35mm Focal Length: Yea or Nay?
If someone came to you and said you’re going traveling and for one reason or another can only bring one lens with you, what lens is the first that comes to mind? How many of you would think of a solid 35mm prime?
Many might argue that something like a 24-70mm would be ideal to cover a range of scenarios, but Julia Trotti has five reasons why one of her favorite go to lenses is the 35mm. Personally, I am a huge fan of primes lenses and really think that learning to be comfortable with a fixed focal length has some serious advantages. At the same time though, I understand that depending on your location (especially when traveling the country or abroad) that being able to zoom can come in mighty handy.
When I think travel photography I think landscapes, cityscapes, and candid portraits and moments. I think hiking and seeing the sights and I definitely wouldn’t want to be changing lenses constantly. Sometimes even a single lens swap can be downright impractical (wind plus beach sand sounds like a lethal combination). The question is can a single prime lens cover enough of the bases that you’d want to rock it over a zoom? I think that the answer depends heavily on how you shoot but generally speaking, I’m all in support of prime lenses.
Do you agree with Trotti’s reasoning to consider the 35mm? I think that she makes a pretty strong case for the lightweight wide-angle prime. What’s your experience with this particular focal length? Do you like the way it shoots or would you still prefer to have something with a zoom range for your travels?
Video of 5 Reasons the 35mm Lens is Perfect for Travel Photography