35mm is very normal, I find 50mm boring and anything 28 mm and below is quite alright for me. Though I do have a prime lens range from 12 to 400 in various mounts (and a 600mm catadioptric). and zooms from 12 to 200 (overall range) I tend to use 28+35 for steam trains, then mainly 4/21mm SA or Yashica 3.5/21 mm (just as good) and often 12 and 15mm (CV lenses), for architecture and urban shooting. I keep trying to take bird pictures with 250, 300 and 400mm but I think I drink too much espresso - they are (or I am) always too wobbly. Cheers Douglas David Young wrote: > Charlie Falke asked: > > >> Still separate question somewhat off thread, how many people >> think of 35mm as "normal" and are waiting for a 17.5mm F2?\ >> > > > Hi Charlie! > > An interesting question... > > Since the mid '60's, an 85 or 90mm lens has been a "normal" lens, for me. > > For many years, my entire kit consisted of an 85/1.8 Nikkor and 200/4 > Nikkor on a Nikon 'F'. > > When I moved to Leica (in the 1980's) it became the 90/2 and 180/4. > > My first w/a lens (a Tamron 24/2.5 in R mount) was bought in 1996, > though I did have a brief fling with the Minolta made 35~70/3.5 > Vario,, in the early 1990s. (A rather nice lens, actually!) The > Tamron was later replaced by the 21SA/4. I also now own a 50mm > Summi, but neither one gets much use. > > So... no. I'm not waiting for a 17.5mm or any other w/a lens! ;-) > > Anyone wish to contribute a different viewpoint? > > Cheers! > --- > > David Young, > > > ------ Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at: http://www3.telus.net/~telyt/lrflex.htm Archives are at: //www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/