35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
Hi guys,
I recently acquired a 28mm/2.8 ASPH and use it as my day lens. It has the small form factor and like its predecessor 28mm pre-asph (IV) a fabulous lens.
I like the 28mm field of view and did not hesitate to add it to my stable. Minimally, I knew the 28 would get a fair amount of use where a 21mm would sit in the bag more often than not.
I have read over the years that many photographers would say that they would simply take a few steps back with their 35mm lens rather than add the 28mm.
I won't say more preferring to get your take. Thanks.
I recently acquired a 28mm/2.8 ASPH and use it as my day lens. It has the small form factor and like its predecessor 28mm pre-asph (IV) a fabulous lens.
I like the 28mm field of view and did not hesitate to add it to my stable. Minimally, I knew the 28 would get a fair amount of use where a 21mm would sit in the bag more often than not.
I have read over the years that many photographers would say that they would simply take a few steps back with their 35mm lens rather than add the 28mm.
I won't say more preferring to get your take. Thanks.
Last edited:
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
In low-light, you could say you could step back but at f/2 you could have a steadier shot.
Or, if you have the 35mm f/1.4 point-of-view, you'd say that with the 28mm f/2.8 you'll have to step closer and hold your camera four times as long.
I say, if you have both lenses, keep them!
Or, if you have the 35mm f/1.4 point-of-view, you'd say that with the 28mm f/2.8 you'll have to step closer and hold your camera four times as long.
I say, if you have both lenses, keep them!
raid
Dad Photographer
I have never really liked the 35mm focal length perspective. The 28mm looks wide to me, but the 35mm is too wide for a normal lens and not wide enough as a wide angle lens. Carrying a 35mm lens makes me hesitate to also use the 50mm lens or the 28mm lens. It is either 35mm or (28mm + 50mm) in many cases.
I am assuming that we are talking about using a film camera.
I am assuming that we are talking about using a film camera.
ferider
Veteran
At infinity focus one cann't step back.
I love 28mm. Seems like the most natural focal length to me (next to 40).
Both lenses are useful, though (i.e. 35 and 28), since it's easier to get a fast 35 than 28.
Roland.
I love 28mm. Seems like the most natural focal length to me (next to 40).
Both lenses are useful, though (i.e. 35 and 28), since it's easier to get a fast 35 than 28.
Roland.
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
On recent trips I was surprised how much I used the 28mm. When the light went low swapped it out for my 50mm Summilux pre-asph. (MP/M6).
aizan
Veteran
i think i know what this is all about. go ahead and buy the new 28/2 ultron.
craygc
Well-known
You are either a 50mm for normal person, like Raid, or a 35mm for normal person. Personally, I fall into the latter camp and love the 35mm and hate the 50mm. To me a 28mm is just a loose 35mm. I carry a Fujifilm Klasse W with a fixed 28mm as a p&s and a 35 lux on the Leica as my primary lens. At the end of the day, it probably comes down to how comfortable do you feel getting close to your subject.
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
i think i know what this is all about. go ahead and buy the new 28/2 ultron.
LOL.
No, not at all. The new 28mm/2.0 VC is bound to be a highly desireable lens and I might yet own one. I am a 35mm lens devotee (35/1.4 ASPH) for the most part.
Having said this, I was impressed with the imagery quality of a 28mm (IV) and knew the 28mm ASPH would be as good but in a smaller form factor.
I can easily carry a 28mm ASPH and 90mm Elmarit in my Domke F-803 and the 35mm lux on my camera.
Like Raid said the 35mm is not wide enough in many situations. The advantage with the 28mmm ASPH is that it is consistent in imagery with the other two lenses I carry.
Thanks much. Paul
Bingley
Veteran
I took 28-35-50-100 w/ me on a two-week road trip in June. I used all of the lenses. What I wound up using the 28 most for were street shots where I was close to my subject. Given the urban and indoor locations, stepping back w/ a 35 would not have worked as well. I'm liking the 28 fov more and more, and also appreciate the close-focusing ability of the little 28/3.5 skopar.
kxl
Social Documentary
I'm sure you already know that "zooming with your feet" and actually having another lens are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS, right? Different perspectives.
Having said that, while I do like the 35mm, to me, the 28mm is no man's land. I prefer the 24/25mm as a complement to the 35mm.
Having said that, while I do like the 35mm, to me, the 28mm is no man's land. I prefer the 24/25mm as a complement to the 35mm.
kmerenkov
Established
That is what I think about my 40. It is not wide and not normal, I'd like to get 28 and throw away 40 I think.
Palaeoboy
Joel Matherson
Well there is a third group, those that use 40mm lenses as their standard and that makes 28mm a bit more usable with a greater gap in between that with a 35. Before I tried CL's and CLE's my M just sat on the shelf because I dont really use the 50mm focal length that much and i also enjoyed 28 as my favourite wide angle but that was too close to 35's for me, so when I tried a 40mm for the first time it brought me back to rangefinders. Unfortunately I cant see anyone bringing out a new camera with both 28 and 40mm framelines so I have to make my CLE's last a while.
ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
How about you're photographing a large buildling. Say Buckingham Palace.
You're a good 150m away so your 35mm lens is set to infinity.
But you still can't fit the whole building in so you step back.
Ken Shipman
Well-known
It surprises me how often "field of view" is confused with "perspective". Field of view is how much of the scene is taken in - usually thought of in the landscape horizontal dimension. Perspective is the relationship of near-far objects to one another within the scene.
A person can step forward or back with different lenses to take in the scene in more or less similar ways - field of view. But that won't change the perspective - the near-far relationship of objects in the scene - which is characteristic of the focal length.
The wider focal length - e.g. 28mm - will cause far objects to fall off in apparent size (recede) more quickly than the longer focal length - e.g. 35mm.
For example, take a portrait of a person in a field with both lenses, filling the frame with the person in each case. Naturally you will have to step closer with the 28 than with the 35 to fill the frame. Now in the final print look at distant objects behind the person. The distant object will be smaller with the 28 than with the 35. This is "perspective".
The effect is more pronounced with 21-35 or 24-35 or 28-50, but there is this difference in perspective with any pair. It's the same principle that causes unflattering large noses in wide angle portraits, and more flattering smaller noses with short tele's. On the other hand, a wider lens, if you move closer to the subject, will more isolate it from the background.
So when you consider which lens to get or use, consider not just the field of view (step forward or back), but also think about the near-far perspective you want.
Also think about the depth-of-field, but that one's a little more obvious.
A person can step forward or back with different lenses to take in the scene in more or less similar ways - field of view. But that won't change the perspective - the near-far relationship of objects in the scene - which is characteristic of the focal length.
The wider focal length - e.g. 28mm - will cause far objects to fall off in apparent size (recede) more quickly than the longer focal length - e.g. 35mm.
For example, take a portrait of a person in a field with both lenses, filling the frame with the person in each case. Naturally you will have to step closer with the 28 than with the 35 to fill the frame. Now in the final print look at distant objects behind the person. The distant object will be smaller with the 28 than with the 35. This is "perspective".
The effect is more pronounced with 21-35 or 24-35 or 28-50, but there is this difference in perspective with any pair. It's the same principle that causes unflattering large noses in wide angle portraits, and more flattering smaller noses with short tele's. On the other hand, a wider lens, if you move closer to the subject, will more isolate it from the background.
So when you consider which lens to get or use, consider not just the field of view (step forward or back), but also think about the near-far perspective you want.
Also think about the depth-of-field, but that one's a little more obvious.
Last edited:
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Think of a lens as part of a lens system. Then the question is, "What other lens(es) will I also carry, and how apart in focal length do I want them to be." If you want to also carry a 35, then a 28 may seem too close in focal length to bother with (I don't feel that way). I think the ideal set would be one where each focal length is 1.414 (the square root of 2) times the last one. That way, each next-shorter lens covers exactly twice the area of the next-longer one. An example of lenses spaced exactly this way would be 25-35-50-70-100. In practical Leica M terms, an approximation would be 24-35-50-75. An alternative set would be 21-28-40 (a good start, but there is no 56mm lens to fill the next step; though 75mm would fill the step after that.)
Personally, I like to bring either a 21 or 24 along (never both); then 28-35-50-75. I find either 35 or 40 to be a good normal lens, but often going to the 28. The 28mm brings a feeling of spaciousness, a you-are-there-feeling more so than the 35. That feeling is increased with the 24mm. Yet 35 or 40 has a comfortable "natural vision" look. So for me, it's not either/or; I use them all. If that means carrying more gear and changing lenses more often, then so be it. The Tri-Elmar cuts down on the latter burden when there is enough light. It does feel clumsy on the camera though, so I don't always bother with it. If I had to use one lens for everything it would be the 35mm.
Personally, I like to bring either a 21 or 24 along (never both); then 28-35-50-75. I find either 35 or 40 to be a good normal lens, but often going to the 28. The 28mm brings a feeling of spaciousness, a you-are-there-feeling more so than the 35. That feeling is increased with the 24mm. Yet 35 or 40 has a comfortable "natural vision" look. So for me, it's not either/or; I use them all. If that means carrying more gear and changing lenses more often, then so be it. The Tri-Elmar cuts down on the latter burden when there is enough light. It does feel clumsy on the camera though, so I don't always bother with it. If I had to use one lens for everything it would be the 35mm.
leica M2 fan
Veteran
Recent use of 28 for me
Recent use of 28 for me
has led me to want to use the 28 FOV primarily for most work. It's a great choice and having it you don't need to "step back". The question quickly arises, how far do you "step back"? I have always used 35 and loved it and have many 35's but now would dearly love to have the new f2/28 (sigh).
Recent use of 28 for me
has led me to want to use the 28 FOV primarily for most work. It's a great choice and having it you don't need to "step back". The question quickly arises, how far do you "step back"? I have always used 35 and loved it and have many 35's but now would dearly love to have the new f2/28 (sigh).
leica M2 fan
Veteran
Read this again if you haven't already, it says everything you need to know.
back alley
IMAGES
if i had to choose between 25 and 28, i would pick 25.
i rarely reach for the 28 if using only one lens almost always preferring the 35.
yet i like the 28/40 combo on the cle and am thinking of getting a rollei 40 sonnar for the r3a and using the 21 on the r4a as a 2 camera/2 lens kit.
anyway, my vote goes for the 35 if keeping only one.
joe
i rarely reach for the 28 if using only one lens almost always preferring the 35.
yet i like the 28/40 combo on the cle and am thinking of getting a rollei 40 sonnar for the r3a and using the 21 on the r4a as a 2 camera/2 lens kit.
anyway, my vote goes for the 35 if keeping only one.
joe
Dektol Dan
Well-known
Why have a 28 at all?
Why have a 28 at all?
I use a 35mm as a normal lens more than 95% of the time. When I acquired an M6 mate with the M4 (to spawn little M5's) I thought I would add a 28. I know I could have used the 28 on the M4 with identical and equal results.
At first I hated it. Then I had to shoot an indoor event with crowds of folks milling around. It was perfect. As far as outdoor shooting goes, its the first of the wides that bring the photographer's shadow into the frame. This can be controlled to a degree, unlike the 21 and 25 which are very problematic.
I can't tell a 21 from a 25 (I own both), and I consider them to be true 'wides'. The 28 seems to compose like a 35 but one ends up with more than he bargained for.
Why have a 28 at all?
I use a 35mm as a normal lens more than 95% of the time. When I acquired an M6 mate with the M4 (to spawn little M5's) I thought I would add a 28. I know I could have used the 28 on the M4 with identical and equal results.
At first I hated it. Then I had to shoot an indoor event with crowds of folks milling around. It was perfect. As far as outdoor shooting goes, its the first of the wides that bring the photographer's shadow into the frame. This can be controlled to a degree, unlike the 21 and 25 which are very problematic.
I can't tell a 21 from a 25 (I own both), and I consider them to be true 'wides'. The 28 seems to compose like a 35 but one ends up with more than he bargained for.
pfoto
Well-known
Depends on what you have to use it with. If you have a 50 then a 28 makes sense. If you have a 75 then it's mate is a 35. Those pair choices depend on the shooting situations you're likely to encounter.