Are you Team 35mm or 50mm?

[flykiller]

Just curious what focal length you prefer if 35mm or 50mm and why?

 

[Interceptor121]

Those two focals serve different purposes they are not alternatives

 

[Martin_99]

Just curious what focal length you prefer if 35mm or 50mm and why?

I think, that there are not only two teams of favourite focal lengths. Some prefer more 24 or 85 mm lenses or of course something in between, like 28mm or 40mm.

I'm 35mm guy, btw. I like it as very universal focal length, good compromise for genres like portraits, landscape, close-up etc.

 

[wheresrunnicles]

Just curious what focal length you prefer if 35mm or 50mm and why?

50 all the way. I don’t even own a 35mm lens whereras I have multiple 50s. I much prefer it as a general purpose lens. If I was going wider I’d rather have 28 that 35. I find 35 a bit of an inbetween focal length which doesn’t do much for me. I prefer 40 over 35, but 50 is more to my taste.

 

[Greeeg]

A poll would be more appropriate?

 

[Rod McD]

Hi,

I use both - my core kit is a 24, 35, 50 & 90. The 35 & 50 are significantly different. If someone pointed a gun at me and said I had to choose one lens, I'd take the 35mm. OTOH, I'd probably rather give up photography. Why have an ILC and just one prime lens?

FWIW, if I really want to minimize, I'll leave the 35 & 50 at home and take the 40G as a substitute for both. And always the 24mm for a 24/40 minimal kit. Three lens kit? Add the 90mm.

Cheers, R

 

[ray_burnimage]

Just curious what focal length you prefer if 35mm or 50mm and why?

For many years I was a 35/85mm shooter, but I’m currently a 35/50mm shooter.

35mm and 50mm are significantly different, just not as wide a jump as from 35mm to 85mm.

Part of my change was wanting 50mm 1.2GM to partner with my 35mm 1.4GM. The 50mm 1.2 was more appealing than 85mm 1.4GMII and I’m glad I made that decision for my use cases.

I adapted quickly!

 

[jhunna]

Just curious what focal length you prefer if 35mm or 50mm and why?

Team 50. I use it in place of both my 35 and 85 with no regrets.

I pair my 50 with a 24 to get my two lenses set up comparable, but more flexible than the 35 and 85.

 

[ray_burnimage]

Just curious what focal length you prefer if 35mm or 50mm and why?

Team 50. I use it in place of both my 35 and 85 with no regrets.

I pair my 50 with a 24 to get my two lenses set up comparable, but more flexible than the 35 and 85.

I still have and won’t part with my 35mm GM, but the 50mm I pair with 20mm 1.8G, which is another special lens.

 

[jhunna]

Just curious what focal length you prefer if 35mm or 50mm and why?

Team 50. I use it in place of both my 35 and 85 with no regrets.

I pair my 50 with a 24 to get my two lenses set up comparable, but more flexible than the 35 and 85.

I still have and won’t part with my 35mm GM, but the 50mm I pair with 20mm 1.8G, which is another special lens.

I had the 20G for the longest time (still do) and while I think the lens is fine, none of my photos "pop" with the 20G. (And it took me a while to learn how to shoot that wide).

And for something completely crazy. I am really thinking about trading in the 24GM and 20G to get the 16G (shoot it at 24mm in apsc). The only thing with the 24GM is that I don't get to see how good that lens is until after I get home and post process. Not sure what it is about the 24GM, but it hides how good it is while I am shooting and that makes the process a bit more boring. That said, the end results say it is the lens I need as I can always get my shot with it for 90% of what I am shooting.

 

[ray_burnimage]

Just curious what focal length you prefer if 35mm or 50mm and why?

Team 50. I use it in place of both my 35 and 85 with no regrets.

I pair my 50 with a 24 to get my two lenses set up comparable, but more flexible than the 35 and 85.

I still have and won’t part with my 35mm GM, but the 50mm I pair with 20mm 1.8G, which is another special lens.

I had the 20G for the longest time (still do) and while I think the lens is fine, none of my photos "pop" with the 20G. (And it took me a while to learn how to shoot that wide).

And for something completely crazy. I am really thinking about trading in the 24GM and 20G to get the 16G (shoot it at 24mm in apsc). The only thing with the 24GM is that I don't get to see how good that lens is until after I get home and post process. Not sure what it is about the 24GM, but it hides how good it is while I am shooting and that makes the process a bit more boring. That said, the end results say it is the lens I need as I can always get my shot with it for 90% of what I am shooting.

You can’t go wrong with these G and GM primes. I don’t own the 24mm but do have 20mm 1.8G (which I love) ….. we are spoilt for choice with Sony glass.

 

[Jefenator]

If I had to choose only one I would reluctantly go with 50mm. Neither wide nor tele, it will cover more situations in day to day life. (Also, in a pinch it is usually pretty easy to stitch a couple of frames to get a wide aspect 35mm FoV.)

Another thing 50mm has going for it is lens selection! There are new & used options at every size, speed & price.

I'm glad I don't have to choose, though, because 35mm is really great to have, sometimes.

One of my greater ongoing challenges is deciding which to take on my daily walk!

 

[Impulses]

I used to be team 35mm and disliked how tight 50mm felt (even tho I actually started off with a 40mm equivalent!), but a number of things made me try different 50mm lenses, or 45mm lenses, or 35mm in APS-C mode... Now I still prefer 35mm for general use, and my 35GM specifically (and it's flare resistance and MFD), but I'll actively pick 45-50mm lenses for certain occasions and use cases.

Some of it is focal length preference, and how they flatter the subject or capture more of the surrounding; some of it just comes down to the lenses that are available and appeal to me at either focal level, and how I'd pair them with other lenses. For instance if Sony had only made a 35/1.2 GM then I might've ended up with the 50/1.4 GM tbh, or a 35/2 DN...

What surprises me the most is people that not only like both but will actively take out both on any outing... I can understand a portrait photog doing that, they probably won't go under 24 or over 135mm so there's not that many other lenses they might wanna carry, but for general use I'd be facing paralysis by analysis when trying to decide between a 35mm and a 50mm in the bag over the course of a day.

Back to how the lenses and the focal lengths fit together though, a 35mm I'll gladly pair with a 20mm and a 75mm in a trio, and I might even start pushing that to 16+35+135. I think a 45-50mm can still work well with something as wide as 20mm though the gap feels bigger (it's a shame we don't have a lot of 28mm options) and I can see why some would prefer 24mm given the use cases associated with 50mm.

OTOH 75mm or even 85mm would feel kinda redundant to me next to a 50mm (again if you're purely doing portraits I can see how that'd be different, I'm talking about general use shooting a bit of everything), I'd want a 135mm or a zoom or no tele at all. Again much of this comes down to the lenses available as much as the focal length preference.

Remember how I said I'm more of a 35mm guy? Maybe I'm fooling myself lol...

On M4/3 I had a 40mm equivalent pancake, a faster 35mm equivalent high end prime, plus eventually I picked up a fast mid-sized 50mm to have a smaller weather sealed option with nice rendering. Fast forward to E mount and I now have a single 35mm lens in the 35GM, that's it, no others. Meanwhile I have a small 45/1.8, an even smaller but manual 50/2, and just picked a relatively small manual 50/1.4.

I do have a 28mm body cap as well, but still I dunno what those picks say about me. I've thought about swapping the 45/1.8 for the 40/2.5 G though, so maybe I'm just flexible.

 

[Impulses]

Just curious what focal length you prefer if 35mm or 50mm and why?

50 all the way. I don’t even own a 35mm lens whereras I have multiple 50s. I much prefer it as a general purpose lens. If I was going wider I’d rather have 28 that 35. I find 35 a bit of an inbetween focal length which doesn’t do much for me. I prefer 40 over 35, but 50 is more to my taste.

Interesting I like 35mm as a general purpose FL because it's that in betweener, although I probably would prefer 40mm, I've shot both enough to find them interchangeable but I can see how others wouldn't... Whereas I've grown to love 50mm for some specific purposes, ie when shooting more people than places, when I want more or the same degree of DoF control in a smaller package (than my 35GM), etc.

Like I said in my other comment I swear I'm team 35mm but maybe I'm fooling myself cause on E mount I now have 1 28mm (body cap), 1 35mm, 1 45mm, and 2x (manual) 50mm... Maybe I just have a problem.

I never take two of those out at the same time though, except for 28 + 45/50. It's a shame we don't have more great 28mm options, or 40s for that matter. Would love to see (all hypothetical based on the respective lines) a 28/2 DN, 28/2 APO-Lanthar, 40/1.4 GM/DN, 40/1.8 G, etc. I think it's also a shame the main module on phones is now trending towards 24mm (or wider) when it used to be like ~30mm.

 

[Impulses]

Just curious what focal length you prefer if 35mm or 50mm and why?

Team 50. I use it in place of both my 35 and 85 with no regrets.

I pair my 50 with a 24 to get my two lenses set up comparable, but more flexible than the 35 and 85.

I still have and won’t part with my 35mm GM, but the 50mm I pair with 20mm 1.8G, which is another special lens.

I had the 20G for the longest time (still do) and while I think the lens is fine, none of my photos "pop" with the 20G. (And it took me a while to learn how to shoot that wide).

And for something completely crazy. I am really thinking about trading in the 24GM and 20G to get the 16G (shoot it at 24mm in apsc). The only thing with the 24GM is that I don't get to see how good that lens is until after I get home and post process. Not sure what it is about the 24GM, but it hides how good it is while I am shooting and that makes the process a bit more boring. That said, the end results say it is the lens I need as I can always get my shot with it for 90% of what I am shooting.

I can see trading the 20G for the 16G, but I dunno why you would give up the 24GM, based on what you've said in the past and how you seem to use it I just don't think you'd be happy solely with 16+50 primes... And I don't think the 16G is quite as special as the 20G either so you might be more letdown by it still. From what I've seen in reviews it's functional and even good compared to the alternatives, but it doesn't excel at a bunch of things the way the 20G does.

I'm probably gonna end up getting the 16G myself, but I'm not giving up the 20G or the CV21/3.5 for that matter. The 16G will be a splurge, for astro and to experiment with when I want wider but don't wanna carry my UWA zoom alongside the 35GM, I like the specs on paper and I can even see myself using it as a 24/2.7 in crop mode but I think the rendering will leave something to be desired in that last role.

 

[Impulses]

Another thing 50mm has going for it is lens selection! There are new & used options at every size, speed & price.

I'm glad I don't have to choose, though, because 35mm is really great to have, sometimes.

One of my greater ongoing challenges is deciding which to take on my daily walk!

I feel like overall there's a slightly better selection of AF 35s (and 40s), specially if you're looking at smaller f1.8 or slower lenses, that might flip when you include the Sony/Sigma 50/1.2 tho... And there's definitely a better selection of manual 50s overall, which is why I've gotten a couple even tho I generally prefer 35 (but I may just be biased cause I have the 35GM). I wouldn't mind seeing more 28s as alternatives to 35mm, and more 40s (even tho there's a few good 45s).

Like someone else said though, the system is still beyond spoiled for options, on most other mounts you're looking at like 1/3rd as many alternatives at these FLs and you either like them or you don't. There's no one on Z mount comparing the 40/2 to 3 other small lenses (maybe to a single Viltrox 40/2.5), they have a single (and mid )1st party 35/1.4, a good 35/1.8, and the uber 35/1.2 priced accordingly... And I'm not even picking on Z mount, I'd still take Z/L over RF.

 

[ray_burnimage]

Just curious what focal length you prefer if 35mm or 50mm and why?

Team 50. I use it in place of both my 35 and 85 with no regrets.

I pair my 50 with a 24 to get my two lenses set up comparable, but more flexible than the 35 and 85.

I still have and won’t part with my 35mm GM, but the 50mm I pair with 20mm 1.8G, which is another special lens.

I had the 20G for the longest time (still do) and while I think the lens is fine, none of my photos "pop" with the 20G. (And it took me a while to learn how to shoot that wide).

And for something completely crazy. I am really thinking about trading in the 24GM and 20G to get the 16G (shoot it at 24mm in apsc). The only thing with the 24GM is that I don't get to see how good that lens is until after I get home and post process. Not sure what it is about the 24GM, but it hides how good it is while I am shooting and that makes the process a bit more boring. That said, the end results say it is the lens I need as I can always get my shot with it for 90% of what I am shooting.

I can see trading the 20G for the 16G, but I dunno why you would give up the 24GM, based on what you've said in the past and how you seem to use it I just don't think you'd be happy solely with 16+50 primes... And I don't think the 16G is quite as special as the 20G either so you might be more letdown by it still. From what I've seen in reviews it's functional and even good compared to the alternatives, but it doesn't excel at a bunch of things the way the 20G does.

I'm probably gonna end up getting the 16G myself, but I'm not giving up the 20G or the CV21/3.5 for that matter. The 16G will be a splurge, for astro and to experiment with when I want wider but don't wanna carry my UWA zoom alongside the 35GM, I like the specs on paper and I can even see myself using it as a 24/2.7 in crop mode but I think the rendering will leave something to be desired in that last role.

I was excited about 16mm 1.8G but reviews have left me cold to it. Problem is, the 20mm 1.8G set the bar so high!

I appreciate that 16mm and 20mm are wildly different FL’s, but the more I learn 20mm the less I feel the need for anything wider.

 

[Impulses]

Just curious what focal length you prefer if 35mm or 50mm and why?

Team 50. I use it in place of both my 35 and 85 with no regrets.

I pair my 50 with a 24 to get my two lenses set up comparable, but more flexible than the 35 and 85.

I still have and won’t part with my 35mm GM, but the 50mm I pair with 20mm 1.8G, which is another special lens.

I had the 20G for the longest time (still do) and while I think the lens is fine, none of my photos "pop" with the 20G. (And it took me a while to learn how to shoot that wide).

And for something completely crazy. I am really thinking about trading in the 24GM and 20G to get the 16G (shoot it at 24mm in apsc). The only thing with the 24GM is that I don't get to see how good that lens is until after I get home and post process. Not sure what it is about the 24GM, but it hides how good it is while I am shooting and that makes the process a bit more boring. That said, the end results say it is the lens I need as I can always get my shot with it for 90% of what I am shooting.

I can see trading the 20G for the 16G, but I dunno why you would give up the 24GM, based on what you've said in the past and how you seem to use it I just don't think you'd be happy solely with 16+50 primes... And I don't think the 16G is quite as special as the 20G either so you might be more letdown by it still. From what I've seen in reviews it's functional and even good compared to the alternatives, but it doesn't excel at a bunch of things the way the 20G does.

I'm probably gonna end up getting the 16G myself, but I'm not giving up the 20G or the CV21/3.5 for that matter. The 16G will be a splurge, for astro and to experiment with when I want wider but don't wanna carry my UWA zoom alongside the 35GM, I like the specs on paper and I can even see myself using it as a 24/2.7 in crop mode but I think the rendering will leave something to be desired in that last role.

I was excited about 16mm 1.8G but reviews have left me cold to it. Problem is, the 20mm 1.8G set the bar so high!

I appreciate that 16mm and 20mm are wildly different FL’s, but the more I learn 20mm the less I feel the need for anything wider.

That's totally fair, I've always enjoyed shooting UWA & wider than 20mm but I should probably come to terms with the fact that when doing so (<20mm) it's just easier to use a zoom, if it wasn't for wanting something wider/faster for auroras I probably would've given up on wanting a faster wider UWA.

Edit: So my thinking of using it (the 16mm) together with my 35 & 75/135 is just kind of a rationalization to get more use out of it, heh... A lot of the time I'd prefer 20/21 or I'd prefer sticking to the UWA zoom. At least the 16G is small enough that it doesn't take up much more space than slower UWAs (eg Voigtlander 15/4.5), slightly smaller than the 16-35/4 G even.

 

[ihasa]

If I had to choose one as a single walkabout lens, team 35mm I guess, I think it's more versatile whereas 50mm is a bit tight.

 

[jhunna]

[SNIP]

I had the 20G for the longest time (still do) and while I think the lens is fine, none of my photos "pop" with the 20G. (And it took me a while to learn how to shoot that wide).

And for something completely crazy. I am really thinking about trading in the 24GM and 20G to get the 16G (shoot it at 24mm in apsc). The only thing with the 24GM is that I don't get to see how good that lens is until after I get home and post process. Not sure what it is about the 24GM, but it hides how good it is while I am shooting and that makes the process a bit more boring. That said, the end results say it is the lens I need as I can always get my shot with it for 90% of what I am shooting.

I can see trading the 20G for the 16G, but I dunno why you would give up the 24GM, based on what you've said in the past and how you seem to use it I just don't think you'd be happy solely with 16+50 primes... And I don't think the 16G is quite as special as the 20G either so you might be more letdown by it still. From what I've seen in reviews it's functional and even good compared to the alternatives, but it doesn't excel at a bunch of things the way the 20G does.

Yeah you are reading everything correctly. If I got the 16G it would go with getting the 2070G again. I like the idea of a smaller lens that can still capture 24mm at f1.8 even if it is apsc. That said, I really love the output of the 24GM once I am at my computer. On the back of the camera the output is less impressive compared to the 1655G or the 50GM which give instant satisfaction in the field.

Funny thing, when ever I DON'T have the 24GM I always miss it. I do wish that it was a smaller lens, but until that happens I really like output. All of that to say, I am probably going to be better off getting the 14GM to finish off my setup.

I'm probably gonna end up getting the 16G myself, but I'm not giving up the 20G or the CV21/3.5 for that matter. The 16G will be a splurge, for astro and to experiment with when I want wider but don't wanna carry my UWA zoom alongside the 35GM, I like the specs on paper and I can even see myself using it as a 24/2.7 in crop mode but I think the rendering will leave something to be desired in that last role.

Maybe... BUT if it is close to the 16mm portion of the 1655G at f2.8 (24/4 equiv) then you are going to be happy. Keeping in mind that you are using the best part of the glass. But I hope you get it and let us know how you get on with it.