I am using a micro 4/3 body with 14mm f/2.5, 25mm f/1.7, 45mm f/1.7 prime lenses, equivalent to 28mm, 50mm, 90mm.
I usually put on a prime lens for a day, and walk around shooting what I can, composing to the limitations of the focal length instead of wondering if I should change the lens. My purpose is to develop my composition and of course take great photos
I am now wondering if I would benefit from getting a 35mm (equivalent) lens, for street photography etc. Many people swear by this focal length. The problem is that micro 4/3 has really one lens (that fits my budget), the Olympus 17mm f1.8. Kind of an old one but holding up well apparently.
OTOH, I already have a 14mm (eq 28mm) that I like. But I always gravitate to the 25mm (eq 50mm) and the photos I like most come from that lens.
So, I did shoot a whole month only with 45mm (italy/croatia holiday) and I found it very relaxing, not having to think about focal length. Also I found the 45mm to be very versatile, fitting different kind of shots. I thought, just a little bit wider would be even better. So I carried the GAS for some month and recently I got me a voiglander 40mm/1.2 (cause I’m shooting almost exclusively manual focus now), and I do enjoy it very much .
I find the 40mm to be my personal sweet spot and I think you would probably enjoy the 35mm…(just to make clear, I do have 35mm also, but for me the 40mm is the better option).
As someone who shoots street with a Fuji (1.6 crop… I think), I tend to use 28mm mostly (mainly because a. I get a larger DOF when zone-focusing, and b. I have more wiggle room for getting my entire subject in); however, I prefer the results I get from the 35mm (it’s just that getting said results is far trickier).
Street photography, though, involves a whole heap of compromises.
@qmpel: yes, but I already have a 50mm eq that I love. So I am not sure that a 40mm is a justified expenditure.
@martbetz: I guess I can always use the 28mm eq and crop to tast later. It’s not like they are that different, the 28mm is about 34° horizontally, the 35mm 28°.
I own the 14mm f2.5 and the 20mm f1.7. I checked my images from them and I used the 20mm more than the 14mm by a factor of 5. I did purchase the 20mm first, but I still use it more than the 14mm. The 14mm was an impulse buy at $200.
For family travel trip (no time to change lens), I’m currently using the 12-60f2.8-4.0. Great compromise and likely why I’m not using the 14mm as much.
Personally 28, 35, 50 are too close to be used as a three lens kit. I would use 28, 50 instead. If having a single lens for a day out I think 35 is quite good. 28 is better though… for me the “in the scene” feel you get from being close and the context you get from a slight distance makes 28 the better lens.
When I shoot the X100V(35mm equiv), I often find that I either need a longer or shorter focal length for some scenes. I believe with your 28 and 50 equiv are fine and you’re not missing much at all. That said 35 is an interesting focal length, almost like a “hard mode” since there seems to always be the need for a compromise when it comes to composition.
That said, going the hard route is always a good way to learn, and this could all just be my lack of skill talking
I feel between the 14 and the 25mm you have yourself reasonable well covered unless you have deep pockets and an urge to spend money. God also gave you legs to walk closer or move back and you have the option for light cropping post shooting if needed, but can you ever have too much camera gear?
I have the Olympus 17mm f2.8, the really early one that came out with the Pen EP-1. I would imagine it would be cheap now, but the AF is pretty slow, even on my normally very nippy em5ii. It was even slower on the EP-1😅
Personally I don’t seem to find the focal length very inspiring, but that’s very much only my personal opinion.
