21 or 28 for wide angle?

[jbot]

(Sorry if this is already posted, I tried to search but couldn't find anything).

So I shoot with a 35 mostly. I'm thinking I'd really like to add a wider angle to my arsenal. I shoot street photography almost exclusively.

I'm debating whether to get a 28 or a 21. Here are my thoughts.

21 would be great for very close candid portraits (think Bruce Gilden) and theatrical shots where there is a full scene. But it is SO wide, I'm not sure if it's too wide. The 28 is wider than the 35, will allow me to get nice shots of scenes with context and I find it a bit easier to compose well with a narrower lens. It may be a bit too similar to the 35 though.

Help me make my decision?

 

[wafflecakee]

If you're going to shoot wide, then go wide. 21 all the way.

 

[benmacphoto]

Well, I enjoy both focal lengths but went with 21mm.
I felt the 28mm was a little to close to 35mm.

 

[mdarnton]

I have them all, and find 24mm to be the best compromise. It's really personal, though. To me, a 28mm is normal, 21 a bit too wide except for when I want to make a point, and 24 sort of makes both possible.

 

[jbot]

I felt the 28mm was a little to close to 35mm.

I think you're probably right.

I have them all, and find 24mm to be the best compromise. It's really personal, though. To me, a 28mm is normal, 21 a bit too wide except for when I want to make a point, and 24 sort of makes both possible.

That's a good point. I will add this to my consideration.

 

[helen.HH]

another VOTE for the 21
Purely Subjective of course, but I find 21mm easier to 'SEE' than the 28
21 is Effortless for Me ...28 I'm too Conscious

 

[Archlich]

I use 28 and 35: the later for "description", the former when I feel like to "dive in", while not giving it away to the dramatic perspective. They never are "too close", but completely different. I personally feel uncomfortable to work with anything longer or shorter than these two, except maybe a 40.

Painfully learning to operate a 50 though, been a long fan of the focal length but found it exceptionally hard to master.

Everyone's gotta have some personal preference. Just a matter of taste.

 

[ottluuk]

28 goes well with 50, but is pretty close to 35.

Either get rid of the 35 and substitute with 28 or add a 21 and check out what Jeanloup Sieff did with 21.

BTW, I think Gilden uses a 28 most of the time. His older stuff of mafia/yakuza thugs is totally awesome, his newer work of flashing random people in the face... not so much. YMMV.

 

[Fotohuis]

28 goes well with 50, but is pretty close to 35.

Either get rid of the 35 and substitute with 28

Yes, for this type of photography I find 28mm a perfect solution.
But I never had a 35mm.

My WA lenses are:
15mm, 28mm and then 50mm and for tele 75mm on my M7 0,58.

 

[BobYIL]

Tested and used 21 and 28mm decades ago and figured out that the best compromise for me while having a 35mm is 24mm. For more than two decades 24mm (Nikon) has covered probably 80% of my tour shots, today my favorite "wider" for the M-bodies is the Biogon 25/2.8.

21mm has much stretch toward corners once the optical axis is off horizontal whereas with the 24/25mm it really is less disturbing although the horizontal coverage angle difference is less than 8 degrees.

 

[jbot]

Tested and used 21 and 28mm decades ago and figured out that the best compromise for me while having a 35mm is 24mm. For more than two decades 24mm (Nikon) has covered probably 80% of my tour shots, today my favorite "wider" for the M-bodies is the Biogon 25/2.8.

21mm has much stretch toward corners once the optical axis is off horizontal whereas with the 24/25mm it really is less disturbing although the horizontal coverage angle difference is less than 8 degrees.

I'm starting to think you are right. I may end up getting the 25mm f/4 for my R4A.

 

[Moriturii]

Don't EVER ask this question to any ever in your life again. You make up your own mind as to which one you want, why should you be influenced by other peoples superfluous opinion? What other people like should mean NOTHING to you. Don't let other people wipe your bum.

 

[Fotohuis]

Just a quick potrait with the Elmarit 2,8/28mm in Germany.

 

[migtex]

IMHO you better go with a 21 option (angle of +- 80 degrees horizontal), the 28 it's too close from the 35.

 

[Fotohuis]

I may end up getting the 25mm f/4 for my R4A.

Well the RF coupling goes to 21mm with this RF (R4A). The M7 till 28mm but 25mm or 21mm is too wide for any portrait use.

 

[jbot]

Don't EVER ask this question to any ever in your life again. You make up your own mind as to which one you want, why should you be influenced by other peoples superfluous opinion? What other people like should mean NOTHING to you. Don't let other people wipe your bum.

What makes you think asking other people and making my own decision are mutually exclusive? If I wanted to travel to Japan, would you expect me to just sit at home and think about it until I buy my ticket? Or should I ask friends that have been to Japan what it's like there?

 

[mdarnton]

but 25mm or 21mm is too wide for any portrait use.

Well, sort of depends...
24mm:


Roz and letters by Michael Darnton, on Flickr

 

[Fotohuis]

Well, sort of depends...

Do you have an example in 21mm too? Then you've answered my statement completely.

 

[Darthfeeble]

I had the same problem, couldn't decide so I picked the middle and got a ZM 25. Happy compromise. S

 

[Rob-F]

I have them all, and find 24mm to be the best compromise. It's really personal, though. To me, a 28mm is normal, 21 a bit too wide except for when I want to make a point, and 24 sort of makes both possible.

That is exactly what I was going to say.