28 vs 35 mm

[bwcolor]

I'm addicted to the Zeiss 35mm f/2.8C. I can't say that I don't like my CV 28mm f/2.0, but I only use it 10% of the time. After reading this thread, I'm going to try to give the 28mm another try. Only thing that I don't like from above is the idea of cropping a 28mm to give the feel of a 35mm. Cropping and 35mm film just don't belong in the same sentence.

 

[FrankS]

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.

It may even out the size of the primary subject in the foreground, but the spacial relationship with the background will be noticeably different. In the 28mm shot, the background elements will be smaller (relative to the foreground elements) and will appear to be farther away from the camera and the foreground elements, than in the 35mm shot.

It about more than just field of view. It's about perspective.

 

[Jamie Pillers]

YES!! Its not just angle of view. The 'nested rectangle' analogy doesn't capture this idea of foreground/background relationship. The nested rectangles are better at explaining the crop factor of digital sensors than the difference in focal length optics. Some sort of spherical analogy might work better?

 

[Rob-F]

For me, it's not either/or; I use both. The 28mm adds more feeling of air & space. The 35mm is my "Natural vision" focal length. The 35 also makes it easy to judge the width of coverage: the picture will cover an image width the same as the distance from camera to subject.

Edit: I use both, but not necessarily on the same day.

 

[John Robertson]

Always had a soft spot for 28mm, this was my first ever interchangeable lens in 1965!!
a 28mm Orion 15 for my Fed2. Still have them both!!

 

[kossi008]

I have to agree. I have both a 28 and 35. But I would never carry them both at the same time.

Exactly. I have and love both. The 35 mm is my favorite single focal length, but the 28/50 makes a great combo with a lot more versatility.

I guess it's preference and use: I probably only like the 28 mm because for decades, it was the the only wide-angle I owned.

 

[patrickhh]

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.

Field of view is actually proportional to the arcustangens of d/2f, but in the range of "normal" focal lengths it's in fact almost linear. If you do the math, you will find a difference of 20% instead of 25%. I'm just nitpicking here, agree with the rest of your post. 🙂

 

[Arjay]

Hm - this discussion sounds a little academic to me. Sure, you can compare FOV and depth of perspective, but the real beef is in practical use:

I use both focal lengths for street photography. Since I strive to capture pictures with people playing a prominent role, I tend to choose focal length depending on how close I will be to the people around me.

In normal street shooting situations such as a moderately crowded street, people in Europe have a 'comfort zone' with a diameter of 3 to 4 m (9 to 12 ft). This leads me to choose a 35mm focal length, and allows me to shoot in a fairly relaxed way since I don't have to worry too much about perspective distortion.

In tighter quarters such as on a fair or in mass gatherings, people tend to flock together more closely. Consequently, I will be much closer to them since their 'comfort zone' under these conditions will only be 2 to 3m at best (6 to 9ft). Here, the logical choice will be 28mm, if I still want to be able to work reasonably fluidly. I will, however, have to pay much more attention to keeping my camera level in order to avoid perspective distortion.

 

[Turtle]

Very different in use. 35 is natural, whereas 28 is the first FL to really introduce 'dynamism.' 24 more so and 21 and beyond are 'extreme' in the perspective distortion and shaping of spatial relationships.

You can go out with a 35 and be screaming for a 28. I was today. Still, I made the 35 work. I opted out of regular use of my 28 for a 24, but I did not have it with me.

28 allows you to get close and make a subject prominent in the frame, while including quite large objects further back (as they are shrunk in size). with 35 you can't do that nearly so well, but you can gain a bit more 'stand off' distance.

I decided a 24mm lens on a 0.58 body was a better compliment to my anchor FL, which is 35mm (on a 0.72) but were I not to have the 24 I would certainly bother to carry a 28 with me, because there is quite a difference in use between 28 and 35 IMHO.

 

[ferider]

It may even out the size of the primary subject in the foreground, but the spacial relationship with the background will be noticeably different. In the 28mm shot, the background elements will be smaller (relative to the foreground elements) and will appear to be farther away from the camera and the foreground elements, than in the 35mm shot.

It about more than just field of view. It's about perspective.

Cropped by 20% the perspective of a 28mm shot is the same as a 35mm one.

Funny, many RFF users file their 40mm (actually 43mm) Nokton to use with 35mm framelines. At the same time 28 and 35mm lenses are considered vastly different. Both result pretty much in the same FOV/perspective difference and for one it matters and for the other it doesn't. 🙂

 

[Roger Hicks]

Very different in use. 35 is natural, whereas 28 is the first FL to really introduce 'dynamism.' 24 more so and 21 and beyond are 'extreme' in the perspective distortion and shaping of spatial relationships.

You can go out with a 35 and be screaming for a 28. I was today. Still, I made the 35 work. I opted out of regular use of my 28 for a 24, but I did not have it with me.

28 allows you to get close and make a subject prominent in the frame, while including quite large objects further back (as they are shrunk in size). with 35 you can't do that nearly so well, but you can gain a bit more 'stand off' distance.

I decided a 24mm lens on a 0.58 body was a better compliment to my anchor FL, which is 35mm (on a 0.72) but were I not to have the 24 I would certainly bother to carry a 28 with me, because there is quite a difference in use between 28 and 35 IMHO.

That's one way of looking at it. Personally, insofar as I understand your point about 'dynamism' (and I think I do), the 24/25 is where I see that. To me, a 28 is neither one thing nor the other. But it's a intensely personal choice.

As for 28mm as a landscape lens (not your point -- someone else raised it earlier) I can't see it at all. Too much foreground, not enough scenery. In my book, Leica got it right with the 105/6.3 Mountain Elmar.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Cropped by 20% the perspective of a 28mm shot is the same as a 35mm one.

True (assuming the same viewpoint), but without the crop, there's a lot more foreground around the edges, which is what we perceive as 'extreme' perspective.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Ted2001]

I've never been a fan of 35 - 55mm focal lengths - too "normal". With film SLRs I used 20/28/55macro/105/200 and never wanted a 35. With Contax G2 I bought the 16/21/28/35/45/90 lenses and rarely used the 35, 45 or 16.

I like it when my camera "sees" things that aren't apparent to my eye. Wide angle lenses (28 and wider) provide a perspective that's wider than I "see"; 90/105 isolates an element; longer gives foreshortening, while macro explores a different view altogether. These add a dramatic element that I don't find with 35-55mm focal lengths.

 

[Turtle]

As you say it all personal. One man's 'neither one thing nor another' is another's perfect compromise.

I know you prefer longer lenses for landscape work, but the 28 (35mm) 40-50mm (645) 50/65 (6x7-6x9) and 90 (5x4) are the most hammered lenses for landscape use, from what I see online and in books. Whether one decides to go one wider and one longer (like the 75mm and 110 for 5x4) is personal once again, but the only environment I see people regularly using much longer lenses is in the mountains and in wide valleys with distant scenes. In such an environment, the 210-450 lenses in 5x4 seem to be very popular, which is about 75 to 150 in 35mm. Take Joe Cornish, Sexton, Wimberley, AA, Alan Ross etc. When not shooting mountainscapes, you can bet those 24/28/35 equivalents are accounting for the vast majority of their images. Roman Loranc is one who shoots very heavily on a longer lens - in his case a 210mm on 5x4 - so roughly the 75mm on 35mm.

By dynamism, I meant where the focal length can be seen to be having a direct visual affect in shaping the structure of the image (convergence, perspective distortion etc). With 28mm I think this is beginning to emerge, but agree if is subtle compared to even a 24. Maybe this is part of the reason for its popularity; it does not scream 'wide' right into your eyeballs. Its also the reason I went for 24 in the end, though I can shoot all day with a 28 on its own.

That's one way of looking at it. Personally, insofar as I understand your point about 'dynamism' (and I think I do), the 24/25 is where I see that. To me, a 28 is neither one thing nor the other. But it's a intensely personal choice.

As for 28mm as a landscape lens (not your point -- someone else raised it earlier) I can't see it at all. Too much foreground, not enough scenery. In my book, Leica got it right with the 105/6.3 Mountain Elmar.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Tim Gray]

Funny, many RFF users file their 40mm (actually 43mm) Nokton to use with 35mm framelines. At the same time 28 and 35mm lenses are considered vastly different. Both result pretty much in the same FOV/perspective difference and for one it matters and for the other it doesn't. 🙂

The same argument could pretty much be used for the 35 and 50 difference, but plenty of people claim that they need both. Also, it seems like less people do that now that there is a 35 Nokton available.

I don't really find 28 and 35 to be THAT different. I just prefer the wider one more. It matches up with 50 better in my mind, which I prefer over 75.

I often find it easier to take a step forwards that take a step backwards. When space is tight, I really appreciate having the bit extra wideness that 28 has over 35.

As I stated earlier, using a 28 lets me interact with people from a normal distance and get shots of them interacting together and with their environment without isolating them too much. If I want some isolation, 50 is good. For my purposes, 35 is too in between for this. I'd have to move forward to get the isolation I might desire (which is sometimes prevented by the .7m limitation), and I'd have to move backwards to get all that I want in the scene, which might be enough to remove me from the situation. My thinking on this stuff came about after using predominately 35mm for a year, thinking it was 'my' focal length.

Here's a visual example. We were eating dinner together. I wanted both of them in the shot. Had I had a 35, I would have had to have gotten up out of my chair. No longer would I have been eating with them and taking a snap; no, I would have been 'taking a serious picture'.


al and mike by ezwal, on Flickr

 

[photogdave]

You're all wrong.

 

[photogdave]

Well don't just fart in the elevator and step off...

I'm sorry!
You're all wrong. Please excuse me. 😀

 

[presspass]

It also depends on how fast a lens you need. 28s only go to 2.0 while 35s can be 1.4 or 1.2. If speed doesn't matter, pick the lens you're most comfortable with. I use a 28 in a three-lens kit (also 50 and 90), while the 35 is handy with a 75.

 

[rondo]

thanks to all for the discussion...now, would i be asking too much if someone used a 35 and a 28 from the very same vantage point and provided two photographs here.
I'll do the rescaling-juxtaposing-cropping etc...
thanks again for the answers.

 

[FrankS]

What is needed are 3 photos. 2 taken from the same position, one with the 35 and the other with the 28, then a third photo with the 28 taken closer to a main forground subject so that the foreground subject is the same size as it is in the photo taken with the 35mm lens. This last photo will demonstrate the difference between the 2 lenses.