kshapero
South Florida Man
If 35mm lenses give a wide field of view than isn't a 28mm lens better?
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
not necessarily. Depends photographer-subject preferred shooting distance.
If 35mm lenses give a wide field of view than isn't a 28mm lens better?
Only if you are two steps closer.
dubes
Member
I recall reading years ago that where a 50mm lens (on 35mm film) approximated a person's 'normal' perspective, a 28mm lens (on 35mm film) approximated a person's field of view. But, as 35mmdelux points out, it's all about how you see. For example, I'm a detail person, so I tend to gravitate toward the longer focal lengths (105mm on an F3, 90mm on the M-mount). On the other hand, I have never been very successful with wide lenses on 'miniature' format cameras (by 'successful,' I mean making pictures I find interesting). I do own a 28mm M-mount (Zeiss Biogon) and have coverage in F-mount (18-35mm zoom after selling a 28mm AIS f/2.8), but these are my least used lenses.
YMMV
YMMV
back alley
IMAGES
If 35mm lenses give a wide field of view than isn't a 28mm lens better?
what does this even mean?
Gary Sandhu
Well-known
Yes,
Given wider is better,
Then 28 is better than 35
Because
28 is wider than 35.
Given wider is better,
Then 28 is better than 35
Because
28 is wider than 35.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Exactly.
By this logic, the best lens available is the 12mm Voigtländer.
Cheers,
R.
narsuitus
Well-known
If 35mm lenses give a wide field of view than isn't a 28mm lens better?
Better for what?
I find the 35mm focal length better than the 28mm (on a 35mm camera) for “street shooting” because the 28mm give me more distortion than I want.
I find my 35mm focal length better than my 28mm (on a 35mm camera) for shooting in dim light because my 35mm is an f/1.4 while my fastest 28mm is an f/2.8.
I find the 35mm focal length better when I am carrying 85mm and 180mm lenses.
I find the 28mm focal length better when I am carrying 50mm and 105mm lenses.
I find my 28mm focal length better than my 35mm (on a 35mm camera) for landscapes and architectural because I usually need the wider coverage, plus, my 28mm f/4 is a perspective control lens while my 35mm is not.
I find the 28mm focal length better (on a 35mm camera) for macro shots when mounted in reverse position on a bellow unit because I can get higher reproduction ratios than I can with the 35mm.
I find the 28mm focal length better than the 35mm (on a 35mm camera) when shooting in tight quarters.
ferider
Veteran
I usually carry a slow 28 and fast 35 - that combo is smaller than a fast 28.
28 can always be cropped to 35, without much loss.
28 can always be cropped to 35, without much loss.
Last edited:
maggieo
More Deadly
I've never gotten along with 35s much. It's not as in tight as a 50 and doesn't take in as much as a 28, so, to me, it always seems like it's a poor compromise between my main ways of seeing photographs.
Of course, all that changed on the M8, where 35 is the new 50 and 21 is the new 28.
Of course, all that changed on the M8, where 35 is the new 50 and 21 is the new 28.
Turtle
Veteran
I was lost at the beginning.
peter_n
Veteran
I'm lost at the end.
nrb
Nuno Borges
You'd better get both lenses.
aizan
Veteran
you need a 28mm. you cannot live without one. you are getting sleepy...so sleepy...
martin s
Well-known
You make it sound like a joke. Never ridicule the 28mm focal length.
In all seriousness - a 28 on a Leica is very close to what I consider photography heaven, one should at least give it a shot.
martin
maggieo
More Deadly
Absolutely. The Ultron 28/1.9 on my M4-P is a mighty machine for making pictures.
pagpow
Well-known
steve kessel
steve kessel
Thardy
Veteran
If 35mm lenses give a wide field of view than isn't a 28mm lens better?
I'm going through the very same thought process looking for a wide lens for my Canon slr.
Tompas
Wannabe Künstler
Yes, one would think so. But in fact it's the 25mm Voigtländer -- widest lens without a lot of distortion.
I consider a 50mm lens a telephoto lens.