38 or 55

[Middle2023]

If you had to decide, and you had the choice between the: 38 or 55 XCD, which one would you take?

Axel

[tenmangu81]

Nobody can decide but you !! It's only a question of what type of pictures you shoot and of personal feeling. I have the 55V and it suits perfectly my needs. I didn't buy the 38V (yet).

[satijntje]

If you intend to work with 2 lenses and you are planning to get the 90mm lens then I would go for the 38mm.

[sanglier]

In fact, you need both, even if it means selling a kidney.   

[mmanesh]

Ideally you can have all. I will get the 38mm in case nobody buys my X2D with the intent to get a 90 once Hasselblad finally starts delivering their lenses. The 55 would be probably also fine as a one lens option but in tighter spaces or while traveling I may need something wider... in the end if I stick to the system I would propose to get all three eventually. Don't forget: on the 38 you can still crop in a lot and get quite similar results to using a leica Q3 and their crop modes. Just even higher res :-)

[paratom]

38 is closer to 28mm FF look and 55 closer to 50mm FF look (I know its like 30 and 40).
I have had the 38 for a while and recently added a 55.
38 is better for groups, scenes, landscapes etc.
55 is better for details, portraits, more a normal focal length, also nice shallow DOF
So IMO I need/want both, or 38+65 or 30+55
One for scenes and the wider look, one for the more compressed look and more focusing on details and nice shallow dof.

as others said only you know what you plan to shoot.

[o2mpx]

Have the 21, 35-75 and the weight of the zoom is significant but very convenient.

Curious if anyone plans to replace their 35-75mm with the 38 and 55?

[tenmangu81]

An other flower with the 55V....

[paratom]

Have the 21, 35-75 and the weight of the zoom is significant but very convenient.

Curious if anyone plans to replace their 35-75mm with the 38 and 55?

I own the zoom and the new 38 and 55.

These days I rather carry the 38 55 - I love the combo and those focal lengths.
The zoom offers slightly more range, and its an advantage in bad weather to not have to change lenses.
The 38 and 55 offer more shallow dog/faster speed, and are much smaller, lighter, and offer the fast switch to manual focus (including dog scale) - the combo with the new lenses is a lot of fun for me.

[bmikiten]

I'm on the tail end of a trip to Glacier. I have the 35-75, the 21mm and the 135/1.7x in a backpack. I used the 35-75 for everything from landscapes to close ups 90% of the time. I'm surprised at how flexible the zoom is and would suggest looking at it.

[glaiben]

I just finished a 3 week roadtrip - Glacier NP, Arches NP and the Palouse.  Took 3 lenses along - here's the image count by lens used...
38V: 1,257
55V: 117
135: 284
135/TC: 182

If the 90V had been available, would have substituted it for the 135/TC combo.

...gregg

[paratom]

the 38 is a very flexible focal length.

[sanglier]

Have the 21, 35-75 and the weight of the zoom is significant but very convenient.

Curious if anyone plans to replace their 35-75mm with the 38 and 55?

Me probably, the zoom is very practical, but too heavy for long treck, for me.

[paratom]

To me the package with the small 38 and 55 lenses feels like a different/smaller camera.

[mikaelo67]

I would keep the 21. I dont use mine that often. But when I do, it produces wonderful results. And it's discontinued so it could be hard to get in the future.