Should I get a 35 or a 28 lens?

kshapero

kshapero

South Florida Man
Local time
6:52 AM
Joined
Mar 27, 2006
Messages
10,064
Location
South Florida, USA
View My Gallery
I have this beautiful ZI sitting next to me with a C Sonnar 50mm attached to it. I am itching for a wide angle for street shooting. Which would be better a 35 or 28mm lens? Which brand? I love the Zeiss lens I have. CV's are great or maybe a used Leica. I want it to just catch a little more of the scene than the 50mm. Any ideas?
 
If you want to catch "a little more than 50mm" then I would go for a 35mm. But obviously its all a matter of personal preference.
 
I prefer 28mm as it gives a bit of a "wide" perspective. If you want a more normal look the 35mm is your choice.

<self_promotion>
There is a great deal on a black Zeiss 28mm/2.8 ZM in the classifieds right now. It is all original and comes with the hood.
</self_promotion>
 
I love the perspective of a 28 myself, but I personally would always have both - despite the apparently small focal length difference, 35 and 28 are very different lenses. There's a thread about the CV 28/3.5 somewhere, and it's a cracking lens - I think it makes a great street-shooting lens.
 
I think a 35 Biogon would be the perfect basic lens for all around shooting, while the C Sonnar is a perfect "character" lens, which can also be used for general photography from f5.6 and beyond.

If you want to see the effect of a wider lens approach, here's a series I took in Paris this spring with a 25mm:http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/sets/72157600129345564/
and a couple of series shot in Warsaw more recently , mainly with a 28 and also the C Sonnar:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/sets/72157600916687014/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/sets/72157600573258613/.

The 28mm was an Elmarit (3rd), and I am not enthusiastic about it, it is not terribly sharp, it flares a bit, vignettes a bit wide open, and is not all that small. If you go for this FL, I believe the 4th version is best, also smaller, and the 28 Biogon will surely be more flare resistant..

A more extreme lens but very impressive is the 25 Biogon.

All in all, if I were starting out I would get the 35 Biogon for allaround stuff, and put the C Sonnar on, whenever I wanted that magic look...
 
28 + 50 or 25 + 50 are great combos. With 35 and 50 you would have 2 "standard" length and soon suffer under another GAS attack, forcing you to buy a third lens, a wide one like the 25 or even a 21.

😀
 
I agree with the above, that 35+50 is two "normal" lengths. You can obviously make incredible shots with both, but I love my 28 because looking at a print you can just barely tell that it's a "wide" shot. One quality that you don't get with a 35. Also, marginally more dof, handholdability.

Enjoy whatever you get!
 
I would vote for the 25/2.8 ZI. My Nikon S3 kit is a 25/50/105 and I find it GREAT. There is something to be said for no aux finders, but 25 is such a great focal length.

Some folks like having one of every focal lengths, but I like a lot of space between lenses (less to carry). My M6 kit is a 15/40/105 with either a Bessa L or an M4-P with a 25 in a small belt case.

B2 (;->
 
i recommend the zm 35 if you can afford only one FL. but the zm 28 or 25 are very fine lenses, too. i use my zm 28 a lot on my m2, using the whole vf to frame my shots; the zm 25, being wider, is less accurate when framed this way. and i dislike aux vfs, which many use with their 25s. so for me it comes down to how i frame my shots with a given FL. the only lens i employ an auxillary finder for is my VC 15, but i don't use it much for street shots, mostly for landscapes. a 28 or 25 is a street shooting FL, so perhaps the importance of portability will matter?
 
I'm with Roland on this, Akiva. If you already have the CV40 lens, there's no real need for a 35. The 28 would be a better fit with what you have. IMO
 
get a 35

get a 35

The wide angle llok opf a 28 never worked for me with film I would get a 35 and then a 25 or 24 if you got the money David
 
I can't see having both a 35 and a 40mm lens.

Although I do, because the 35 is a vintage f3.5 Summaron, and my 40 is a modern f1.4 CV Nokton. 🙂
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom