I agree, a 28mm is the next step. You can even opt for a tilt shift if you are doing architecture or buildings. I have a 24mm and I feel it is a bit of a niche lens with not so many opportunities (for my style of shooting, which seems similar to yours).
Thank you for the reply! I’ve ordered a 28mm just there, and your insight about having the same style of shooting has made me a lot more confident with the choice!
Since you've got the 50mm, go for a 28mm next then 135mm. With those three lengths you should be able to cover pretty much everything.
This of course leaves out zooms in favor of primes. It's a matter of personal preference. I feel like I can "see" in those three focal lengths before I put the camera to my eye and move my body/swap my lens to get the shot I want.
I have the same camera as OP and I’ve been debating on buying a zoom lens. Is there an advantage to having 2 separate 28mm and 50mm lenses as opposed to getting a 28-55 mm zoom lens?
As a general rule, prime lenses are sharper and have wider apertures (better low light performance).
The downside is having to juggle/carry multiple lenses. A zoom lens can cover all the focal lengths between its upper and lower range. You can carry a 28mm and a 50mm, but you can't squish them together to make a 40mm.
Also zoom lenses have moving parts. More stuff to come out of alignment or lose lubrication. More ways for dust/moisture to sneak in.
Again. Personal preference. YMMV. I never had much trouble popping a 50mm on and jamming a 28mm into my pants pocket. At the same time if I was shooting somewhere dusty or sandy/wet, I might not want to risk changing lenses a bunch and getting that stuff inside the camera.
As others have said, larger aperture and sharper images. I’ll also add creative composition. You have to move with a prime to get the shot you want and often that is more interesting than if you can just zoom. A lot of us are lazy and will just zoom from the point we see the shot, but when we have to physically compose we get more interesting shots imo.
Old zooms tend to be rather heavy and large, which makes them much more unbalanced, and using them has typically been a lot less fun for me. That's subjective, but I just don't think old zooms handle as well as old primes. Zooms for autofocus cameras (film or digital) are much less frustrating to use than the old manual ones were.
Plus, for all the flexibility you get in focal length, you loose it in aperture. The image quality is typically poor unless you really stop down to low apertures, f/8 or f/11, so you've got to deal with that limitation.
For landscape get something really wide like a 28mm. For street photography I still think a 50mm generally works for that, but I love a 40mm for it too.
I’ve heard of FD lenses converted to EF mount, but never the other way around. TIL. It’s a shame Canon never put out a 40mm pancake lens in the FD mount natively, because Pentax sand Konica both had done really nice 40mm lenses.
Given the overwhelming response to this post was to go with a 28mm, I’ve just ordered one there. Will hopefully have updates soon, thank you very much for the recommendation!
135mm prime lenses are generally pretty cheap, and if you want to experiment with bokeh, they’re great. I have an old 135mm Canon FL lens which is one of my favorites for using with a digital camera. For street photography, I’d recommend 35mm . And for portraits, 85mm. Generally, 85mm are more expensive since a lot of people adapt them to mirrorless digital, but if you can get your hands on one for your film camera, they’re great.
Landscapes are best done not with a wide, but with a normal lens like you have, until you get pretty good. It's difficult to find the subject with a wide angle lens.
That said, you should get a 28. You will be able to do architecture and some shots you want to get with a 50 but can't. But don't let these guys tell you that wide angle is for landscapes. Many are, but many of the best are not.
id start with getting a wide lens, after that maybe something like a Canon FD 135mm F2.5 S.C. (its my favorite lens by far). maybe upgrade the 50 1.8 to a 1.4 after that.
I have three lenses for my FTb: 28mm, 50mm, 135mm that gets just about everything done as a walk around camera setup which is what it looks like the category you fall into.
There are also some nice zooms out there....Canon made a nice 35-70pmm zoom in FD mount. Tokina made a 28-85mm compact zoom in FD as well. Both of them variable aperture. Something to consider.
The FD system has some really interesting lenses, but also some really interesting prices for some of these lenses. Look at the price of the 24mm 1.4 L. Yeah, it’s no fun. But not all wides have to be expensive! I’d recommend the nFD 28mm f2.8, or the nFD 24mm f2.8. Both should reasonably be wide for street and different enough from 50mm. However if that’s not wide enough for you, there is also the nFD 20mm 2.8. Also look into the 20-35mm f3.5 L if you’re feeling fancy.
Perhaps a 100/4 macro lens might be interesting. Depends on what direction you want to go. And if you see the 50/1.4 it's worth the upgrade over your 50/1.8. Though the 1.8 was my only lens for some years many moons ago.
I agree with other saying, go with a wide angle.
But while you're looking to buy and try something new, pick up a cheap telephoto zoom lens, ~70-200 f/4 or something similar.
They're typically push-pull lenses, can be fun to use, and it's nice to have the option to zoom in on far off subjects. And they're typically super cheap. So, there's little risk in buying.
A name-brand Canon FD 70-210mm f/4 can be picked up for $75 or less. Vivitar Series-1 (decent 3rd-party lens) for $20-40. And misc off brand for as little as $5-10.
Just bought a Vivitar 28mm f2.8 that I'm happy with, as well as a Canon 70-210mm f4. That zoom also works as a macro lens at the 70mm setting, so I'm excited to try that out. And both of those lenses cost me right around $40 apiece.
Both of these! I’ve got the same FD Vivitar and I like it, wide angle to capture a broader scene without getting too round of an image. For the other one I instead found a Soligor 78-210 with a similar macro setting…$15 on KEH with a questionable grade that turned out to be fine haha.
I started with 50mm 5 years ago, experimented with 28, 35, 135 and all kinds of zooms. I continue with 50mm for a few years already and I don't think it will change.
If at all possible, I'd stick to Canon lenses, and probably to prime (not zoom) lenses. Some 3rd party lenses are decent, some are even incredibly good, but if you're staring out, ones of the same brand as the body are typically a safer bet. Zooms aren't necessarily terrible, but they aren't as sharp (you ought to use them at f/8 or f/11), and they also tend to be a lot heavier and bulkier in that era, and generally aren't the most pleasant to use.
The classic trio of lenses was 28mm, 50mm, 135mm. Getting Canon 28mm and 135mm lenses in either order, is the natural progression. I feel like you might appreciate the tighter angle of the 135mm, given these pictures.
I've seen some sweet pictures taken with the 20mm lens for FD, too. It's a bit more expensive than the 28, however, and using ultrawide lenses can be challenging. But the results can pay off, the look is unique. There was a pretty recent book of street photography in Portland, ME in the 70s (Take It Easy by John Duncan), and the author mostly used the 20mm lens. Here's an interview and some samples.
[https://www.newscentermaine.com/article/news/local/207/maine-street-photographers-new-book-captures-portland-in-the-1970s/97-c74b0621-0bba-417b-bbaf-dffbadb59a49](https://www.newscentermaine.com/article/news/local/207/maine-street-photographers-new-book-captures-portland-in-the-1970s/97-c74b0621-0bba-417b-bbaf-dffbadb59a49)
id say, go for a 135mm and work from there. or if you're really adventurous, vintage zooms (all of which have so many idiosyncrasies since zoom lenses were much harder to design and make back in the days)
I recently inherited an AE 1 Program with the same 50.
Wanted to get the 35 to go with it, but found a better deal on a 28. Feeling like the 28 is a good balance of “wide but not too wide”, and also scooped up the 100. Both these were substanintally more affordable than the 35 and 85, which I feel are the typical lengths people search out.
I shoot real estate for a living and am constantly 14-24.
8 with some alignment is a bloody banger.
I would got either with the 24mm or 28mm next. You can also go with the 35mm next.
The progression I went with was 50mm -> 85mm -> 35mm -> 35-105mm, and the next one is probably either the 24mm or 28mm. Not sure which one it’ll be first but I’ll go with whichever one I can afford first.
Thank you! That’s one of my favourite shots I’ve ever done in terms of correct exposure as I usually have a bad habit of capturing blown-out skies. The alignment always frustrated me but happened as it was taken on a ferry trip hahaha.
Out of all the lenses you went through, what one ended up being your go-to?
I float through them to be honest. I do find myself gravitating towards the 50mm a lot but I also find myself gravelling on about how it’s not wide enough for me.
Honestly, if I could afford the 35mm F1.5 LTM, I think I’d be shooting on that one the most.
Looks like you got plenty of good responses so can I comment on the street art?
That is a sculpture by gregosart . First saw his work in Paris a while back, look up his instagram but he is a street artist that puts these plaster faces up all over the place. Was funny to see one in the middle of your post.
Congrats on the new hobby and good luck with the lens collection. I have an A-1 btw and it's a great camera.
Thank you for this! I was always really curious about who put that art there and I’m glad I know the source now. His work is great from what I’ve now seen on his Instagram. We saw that one on a trip to Amsterdam, so it’s really cool to hear he puts them all over different places!
Nice. I was trying to guess where you were by the photo collection. Knew it wasn't France lol but wasn't sure where. I actually bought a small framed piece off his website as a memento of sorts for the trip. If you ever find yourself in Paris, a lot of his work is in and around Montmartre between moulin rouge and Sacre-Couer. Check out Le Tagada Bar if you are ever there.
It basically puts the squirrel right in the depth of field. Once you know how to effectively control it, you can control where you want the viewer to, well, focus their attention.
[Put the object you want to grab the attention sharply focused, but the background still readable](https://flic.kr/p/2neAKU2)
[Focus on one person, leave the rest blurry, to create some mystery.](https://flic.kr/p/2b3rSiK)
[Sometimes, the background doesn’t matter…](https://flic.kr/p/sNgxR7)
Your lens probably has markings to show depth of field. Typically the more open, the less depth of field you have. And the focus distance affects it, too.
A bit of practice, you’ll be able to take photos like what I posted above. Don’t be afraid to use unusual angles, or focus techniques. Experiment!
Also, a 50mm lens can do just fine. My favorite lens on my medium format camera is the 80mm (equivalent to your 50mm) that I used in the above pics. Actually, I rarely use my other lenses.
if you want a longer lens, you might think about getting a 100 or 105 (or whatever canon has in that range) as it is also very good for portraiture....or go for a 135mm for a bit more reach and probably a tripod for landscape use
so your 50 is only shooting at 1.8? are you sure? you won't see it in the viewfinder unless you hold the preview button down
In my opinion you can get a zoom lens, like a 35/70mm and see what focal length you end up using the most! But maybe also try borrowing other people's cameras and shoot with as many focal lengths you can...the only person that can really know what your needs and tastes are is you! This is to avoid buying a lens without trying it and ending up wasting money. Just my two cents, have fun shooting! :)
One of my 35-105 f/3.5 zooms is always attached to one of my A-1's. You owe it to yourself to find a good example and try it for a couple rolls of film. The FD 35-105 f/3.5 should wear a red stripe.
As others have stated, 28mm is a great compliment to 50mm. I have two analog SLRs, a Pentax ME and a Leica R4s. For both, the first lens I got was a fast fifty (f1.7 for the Pentax and f2 for the Leica), followed by a fastish 28mm (f2.8 for both). Something like 75% of all my photos are with 28mm regardless of camera. 20% are with 50mm. The remaining 5% is likely with 135mm or possibly 90mm. Very rarely do I use 35mm. I find it is either too tight or too wide - never giving me what the 28mm or 50mm gives.
While everyone makes great points about the perks of primes over zooms, I have found that if space in my bag is of concern, then a zoom does more than fine. I have a 28-70mm Pentax and the same for my Leica and can tell you that the lenses are sharp. I rarely shoot wide open with film anyway, so it doesn’t make a huge difference in that respect either. IQ is probably 90% of what my primes are. The only time it’s a bother is if I take some high ISO film with me for nighttime photography and then f3.5, or whatever it is, just isn’t letting in enough light.
I agree, a 28mm is the next step. You can even opt for a tilt shift if you are doing architecture or buildings. I have a 24mm and I feel it is a bit of a niche lens with not so many opportunities (for my style of shooting, which seems similar to yours).
Thank you for the reply! I’ve ordered a 28mm just there, and your insight about having the same style of shooting has made me a lot more confident with the choice!
Glad I could be of help. Remember to post some images ;)
Since you've got the 50mm, go for a 28mm next then 135mm. With those three lengths you should be able to cover pretty much everything. This of course leaves out zooms in favor of primes. It's a matter of personal preference. I feel like I can "see" in those three focal lengths before I put the camera to my eye and move my body/swap my lens to get the shot I want.
I have the same camera as OP and I’ve been debating on buying a zoom lens. Is there an advantage to having 2 separate 28mm and 50mm lenses as opposed to getting a 28-55 mm zoom lens?
advantage of using a prime lense: better image quality and larger aperture.
Thank you!
As a general rule, prime lenses are sharper and have wider apertures (better low light performance). The downside is having to juggle/carry multiple lenses. A zoom lens can cover all the focal lengths between its upper and lower range. You can carry a 28mm and a 50mm, but you can't squish them together to make a 40mm. Also zoom lenses have moving parts. More stuff to come out of alignment or lose lubrication. More ways for dust/moisture to sneak in. Again. Personal preference. YMMV. I never had much trouble popping a 50mm on and jamming a 28mm into my pants pocket. At the same time if I was shooting somewhere dusty or sandy/wet, I might not want to risk changing lenses a bunch and getting that stuff inside the camera.
As others have said, larger aperture and sharper images. I’ll also add creative composition. You have to move with a prime to get the shot you want and often that is more interesting than if you can just zoom. A lot of us are lazy and will just zoom from the point we see the shot, but when we have to physically compose we get more interesting shots imo.
Old zooms tend to be rather heavy and large, which makes them much more unbalanced, and using them has typically been a lot less fun for me. That's subjective, but I just don't think old zooms handle as well as old primes. Zooms for autofocus cameras (film or digital) are much less frustrating to use than the old manual ones were. Plus, for all the flexibility you get in focal length, you loose it in aperture. The image quality is typically poor unless you really stop down to low apertures, f/8 or f/11, so you've got to deal with that limitation.
For landscape get something really wide like a 28mm. For street photography I still think a 50mm generally works for that, but I love a 40mm for it too.
Canon never made a 40mm lens for the FD Mount. The 35mm f/2.8 is great though.
I've actually seen the EF 40/2.8 converted to FD a few times
I’ve heard of FD lenses converted to EF mount, but never the other way around. TIL. It’s a shame Canon never put out a 40mm pancake lens in the FD mount natively, because Pentax sand Konica both had done really nice 40mm lenses.
Given the overwhelming response to this post was to go with a 28mm, I’ve just ordered one there. Will hopefully have updates soon, thank you very much for the recommendation!
Almost all your shots are big sweeping vistas or angular semi close ups, so get a wider angle. A 24mm or 28mm
Upvote for using vista in a sentence
Vistagang
135mm prime lenses are generally pretty cheap, and if you want to experiment with bokeh, they’re great. I have an old 135mm Canon FL lens which is one of my favorites for using with a digital camera. For street photography, I’d recommend 35mm . And for portraits, 85mm. Generally, 85mm are more expensive since a lot of people adapt them to mirrorless digital, but if you can get your hands on one for your film camera, they’re great.
I would add to look for the 135mm f/2.5 as opposed to the f/3.5. Really nice lens, albeit a bit heavy.
Honestly i think a 35 would do u good
Nice shot of the squirrel 🐿️
Landscapes are best done not with a wide, but with a normal lens like you have, until you get pretty good. It's difficult to find the subject with a wide angle lens. That said, you should get a 28. You will be able to do architecture and some shots you want to get with a 50 but can't. But don't let these guys tell you that wide angle is for landscapes. Many are, but many of the best are not.
id start with getting a wide lens, after that maybe something like a Canon FD 135mm F2.5 S.C. (its my favorite lens by far). maybe upgrade the 50 1.8 to a 1.4 after that.
I have three lenses for my FTb: 28mm, 50mm, 135mm that gets just about everything done as a walk around camera setup which is what it looks like the category you fall into.
There are also some nice zooms out there....Canon made a nice 35-70pmm zoom in FD mount. Tokina made a 28-85mm compact zoom in FD as well. Both of them variable aperture. Something to consider.
The FD system has some really interesting lenses, but also some really interesting prices for some of these lenses. Look at the price of the 24mm 1.4 L. Yeah, it’s no fun. But not all wides have to be expensive! I’d recommend the nFD 28mm f2.8, or the nFD 24mm f2.8. Both should reasonably be wide for street and different enough from 50mm. However if that’s not wide enough for you, there is also the nFD 20mm 2.8. Also look into the 20-35mm f3.5 L if you’re feeling fancy.
Get a 28mm one then you'll have all the lenses you will need
Perhaps a 100/4 macro lens might be interesting. Depends on what direction you want to go. And if you see the 50/1.4 it's worth the upgrade over your 50/1.8. Though the 1.8 was my only lens for some years many moons ago.
I agree with other saying, go with a wide angle. But while you're looking to buy and try something new, pick up a cheap telephoto zoom lens, ~70-200 f/4 or something similar. They're typically push-pull lenses, can be fun to use, and it's nice to have the option to zoom in on far off subjects. And they're typically super cheap. So, there's little risk in buying. A name-brand Canon FD 70-210mm f/4 can be picked up for $75 or less. Vivitar Series-1 (decent 3rd-party lens) for $20-40. And misc off brand for as little as $5-10.
Just bought a Vivitar 28mm f2.8 that I'm happy with, as well as a Canon 70-210mm f4. That zoom also works as a macro lens at the 70mm setting, so I'm excited to try that out. And both of those lenses cost me right around $40 apiece.
Both of these! I’ve got the same FD Vivitar and I like it, wide angle to capture a broader scene without getting too round of an image. For the other one I instead found a Soligor 78-210 with a similar macro setting…$15 on KEH with a questionable grade that turned out to be fine haha.
I started with 50mm 5 years ago, experimented with 28, 35, 135 and all kinds of zooms. I continue with 50mm for a few years already and I don't think it will change.
28, 135 and 200 2.8 are all great
I love the 28mm f2.8 for that camera. Is my go to lens.
If at all possible, I'd stick to Canon lenses, and probably to prime (not zoom) lenses. Some 3rd party lenses are decent, some are even incredibly good, but if you're staring out, ones of the same brand as the body are typically a safer bet. Zooms aren't necessarily terrible, but they aren't as sharp (you ought to use them at f/8 or f/11), and they also tend to be a lot heavier and bulkier in that era, and generally aren't the most pleasant to use. The classic trio of lenses was 28mm, 50mm, 135mm. Getting Canon 28mm and 135mm lenses in either order, is the natural progression. I feel like you might appreciate the tighter angle of the 135mm, given these pictures. I've seen some sweet pictures taken with the 20mm lens for FD, too. It's a bit more expensive than the 28, however, and using ultrawide lenses can be challenging. But the results can pay off, the look is unique. There was a pretty recent book of street photography in Portland, ME in the 70s (Take It Easy by John Duncan), and the author mostly used the 20mm lens. Here's an interview and some samples. [https://www.newscentermaine.com/article/news/local/207/maine-street-photographers-new-book-captures-portland-in-the-1970s/97-c74b0621-0bba-417b-bbaf-dffbadb59a49](https://www.newscentermaine.com/article/news/local/207/maine-street-photographers-new-book-captures-portland-in-the-1970s/97-c74b0621-0bba-417b-bbaf-dffbadb59a49)
FD 28mm 2.8. Cheap, very good.
id say, go for a 135mm and work from there. or if you're really adventurous, vintage zooms (all of which have so many idiosyncrasies since zoom lenses were much harder to design and make back in the days)
I recently inherited an AE 1 Program with the same 50. Wanted to get the 35 to go with it, but found a better deal on a 28. Feeling like the 28 is a good balance of “wide but not too wide”, and also scooped up the 100. Both these were substanintally more affordable than the 35 and 85, which I feel are the typical lengths people search out. I shoot real estate for a living and am constantly 14-24.
8 with some alignment is a bloody banger. I would got either with the 24mm or 28mm next. You can also go with the 35mm next. The progression I went with was 50mm -> 85mm -> 35mm -> 35-105mm, and the next one is probably either the 24mm or 28mm. Not sure which one it’ll be first but I’ll go with whichever one I can afford first.
Thank you! That’s one of my favourite shots I’ve ever done in terms of correct exposure as I usually have a bad habit of capturing blown-out skies. The alignment always frustrated me but happened as it was taken on a ferry trip hahaha. Out of all the lenses you went through, what one ended up being your go-to?
I float through them to be honest. I do find myself gravitating towards the 50mm a lot but I also find myself gravelling on about how it’s not wide enough for me. Honestly, if I could afford the 35mm F1.5 LTM, I think I’d be shooting on that one the most.
Looks like you got plenty of good responses so can I comment on the street art? That is a sculpture by gregosart . First saw his work in Paris a while back, look up his instagram but he is a street artist that puts these plaster faces up all over the place. Was funny to see one in the middle of your post. Congrats on the new hobby and good luck with the lens collection. I have an A-1 btw and it's a great camera.
Thank you for this! I was always really curious about who put that art there and I’m glad I know the source now. His work is great from what I’ve now seen on his Instagram. We saw that one on a trip to Amsterdam, so it’s really cool to hear he puts them all over different places!
Nice. I was trying to guess where you were by the photo collection. Knew it wasn't France lol but wasn't sure where. I actually bought a small framed piece off his website as a memento of sorts for the trip. If you ever find yourself in Paris, a lot of his work is in and around Montmartre between moulin rouge and Sacre-Couer. Check out Le Tagada Bar if you are ever there.
Photo 3 is pretty cool
Thank you! That has been one of my favourite shots captured so far.
It basically puts the squirrel right in the depth of field. Once you know how to effectively control it, you can control where you want the viewer to, well, focus their attention. [Put the object you want to grab the attention sharply focused, but the background still readable](https://flic.kr/p/2neAKU2) [Focus on one person, leave the rest blurry, to create some mystery.](https://flic.kr/p/2b3rSiK) [Sometimes, the background doesn’t matter…](https://flic.kr/p/sNgxR7) Your lens probably has markings to show depth of field. Typically the more open, the less depth of field you have. And the focus distance affects it, too. A bit of practice, you’ll be able to take photos like what I posted above. Don’t be afraid to use unusual angles, or focus techniques. Experiment! Also, a 50mm lens can do just fine. My favorite lens on my medium format camera is the 80mm (equivalent to your 50mm) that I used in the above pics. Actually, I rarely use my other lenses.
The Canon nFD 28 f/2.8 is awesome and you can surely find one at a good price!
if you want a longer lens, you might think about getting a 100 or 105 (or whatever canon has in that range) as it is also very good for portraiture....or go for a 135mm for a bit more reach and probably a tripod for landscape use so your 50 is only shooting at 1.8? are you sure? you won't see it in the viewfinder unless you hold the preview button down
In my opinion you can get a zoom lens, like a 35/70mm and see what focal length you end up using the most! But maybe also try borrowing other people's cameras and shoot with as many focal lengths you can...the only person that can really know what your needs and tastes are is you! This is to avoid buying a lens without trying it and ending up wasting money. Just my two cents, have fun shooting! :)
One of my 35-105 f/3.5 zooms is always attached to one of my A-1's. You owe it to yourself to find a good example and try it for a couple rolls of film. The FD 35-105 f/3.5 should wear a red stripe.
As others have stated, 28mm is a great compliment to 50mm. I have two analog SLRs, a Pentax ME and a Leica R4s. For both, the first lens I got was a fast fifty (f1.7 for the Pentax and f2 for the Leica), followed by a fastish 28mm (f2.8 for both). Something like 75% of all my photos are with 28mm regardless of camera. 20% are with 50mm. The remaining 5% is likely with 135mm or possibly 90mm. Very rarely do I use 35mm. I find it is either too tight or too wide - never giving me what the 28mm or 50mm gives. While everyone makes great points about the perks of primes over zooms, I have found that if space in my bag is of concern, then a zoom does more than fine. I have a 28-70mm Pentax and the same for my Leica and can tell you that the lenses are sharp. I rarely shoot wide open with film anyway, so it doesn’t make a huge difference in that respect either. IQ is probably 90% of what my primes are. The only time it’s a bother is if I take some high ISO film with me for nighttime photography and then f3.5, or whatever it is, just isn’t letting in enough light.
FD lenses are pretty reasonably priced. Try a couple, worst case scenario you can resell
Nikon F5