurement of their focal length.
These are the 3 focal length I used for my film cameras (35 mm and MF), they are also easily available and cheap so you do not need to sell one of your kidney to get one of these focal lenght
i can't wait to see the video about the 50 ps vs s version, i am thinking about to buy a wide angle lens. well, my most used focal length is 85mm... and i tend to use telephoto lenses much more than wide angels.
Whoah, you are NOT using “the same three focal lengths.” You are using DIFFERENT focal lengths that give similar *angles of view* (wide, normal, long) on three different format sizes. A lens' focal length is a simple physical property that doesn't change regardless of what camera you put it on. I realize you know this, but there's no point in confusing people who are just learning photography, right?
Picky picky picky 😀 but yes, you are correct. I was using the vernacular and should also refrain from the word ‘Prime’ which is a questionable way of referring to fixed focal length lenses 😊
Laying on the sofa, looking at the horrible wet and windy weather gods have sent our way up north again. Such a difference to last April/May. No lock down due to Covid, but a lock in due to lousy weather. Right now I am nursing a horrible cold, thinking about getting up at 5 am tomorrow to go to work. This video of yours is such a welcome distraction. I agree with everything you said wholeheartedly, but I am more of a 35~40mm man. One of the best focal lengths, or lenses for that matter, that I have is my Leica 75mm F2 Apo Summicron M which I bought years ago. One of the better decisions of my photographic life. The performance of this lens has to be seen to be believed. Your Nikkor-M F9 is a gem BTW, and very very difficult to find these days. Look after it.
I know what you mean about the weather, I find it very hard to get myself out in bad conditions at times.
I didn’t realise the 300mm f/9 was quite sought after now, it was easy to pick one up 5 years ago so I think I got lucky!
the what and the why in.that.order. really matters. thanks for the video!
Steve you are correct. Many photographers carry zooms and proud they are, but like you I prefer a prime to help composition. My favorite M42 are Takumar and use the 28 , 59 , and 85 mm then in the M mount have 2 35 , several 50 and the 90mm , large format that am still trying to get out and do are the 75 , 110 , 150 , 210 and that Nikon 300mm F9 you have.
Indeed those are the most used excepting the Voightlander 40mm and Zeiss 40mm ... The 40mm VC Classic was only lens on one trip. I struggled with bad light in shadows. Thank you for your wonderful sharing , thank you !!
We have very similar choices Chris and I once did a long trip with just the 50mm Nikkor, I never felt like I missed any opportunities.
For landscapes, I prefer a wide-angle lens with a horizontal angle-of-view of approximately 65 degrees.
The Fujinon 65mm f/5.6 lens on a 6x9cm rangefinder has a 65 degree horizontal angle-of-view.
The Nikkor 28mm f/2.8 lens on a 35mm SLR has a 65.5 degrees horizontal angle-of-view.
The Panasonic 14mm f/2.5 lens on a micro 4/3 mirrorless has a 63.4 degree horizontal angle-of-view.
The Nikkor 18mm f/3.5 lens on an APS-C camera has a 66.5 degree horizontal angle-of-view
The Fujinon 90mm f/5.6 lens on a 4x5 inch view camera has a 70 degree horizontal angle-of-view.
These are the lenses and cameras I use for landscapes. The lenses have different focal lengths, the image sizes are different formats, and the images have different aspect ratios; however, they all have similar angles-of-view.
My early photography was about illustrating my walking adventures and was mainly done with a Pentax ME Super on mono film. The 2 lenses I carried were a 28 & 50 mm and that covered everything I felt I needed. It is great to get them out occasionally and use them - they feel so good and the click of the shutter is heaven. I do miss the darkroom but the convenience of digital processing of scanned negatives is so convenient. Thanks for sharing.
Thanks Keith, I find those two focal lengths work well when I’m in the mountains of Snowdonia and need the wider view. Closer to home I need a longer lens as there aren’t the big vistas.
My must-carry prime lens shooting kit comprise of a 28, 50 and 90. Fast manual lenses but with beautiful glass and lovely character. More than sufficient for my purposes. I do admit it is tempting to start buying all these extreme wide angle and super tele lens once you start out in photography. Thankfully years ago, my level headed thinking prevailed. Your insights are important for those contemplating photography.
I do prefer to use prime lenses but the sheer convenience and flexibility of a zoom is a huge advantage when photography isn’t the primary purpose of the outing.
I wasn’t looking to have my focal length choices to be validated or upended, but we’re in agreement regarding the three lenses which do the job almost all the time without looking at the extreme fringe use cases. I do prefer a normal lens that’s closer to 40mm than 50mm, and I agree that there’s a noticeable difference between the two. I have made use of 24mm lenses before, but I have to be in the mindset of producing something more panoramic or an environmental portrait for 24mm to work. Like you, I don’t enjoy the boring compositions that wide angle landscape photographers fall into, with a random foreground object, stretched corners, and a background pushed far away into obscurity.
I love my 24mm but when using it for landscape work I find myself shooting portrait orientation on taller flatter subjects and it works well. But I do love that 24mm for Automotive work.
I’d probably go down as far as 24mm if using a 40mm as normal just to give a better spacing. When I shot with the Mamiya 645 I had the equivalent of 22mm, 35mm, 50mm and 90mm.
Three great choices, which I am sure thousands of photographers would agree with. My favourite 6x6 landscape kit is made up of 40-80-180mm, so slightly wider and slightly longer than what you prefer but I do try to avoid perspectives that look unnatural. The other focal lenghts I have for this system spend far too much time not being used, I am afraid.
Always a pleasure to watch your videos Steve. Keep shooting!
Thanks Andrew 🙂
Hi Steve. Sorries, very late on this thread. What you’ve opined has a lot of wisdom and common sense to it although some photographers will have their own particular style ie exaggerated angles. Of all the lenses I’ve used, the nifty fifty is a firm favourite (70%). Others include the 28mm(20%) and the 90mm (10%). I’ve got the 21mm as well but its hardly ever used. Do keep on your sharing your experiences. It is important for the rest of us. Cheers
I have a similar feel for those three lenses but find the short telephoto more useful than a wideangle (except when up in the mountains).
I also enjoy Nick Carver’s work on film. I’m sure you’ve seen his work on TH-cam Steve. Someone asked me recently why I still bother shooting with film. Apart from the obvious answers I told him that I like the fact I get instant archive of my photographs. No back up onto the cloud or back up on to hard drive and then backing up the back up. Just a simple negative and scans if I want them. Digital to me is taking an image. Film is making one.
I also enjoy Nick Carvers work Simon, he’s one of the more talented photographers on TH-cam.
If someone asks me about why I shoot film I just tell them I like it, saves a lot of time 😊
Another great learning video. Even when the main point is not new, the approach and all the little asides never fail to teach me something. The closest equivalents available for my Bronica GS-1 are 50, 100, 150 mm. However the 50mm is still too wide for my particular interests, so the 65mm is my main alternative. Luckily the 65 and 100 have the same filter thread diameter (72mm), helps reduce the clutter of adapters in my bag!
Filter thread is an important consideration and I hate having different sizes - my Nikon’s are 52mm which is perfect.
I agree about 45 vs. 50. I have a 75mm for my Bronica ETRSi, and that extra little bit of width is really nice.
Also agree on the 45 focal length... love my Pentax 43 Limited for that reason
Been looking for a Voigtlander 40mm Ultron for my Nikon kit for awhile now. But looking for a not crazy priced one.
Definitely. I typically find I prefer 6x6 folders with a 75mm. I always found the 80mm on my Mamiya 645 a little long to be honest.
I have 4 favorite prime ranges: 35mm, 50 ~ 55mm, 85mm, 135mm for 35mm FM2; and equivalently 65mm, 105mm, 150mm, 250mm for Bronica 6x6 SQ;
I also do not like too wide angle, and prefer 35mm max for film, and maybe 24mm for digital. Moderate angles do give timeless aesthetics. And I also prefer shots where the viewer cannot easily identify the location, as with most wide angle shots. Details, forms, and patterns are favorites.
Usually I choose a pair: most likely 50mm and 135mm, 35mm and 85mm depending on the day, mood, and subject matter expected.
Sometimes I only go out with only one prime, and that would most likely be 85mm or 50 ~55mm.
That’s a good point about not revealing the location Tony, it makes the images less obvious and more personal.
Twenty eight is such a nice wide ankle (compared to 24 or 35) it is very versatile for landscape as well as documentary portraiture
I’m also a big 28mm fan, it never looks extreme or forced.
35mm is my favourite focal length. I bought a 35mm Rokkor Prime for my Minoltas. My next lens for my Nikon FE system will be the 35mm. I have a 28mm and and beautiful 50mm 1.8. Digital I use Fujifilm X100T with a 23mm fixed lens. I used to shoot a lot with the Canon 85mm 1.8 for weddings and portraits. A beautiful lens. I’ve got my films processed at a specialist film lab locally, but I will scan them myself when I get back to my lab after lockdown. A whole years worth of negs to go through. 10 films. Not many, but I’m selective what I shoot of film and I’ve been known to have a film in a camera from 6-12 months.I do like wide angle, but much less these days. The converging verticals annoy me somewhat. 35mm is just wide enough without the distortion.
35mm is a good overall compromise Simon, never appearing wide but also allowing a fair amount of coverage. I like to pair it with the 85mm to give me plenty of options with the 35 getting about 65% of the usage.
My 35mm (and M4/3) list includes:
28mm Fujinon F/3.5 (Hasn't arrived yet)
Takumar Super Multi Coated 50mm F/1.4 (LOVE)
Pentax SMC 50mm F/1.7 (Classic and reliable)
Helios 44-2 58mm F/2 (Bonhers but fun)
Tamron Adaptall 2 90mm F/2.8 (hasn't arrived yet)
Super Ozeck 135mm F/2.5 (Doing a really good job)
Sigma Pantel 135mm F/2.8 (Hasn't arrived yet)
The whole lot cost me about £150.
I also own a Yashica Minister 700 which has a 45mm F/1.7 lens and I adore that focal length.
Great video as always Simon. Do a similar one showing us how you use those 35mm lenses adapted to your M4/3 gear please
Nice selection of very affordable lenses Morris, I also have the 90mm Tamron which is a very solid piece of equipment.
I no longer adapt my lenses to M43 as I found there to be little if any advantage over the native fit optics.
Good choices, thanks.
I’m a bit wider and longer Steve as my 3 prime lens are the Zuiko 24, 50 and 135 for my Olympus OM system. Sometimes I go a bit crazy and only carry my 20mm and 200mm lens. And the camera I carry with me at all times in the car is a Canon 300v with the 40mm pancake lens which is a cracker of a lens.
That’s a bigger spread Neil but I like the idea of going with two extremes also, there’s never going to be any difficulty choosing which one works best for a particular scene! 🙂
@@SteveONions Like yourself Steve I cut me teeth using the 24mm. When I was shooting digital I had the 24mmm TS-E mk2 Canon lens which is the sharpest lens I have ever seen. Raging I sold all my Canon EOS gear as found my original EOS 3 film camera and had to get lens for it. I go a 19-35 zoom and the funny thing is without looking at the zoom barrel to composes the image I always seem to land on 24mm.
You should try the two extremes as it sure does get you thinking.
I made similar choice of trinity of primes. 28mm , 35mm and 85mm. I tend to force myself to go out with only two of them. It's easier to shoot when i'm restricted :-) Great video again !
Yes Tomek, a 2 lens pairing is ideal for travelling light and reduces the amount of switching. If I do this a tend to keep the wider one attached unless a shot really needs the extra reach.
@@SteveONions I agree. It is often mountain hiking that i do. Two primes must be enough 😊 to travel light . And i start the route with 28mm attached and 85 in the bag .
A few decades back I worked at a midsized newspaper. I had access 35, 50, 70-210mm lenses. The camera was a Pentax Spotmatic and never felt under equipped. Some years later I acquired a Konica with a 40mm. I really liked that lens it just seem 'right'.
The 40mm is a favourite with a lot of people, the nearest I have is 42mm on my Olympus RC.
Yes, I’m with you about avoiding extremes. Definitely a nifty fifty fan. Need to take my 85 out more often. Cheers!
My first new camera way back in the day (Zenit E) came with the Helios 44-2 to which I added 28mm and 135mm prime lenses. I was always of the mindset to "zoom with my legs". Not always possible, of course, but still a good mantra if you can do it.
That’s a good lens setup and probably just as valid today as it was then.
Very interesting, like you I mostly use these focal lengths. Like you I began with a 50mm lens and made many good photographs with it. I have a 45mm lens on a rangefinder Agfa, it is a solinar, their take on the Tessar it is my favourite standard lens. I am a Tessar enthusiast I have several on 35mm and medium format. My favourite wide angle lens is my Tamron 28/2.5 I have several mounts and use it on most 35mm systems.
It was interesting to find a few years ago how the standard lens had been rehabilitated. I recall in the 80's when zoom lenses got to a decent standard how many people ditched their 50mm lenses, called them boring and only of use when a wide aperture was needed. I have my 80's zoom lenses I liked so much back then, some are good, most make flat immages. My most used lens right now is a 45/1.8 M.Zuiko on four thirds. After all this I still recall the advice I got from Tim Hughes, a professional photographer, who advised me to buy a Pentax K1000 and 50mm lens. He said it was of good quality and versatile, a good palce to start. I still have the K1000 and 50/2 lens, many good photographs and 40 years later this is my favouite kit.
Thank you a keep on making your photography videos.
I feel the same about tessar lenses Richard and the 75mm Solinar on my Isolette III was probably my favourite lens of all time. I also owned the 28mm 2.5 Tamron which had a very interesting look, quite smooth in the corners but it did flare terribly if the Sun even made an appearance.
Good discussion as usual, Steve. I just wanted to mention that my wife gave me your Holme Fell prints for Christmas. We framed them and hung them in our cabin in west Alabama. Beautiful photos. We love them. Hope we get to visit the Lake District one day and see it in person.
I’m really pleased you like the prints, I’ve had those three up in my office for a few months now and they remind me of a great day out.
I hope you get to visit the Lake District one day also take in Snowdonia, they are only 3 hours apart and have a lot of great places to shoot.
All the best. Steve
Steve, yes those are my only 3 lenses I use for my 4X5. Last year I have both a Bronica SQ-A with a 80mm because I like hiking. Now I have the impression the those images are not quite sharp. So before buying some other lenses I need to find out why.
It’s worth doing a few tests if you have any doubts Patrick. You may have a faulty 120 film back that isn’t putting the film in the correct plane or it could be the lens itself.
Good video as usual. I’ve been tossing around the idea of purchasing a tilt/shift lens for DSLR to get closer to 4x5 look. In the Ansel Adams book examples he gives the focal lengths he used for many of his iconic images with various size cameras. Converting images from inches to mm’s, he typically used “normal” lenses. Some were in the 45mm range you mentioned. I guess great minds think alike!
PS: Pentax 50mm 1.4 8 element M42 mount is my favorite film lens. Absolutely agree with comments about zoom pincushion.
The standard lens just works so well for me Dan that I can foresee a day when it is all I’ll carry. There is nothing about the way it renders the scene that will date or appear cliched, it’s perfect.
Great comparison on the focal length vs formats. Now what about your 8x10?
Haha I was thinking the same thing!
Absolutely! How could we forget?? 😂
I’m a bit limited there Rene, just a 240 and a 300 (35mm and 45mm equivalent).
I always took prime lens for granted until I was left with a zoom. A couple of years back I left a small camera bag on a train in Belgium. It had my FE2 and 3 lens in and never saw it again. That left me with a 35-200 AIS, a cracking lens, but! So, as the camera and primes have been replaced, so has the taking for granted.
Cheers
Diz
Bad luck with the FE2 outfit Diz, I bet you still miss it.
Thank you and i agree totally. My loved ones on my nikon SLRs are the 35 mm and 50 mm and i have a 90 mm macro lens. So im close to your choise of 3 :-)
Hi Steve.
I'm a 50mm shooter in the main and similarly 'cut my teeth' on a Pentacon f1.8 decades ago. I also prefer to stay at 28 or 35mm and have a beautiful Super Komura 90-250mm f4.5 zoom for longer stuff.
Much enjoyed the episode and it chimes perfectly with my own preferences. Look forward to the next release!
As an aside and given your affinity with more elderly film cameras, I have a lovely Agfa Clack I've modified to accept 49mm screw in filters. Not sure if you know anything about the Clack but your exposure options are one shutter speed of 1/30(ish) and f16 and f11 (debate rages about that but my exposure tests seem to bear out these numbers). An open offer exists to borrow it, along with the ND filters I use to control exposure (so far on three rolls of Ilford XP-2 Super).
Take it easy.
Thanks Steven, glad you’re liked the video. Thanks too for the offer to use the Agfa, I would take you up on it but I have a very similar Ilford Sporti that’s yet to have a run out so maybe in the future.
All the best.
Yep. Same here. Sort of. 28 & 50 I'm happy with. Still struggling to find a telephoto range I'm good with. I think it's possibly the trickiest to work with. Have 28/50/135 for my Canon FD system and don't feel the need for anything else although the 85 keeps winking at me...
You’ll end up with the 85mm at some point Ian, may as well just get it now 🙂
I've always used zooms and my argument was that I would be missing shots if I only had primes. Having that limitation can be a good thing though. With a big zoom range it can become overwhelming as to what I should point the camera at. I find I'm exploring the scene more with primes finding different angles and taking my time.
I’m happy to use both lens types depending on the situation. I do find the longer focal lengths are better covered by a zoom as it’s hard to carry enough primes to meet my needs. It’s easier at the short end where moving forward or backward a little can make a huge difference to the framing.
Very interesting review! Thanks, Steve!
You’re welcome Eugene.
Nice presentation, Steve. I tnd to agree with you on primes, as that's what I grew up with . I tend to use my standard lenses the most, Olympus 4/3rd's 25mm (50mm), Medium format 50mm and 4x5 150mm . KB.
Sadly the only 25mm prime that's available for 4/3 at a reasonable price is the f2.8 pancake. The Leica Summilux is still commanding at least 400 EUR on the second hand market. m4/3 is another story with some nice primes available, but they still need software correction to get the best out of them.
I’m the same Ken, I find the ‘normal’ view very appealing and it’s my starting point for all compositions - I only go wider or longer if I really need to.
@@SteveONions Thanks Steve. I took a serious look at my landscapes from years ago, photographing with a 28mm and a large portion not impressive. Now that I've gotten into film again, staying with standard lens on all formats. KB
35, 50 and 90 for me steve (35mm format) - 50, 127 and 250 for 6x7 format. The best sort of zoom - a good pair of legs. Cheers mate and thanks as usual.
Thanks Ray.
As always I enjoy your videos. They are always informative and practical. I have much the same set of primes. However, I don't have a 300mm for the 4x5. I only have a 210mm. So, 90mm, 150mm and 210mm. I also have a 135mm and I have really gotten to enjoy that point of view. For my digitial I have zooms, except for a 50mm prime and 90mm macro.
Thanks Erich. I often carry a 240mm for my 4x5 as the bellows extension is a lot shorter.
For 35mm format my preference “””FFL are 38/45/135/2x:. But my first lens was when I was a student with no money. There’s an area in NYC that’s all camera stuff. The shop keeper showed me a 135 and peeled off the price sticker after I clearly looked at its. Then said he’ll take a value less than half the stickier.. it was a 135mm FFL but PRESET.which is a pain to operate. I became used to the second preset ring and got a few years out of it until it fell apart.
I could not agree more with you, the only one I am missing is the 80mm 2.5 for my 500C and that is on the shopping list.
Hi, I like zooms starting at 24mm, for tight spaces or buildings I find 24mm quite a bit more flexible that 28mm....
It’s great for tight spaces Paolo but I rarely find myself in these situations, usually the opposite with too much space!
Steve, I remember you talking about the quality of the 50mm zenzanon, and that it may be considered as a weak point in the lineup. I'm using the SQ-system myself, and I've been eyeing the 65 mm Zenzanon PS. How does that compare to lets say the 80mm/2.8 for image quality?
Well I’ve not done a proper side by side comparison with the 80mm and only taken the 65mm out a few times truth be told. That said I’ve so far found it to be of excellent quality, quite easily one of my best.
Folks laugh at my three favorite 35mm full frame lenses ... the 31mm, 43mm and 77mm by Pentax. In 645 medium format I like the 55mm, 75mm and150mm. .. with the “short standards” getting most of my attention! We have much in common and I always look forward to your content ... thanks!
Thanks Karl, your 35mm kit is shifted downwards from mine in terms of focal lengths but it it works for you then it’s the perfect choice 👍
Great information on your lenses and not one auto focus.
😊
My first camera kit in 1978 was a 28, 50, and 135. I don’t think I had a zoom lens until sometime in the 90s and that was on a p&s. Since then, nothing has been more detrimental to my creativity or sends me into vapor lock faster than an expensive fast zoom lens. And yet I keep falling for the same fairy tale time and time again, always telling myself “this time it will be different”.
I’ve been round that loop so many times I’m dizzy. Wish I’d picked up three good lenses years ago and learned how to use them properly 🙁
I’m sure both of us can recall conversations we had decades ago with those silly old stuck-in-the-past Luddites who gave us this exact advice. Did we listen? No we did not. And now here we are.
Totally agree but I use a 135mm instead of the 85mm with my Pentax system.
I’ve also got a 135mm for the Nikon’s and around city’s I find the extra reach very useful at time.
When I bought my Bronica SQ, it came with a 50mm and 80mm lenses. I made sure to get the 150mm lens as soon as I could. Oddly enough, I got the 150mm lens before I picked up an 85mm FD lens for my Canon 35mms.
Great video. Thanks.
For some reasons the 85mm FD doesn't seem to be as common as the 85mm Nikon F mount. I've never bothered to pick one up for my system because the scarcity drives the price up. Could be a UK specific problem, as far as I can tell the 35mm which isn't too common in the UK is fairly common in the USA.
@@oJ862 Ya, I have 2 clean 35mm lenses that I got thrifting.
That's what kept me away from Nikon. Canon lenses were inexpensive, easy to find, and great lenses. Before I could really build up a Nikon collection, I had fallen in love with Canon "A" series cameras. Really, anything with an FD mount.
@@comfortablyblind6853 in my mind the fd lenses are every bit as good as nikon lenses of the time, in fact the price makes them even better. Only problem with fd is the lack of choice when it comes to picking up a mechanical body.
@@oJ862 Do you mean, fully manual like the Canon AT-1? I think the FTb is fully manual as well, but batteries are much harder to come by. I can still pick up the 4L44,* or equivalent at Radio Shack of all places. Smith and Edwards here has them too.
@@comfortablyblind6853 I mean not battery reliant like the F-1 and FT-b. My AE-1 and T90 are great but I have a constant back of the mind feeling that if they get rained on they're toast. AFAIK Nikon seems to offer more in the way of cameras that will run without a battery. Also in regards to the FTb, I'm pretty sure they have a voltage regulator so a 1.5v alkaline battery will work in them.
Interesting comparison. Although you say that the focal length of the same (I can understand) it might be confusing for some. I tend to say "field of view equivalent"
I understand the "too much wide angle" point, I have a 45mm with my M645 and find it a bit too wide from time to time. Although I think it also might have to do with the film size. I got a RB67 recently, with 50,65 and 90. I used the 65, thinking the 50 is too much. Many people told me the 50 is a great lens, so I decided to take it out. It indeed is nice, I didn't have a feeling of being too wide, although the VoF is equivalent to a 25mm on 135.
I also had the 45mm for the 645 Uwe and preferred it to the 35mm. It’s funny how on certain formats and aspect ratios you can accept different fields of view, in 4x5 I really do not like wideangles at all.
I have had 5 or 6 35 mm cameras given to me and all but one had a 50mm lens. when I was stationed in Germany I shot lots of photos with a 50mm, (it's all i had on my I om-10) a 135 prime would have been nice some times but mostly the 50 was fine.
Only my personal experience but I am sure it holds true for most people who have only ever shot digital... when starting out the "wider the better" but as years have gone on I have found that I have found my wide is now 24m ( I owned a 10-22 on apsc and 17-40 on FF) but unlike yourself I can stlll like one of them dramatic stone in the foreground widey's... and always will - but that's me 🙂 It's easy to see why the focal lengths you have picked are your *go to* choices and I would say that is partly due to growing up and being used to those focal lengths.? Anyway,an interesting little episode. Atb Al
Thanks Alan. I think very wide lenses are the most difficult to use effectively, so much is included in the shot you need an excellent composition for it to feel uncluttered.
Interesting video. I want aware that modern lenses are designed to be corrected with software, but it makes sense. I often find modern lenses to be rather difficult to focus manually on older bodies. Also, I like your point on restricting yourself to drive forward better compositions. I actually find that I compose far better with my Ikoflex TLR than with my interchangeable lens SLRs. Thanks for another video.
Thanks Espen. I hate manually focussing any autofocus lens, the throw is too short and it feels ‘sloppy’.
Great video.... A very good review of these focal lengths, u are right on target with this.... I am always unhappy w/ extreme WA lenses at any focal length... I really agree on the 300 F8 Nikkor... I use on my 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10... amazing and very compact. Thanks again for a very informative subject
Thanks Randy, that 300mm Nikkor is one of my favourites.
Love your work mate
Thanks Stephen.
I suspect having that angle of view consistency across formats greatly aids in your ability to consider possible compositions even before looking through the viewfinder or ground glass. A good practice, indeed. Though it typically is not a factor in your images as a landscape photographer, primarily, I was hoping that you might discuss the quality of the bokeh for those lenses. I know that you typically shoot middle-to-narrower apertures and use a tripod, but I'd like to know how they perform wide(r) open. I'm particularly ignorant regarding large format lenses and the way they render out of focus areas.
I’ve never considered bokeh to be honest Bob as I don’t shoot wide open very often. I’m also not particularly sensitive to the effect like some other people. That said I did like the out of focus areas when using a tessar design 75mm Solinar on my Isolette III.
In 35mm film I very much prefer 40mm for my standard lens. There’s something about it that just looks right. That and I’m a Canon shooter, and Canon just so happens to make a small EF mount 40mm prime that pairs really nicely with many smaller rebel film bodies. It’s a great combo.
I’d like something similar for my Nikon Adrian but the only options are expensive and/or not great performers sadly.
Canon has this 3 focal lengths in their (now classic) EF line up using the same 58mm filter size, really practical
I did have those lenses Vicente and they were very cheap to buy at the time.
@@SteveONions I still have :) I use the 85 the most but I like the other two. The 50 has to be stopped down quite a bit for better performance but its ok most of the time
I have three lenses from 3 different film formats and all three lenses have the same focal length ... 90mm.
The 90mm f/5.6 Fujinon lens performs like a wide-angle on my 4x5 inch large format view camera.
The 90mm f/3.8 Mamiya-Sekor lens performs like a normal lens on my medium format RB67 SLR camera.
The 90mm f/2 Leica lens performs like a slight telephoto lens on my 35mm small format rangefinder camera.
Nice lineup of lenses 👍
Great content as always! But why this saturated colors?! My eyes are hurting from this screaming blue colors 👀
Sorry Tomas, I used the iPhone 12pro for this video and it isn’t subtle!!
Interesting Video!
To each his/her own 👍
"They're not HDR! 😏" 🤣🤣🤣
He said: "Haich-dee-aw"
Hmmm mildly controversial there Steve, but I must say that I (mostly) agree with you. Certainly the 12mm Samyang (18mm equivalent) I have, which is an excellent lens is my least used, although when I need it, I need it. All lenses have their uses, even the extreme ones, but in reality most of my images fall within the arc of focal lengths you describe.
It’s very personal and there are not right or wrong answers. Some people never use longer than 50mm and others don’t own a wideangle at all.
Always enjoy your videos. (But I enjoy the WIDE angle view.) Thx, man!
You skiped your MFTs. I use 15mm & 47mm and do'nt feel the miss of 25mm. Even use my PK 31mm on MFT to explore that angle but don't warm to it. In MF landscape my 150mm (S) seems to get the most use, nice seperation. Keep up the interesting work.
I used to have fixed focal lengths for the M43 Neville but sold them years ago - another problem I suffer with digital is wanting everything to be easy, hence the use of zooms (not good).
@@SteveONions Yes, I like film because it is not too easy. Somehow being forced to engage my brain I then find it easier to think about lighting and composition. Even considered an X-Pro as the screen is normally hidden which prevents "chimping" hence encourages imagining the result rather than accepting the screen as good enough. But then I saw the cost so that was the end of that!
I wish one day I'll be able to afford medium and large format cameras
Nice video content, and well presented, although I do wish you'd not conflate field of view with focal length. Especially jarring when you're referring to the equivalent angles on different formats by saying their focal lengths are the 'same'. It's not possible for a the focal length of a 50mm lens and an 80mm lens (ignoring your well-made point re: 45mm equivalency) to be the same since the number is a physical measurement of their focal length.
That’s very true but it’s just a habit, ideally we’d all refer to the angle of view a lens has which makes a lot more sense.
@@SteveONions Keep up the great work though, have watched most of your videos since subscribing and I really like your presentation style!
for me, just 24 and 50 but I dont know anything
Your choice is right for you Vaughn.
You have an accent; just like Ringo, and also like the vultures in the original Disney animated Jungle Book. Very nice to listen to, for this yankee.
😀
These are the 3 focal length I used for my film cameras (35 mm and MF), they are also easily available and cheap so you do not need to sell one of your kidney to get one of these focal lenght
Very true - some of the exotic lengths are silly money.
i can't wait to see the video about the 50 ps vs s version, i am thinking about to buy a wide angle lens. well, my most used focal length is 85mm... and i tend to use telephoto lenses much more than wide angels.
I must make that video this year, I need an objective set of results myself 🙂
Whoah, you are NOT using “the same three focal lengths.” You are using DIFFERENT focal lengths that give similar *angles of view* (wide, normal, long) on three different format sizes. A lens' focal length is a simple physical property that doesn't change regardless of what camera you put it on. I realize you know this, but there's no point in confusing people who are just learning photography, right?
Picky picky picky 😀 but yes, you are correct. I was using the vernacular and should also refrain from the word ‘Prime’ which is a questionable way of referring to fixed focal length lenses 😊