rondo
Established
ok, this is a question about comparing angle of view between different focal lengths. you must have all seen the wide angle photograph with smaller rectangles drawn in...here is one that came up on google first:
supposedly each rectangle represents a longer lens..but difference is not limited to the covered view, there are other factors, such as distortion, depth of field etc...
my question is how would you characterize the difference between 28 mm and 35 mm other than the obvious angle of view difference...
i used 35 mm all my life and the 28 mm which i have been using for about 6 months looks and feels very different, or is it in my mind?
supposedly each rectangle represents a longer lens..but difference is not limited to the covered view, there are other factors, such as distortion, depth of field etc...
my question is how would you characterize the difference between 28 mm and 35 mm other than the obvious angle of view difference...
i used 35 mm all my life and the 28 mm which i have been using for about 6 months looks and feels very different, or is it in my mind?
Tim Gray
Well-known
Nope they are different. You get a bit more perspective 'distortion' in 28 which can make heads a bit funny shaped if you stick them in the corner. But it's a very useable focal length. My favorite.
filmfan
Well-known
A lot of people like the 28mm focal length. I personally prefer using the 35mm, but have seen many others use the 28mm with much success.
I think the difference in mm's become more apparent the wider you get. For example, I think there is a more noticeable difference between 28mm and 35mm than with 50mm and 57mm.
I think the difference in mm's become more apparent the wider you get. For example, I think there is a more noticeable difference between 28mm and 35mm than with 50mm and 57mm.
Matus
Well-known
Well - the width of the captured field of view (think of a wall at some given distance from you) is inversely proportional to the focal length. As 35/28 = 1.25 it means that 28 mm lens has 25% wider field of view than 35 mm lens.
If you would go the other way - 35 mm lens has 25 % wider view than 43 mm lens - suddenly much less of a difference. This becomes even stronger if you consider 25 - 35 - 50 lenses.
Now our feeling of the width of the view follows rather the formula for lenses 50 mm and longer, but wide lenses gives us view which can only be seen by us if we "look around" - what effectively cancels the distortions because you rotate the image plane as you move your eye. That is (I think) why wide angle lenses can give us very unrealistic views. We simply do not poses "wide angle eyes"
If you would go the other way - 35 mm lens has 25 % wider view than 43 mm lens - suddenly much less of a difference. This becomes even stronger if you consider 25 - 35 - 50 lenses.
Now our feeling of the width of the view follows rather the formula for lenses 50 mm and longer, but wide lenses gives us view which can only be seen by us if we "look around" - what effectively cancels the distortions because you rotate the image plane as you move your eye. That is (I think) why wide angle lenses can give us very unrealistic views. We simply do not poses "wide angle eyes"
The Meaness
Well-known
If you're shooting (framing) that 28 the same way your used your 35, you're standing closer to your subject(s). When you do that, the spacial relationship between objects change. You're probably used to the relationship objects have with one another at certain distances while using a 35, and now it's subtly different.
SimonSawSunlight
Simon Fabel
Well - the width of the captured field of view (think of a wall at some given distance from you) is inversely proportional to the focal length. As 35/28 = 1.25 it means that 28 mm lens has 25% wider field of view than 35 mm lens.
If you would go the other way - 35 mm lens has 25 % wider view than 43 mm lens - suddenly much less of a difference. This becomes even stronger if you consider 25 - 35 - 50 lenses.
Now our feeling of the width of the view follows rather the formula for lenses 50 mm and longer, but wide lenses gives us view which can only be seen by us if we "look around" - what effectively cancels the distortions because you rotate the image plane as you move your eye. That is (I think) why wide angle lenses can give us very unrealistic views. We simply do not poses "wide angle eyes"
oh, we do have wide angle eyes, the difference is that we do not have a focal 'plane' but rather a 'focal hemisphere'. that is why we do not see this kind of distortion. that and our brain is quite the manipulator, you know, we see things upside down
filmfan
Well-known
... our brain is quite the manipulator, you know, we see things upside down
This is correct.
I see so many on here say that 28mm and 35mm lenses are too close to each other and they only buy one or the other (i.e. they are interchangable), but I couldn't disagree more. I think it becomes more apparent when you are used to a certain focal length i.e. using a 35mm lens 99% of the time. It seems that those who swap focal lengths a lot or use zooms are not as sensitive to what they perceive to be the minor differences in focal lengths. I see a huge difference between 28mm to 35mm and from 35mm to 50mm.
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
the 28 is called the "landscape" lens, the 35 is not. I find it to be an accurate description. I shoot with the 35 because my primary subjects are people & groups of people..
Ah, I think you forgot the other reason... that the Zeiss 25mm lens is considered a great lens. Unfortunately for me, 25mm is only a 33mm on the M8 and I wear glasses so I can't see those framelines well. So, basically I'm stuck using a 28mm (37mm equiv) as my widest lens. Good thing that's my preference.
Last edited:
Tim Gray
Well-known
I find that 28 is perfect for the way I shoot people. It lets me interact with them from normal distances and get pictures that I find pleasing of one or more of them.
noimmunity
scratch my niche
I began shooting with a 28 (and 25), which I liked very much, but I'd heard for so long that 35 was more appropriate to people. I like 75 very very much for people, and 35 is always mentioned as the companion. But after several years I'm coming back to 28 (as I don't have a 25 anymore). 35 somehow seems in between for me, and hard to use. Always have too much space, or not enough. True, for people the advantage is that 35 doesn't present the challenge of perspective distortion at the edges. And in the 35 FL, the options are much greater than in 28. Yet 28 shouldn't at all be considered 'landscape' as opposed to 'people'!
yanidel
Well-known
For tall guys like me, a 28mm induces much more distortion than the 35mm as I have a tendency to point the camera downwards. That is the biggest difference to me.
ferider
Veteran
I used to think there was a big difference and that I was a "28mm person". I forced myself to use 35 for a few month - now I think there is hardly any difference.
1) you can always crop 28 to 35, unless there is a major speed difference. You will crop a 28 to 35 anyways when you crop to 8x10.
2) 28 is to 35 like 40 to 50 or 75 to 90.
Looking at the two focal length as very different is splitting hairs, IMO. Finding a 28/1.4, however, is very different matter
Roland.
1) you can always crop 28 to 35, unless there is a major speed difference. You will crop a 28 to 35 anyways when you crop to 8x10.
2) 28 is to 35 like 40 to 50 or 75 to 90.
Looking at the two focal length as very different is splitting hairs, IMO. Finding a 28/1.4, however, is very different matter
Roland.
Last edited:
MCTuomey
Veteran
Tall guy here. When I shoot a 28mm on full frame, I always have the urge to shoot sitting down. I prefer 35mm (or 28mm on the M8).
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
I used to think there was a big difference and that I was a "28mm person". I forced myself to use 35 for a few month - now I think there is hardly any difference.
1) you can always crop 28 to 35, unless there is a major speed difference. You will crop a 28 to 35 anyways when you crop to 8x10.
2) 28 is to 35 like 40 to 50 or 75 to 90.
Looking at the two focal length as very different is splitting hairs, IMO. Finding a 28/1.4, however, is very different matter
Roland.
I have to agree. I have both a 28 and 35. But I would never carry them both at the same time. I just don't find the difference to be significant enough to matter for 99 percent of what I shoot.
Tim Gray
Well-known
Agree with you ferider. I came to that conclusion that I prefer 28 more than 35 after a year of shooting mostly 35 with 50 as a companion. 35 and 50 were too close to me to use comfortably as a set all the time. So I sold the 35 and got a 28. I think 35 and 75 are also a great set.
back alley
IMAGES
a 28 is easier to shoot when using hyper focal distance.
if i were to agree with some of these comments i might think that i needed to sell my 28 and 50 and just shoot with the 40.
if i were to agree with some of these comments i might think that i needed to sell my 28 and 50 and just shoot with the 40.
Bruin
Noktonian
Some people think 35-40 or 50-58 are very different... it's a matter of feel more than the objective difference I think. I definitely notice the difference in space around the framelines between 28-35 and 35-50 and that makes me conscious of the particular FL I'm using, even if a few steps forward/back evens out the differences in the pic.
andredossantos
Well-known
Used to prefer 28mm to all. However, I got addicted to the 50mm for a while and now I much prefer 35mm to 28mm as a "moderate" wide. I don't perceive very much difference in practice only that perspctive distortion is definitely more evdent. I love and would much rather use a 25mm for wide and for some reason find it much more fun than 28mm. I find 25mm-35mm-50mm-90mm to be ideal for me.
Unfortunately I am without a 25mm at the moment and I sold my 28mm Biogon. Hoping to snap up a Zeiss 25mm ZM soon. That lens is ridonkulous.
Unfortunately I am without a 25mm at the moment and I sold my 28mm Biogon. Hoping to snap up a Zeiss 25mm ZM soon. That lens is ridonkulous.
Last edited: