28 vs 35 mm

[rondo]

I understand your point. Of course under normal circumstances one would have to step in or step out to achieve the desirable composition, depending on the lens being used.

But if we want to prove the inadequacy of the russian-doll rectangles for describing different focal points, a fixed point of view will be necessary for this test.

if the purpose of the test is to show that one does't need a 35 mm, when you have a 28 available, one will have to shoot wider and crop and scale, and juxtapose the images to see the difference of the two-when shot from the same point.
Of course at the expense of resolution for the 28 mm lens as it will need to be scaled-up. (but that's another subject matter)

Basically what I am trying to say is the following: If I use my 28 mm with framelines of a 35, and I am ready to crop and lose resolution, how much of a difference will there be?

i really wish i had access to both lenses, but i don't...

 

[besk]

Both the 28 and 35 lenses can be very versitile - the 35 even more so.
I have both a 28/3.5 Cv and a 35/2.5 CV compact & use both.

In my use, however, I have found the 28/50 combo the most useful - for travel and otherwise. If the 28 is too wide then the 50 comes into play.

If it had to be just ONE lens to carry it would be the 35 however.

 

[ChrisC]

.... Its not just angle of view. The 'nested rectangle' analogy doesn't capture this idea of foreground/background relationship. .......... Some sort of spherical analogy might work better?

I agree. Those spacial relationships are very important to image construction, which is why 28mm images look quite different to 35mm images [aside from cramming more stuff in]. Curiously, I have been doing a lot of stitching images together from a 35mm lens on an M8, and often the image might represent a c. 140 - 180 degree angle width, and take in foreground from by-my-toes to high in the sky. These images have the spacial presence of 'standard lens [-ish]' angle of view images [which I love] rather than the spacial qualities of a super fisheye lens [which I dislike]. Strange but true.

............... Chris

 

[ebino]

28mm is not long enough and not wide enough, 24mm is a better option. 35mm is the perfect normal lens for shooting what you 'see'. 50mm is a zoom/long lens for me.

 

[Rob-F]

I think it's important to view each lens as part of a system, or series, and not in isolation. A good system can be 24/25; 35; 50; and 75. Another good system is 21, 28, 40, 75. Another idea is 24/25, 35, 50, and 90. I tend to select lenses for an outing with the idea of spacing them not too close and not too far apart. A three-lens outfit could be 28, 50, and 90.

 

[ferider]

Rob, the classic outfit might have been: slow 28, fast 35, 50, 90/85, because 28mm didn't come faster than f2.8 50 years ago.

 

[rondo]

This was supposed to be a technical discussion over the differences, and it ended up being "I like x better than y / horses for courses" kind of replies which the photo forums is full of...Too bad no one with the two lenses volunteered to do a simple test. Thanks anyway.

 

[Rob-F]

I think we have addressed your question pretty well, though there is not a consensus. Some find a substantial difference and described that difference; others saw little difference. For me, the difference is substantial, with the 28 giving a greater feeling of space and openness, and the 35 being more natural and "universal."

 

[Roger Hicks]

I rather like a 'doubling' set: 18, 35, 75, 135.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

This was supposed to be a technical discussion over the differences, and it ended up being "I like x better than y / horses for courses" kind of replies which the photo forums is full of...Too bad no one with the two lenses volunteered to do a simple test. Thanks anyway.

It's a simple test, sure enough. But it's also an hour's work, even with digital, just to satisfy someone else's curiosity. Find lenses; take not-too-dull picture; resize; post. Most of us (me included) just aren't that generous.

Cheers,

R.

 

[gekopaca]

When I shoot with R-D1 (X1,5 factor) I use very often 12 and 15mm (eq. 18 and 21mm) and 35 and 50mm (eq. 50 and 75mm) but I don't like my 28mm (eq 40mm) : I can't find a good frame with it, don't like the pictures I make with…
It's very stange, because with my Panasonic GH1 (X2 factor) I love my 20mm (eq.40mm) and I feel it really easy to frame.
Is it because one is Rf and the other one VF? I don't know.
About 14mm with GH1 (eq. 28mm) I feel it too "wise"; I prefer eq. 24mm or even 21mm (doesn't still exists for this camera).

 

[jsrockit]

This was supposed to be a technical discussion over the differences, and it ended up being "I like x better than y / horses for courses" kind of replies which the photo forums is full of...Too bad no one with the two lenses volunteered to do a simple test. Thanks anyway.

Man, just go to a store and try the two for yourself if that is all you wanted.

 

[rondo]

When I said I didn't have access to it, this would include camera stores too, I live in an other part of the world, where people order things from foreign countries-and are stuck with it. I should tell you that there are few fancy camera stores here (few of them lets you touch cameras, and when they do never with batteries in them-and forget about trying them with your flashdisks)
No one's problem other than mine of course...
In one of the posts above, I did volunteer to do the annoying and time consuming part of it, which must have escaped your attention.
What I requested was two photos with 28 and a 35 from the very same point, and share it here: I will do the necessary adjustment for resizing and overlapping. A digicam with a step zoom would have done it.
I know I was cordial and kind when I requested the help. I like RFF, because people are kind and helpful here, few negative replies won't change my mind.
Ready to take the blame: I guess I wasn't clear about it in my opening post, but not a particularly long thread...I mentioned it few posts later.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1473280&postcount=43

Thanks again.

 

[ferider]

When you take a tripod, take a 28mm photo (a), then a second 35mm photo (b) from the same point and at the same f-stop, the only (minuscule) differences between (a) cropped by 35/28=1.25 and (b) will be due to the specific lenses you use. Meaning, to do your "test", just take any 28mm photo from flickr and crop it in PS. Voila.

 

[jsrockit]

Do you have consumer electronics stores in your area? If so, they should have the Canon S90/95 which allows you to choose precise focal lengths with the dial around the lens barrel. This should help you.

 

[jsrockit]

Meaning, to do your "test", just take any 28mm photo from flickr and crop it in PS. Voila.

So simple yet I would have never thought of it.

 

[ferider]

Like this. Imagine one was taken by the CV 28/3.5 Color Skopar at around f5.6 or so (which it was), and the other by the 35/2.5 at the same f-stop (very similar lens in signature).

 

[rondo]

When you take a tripod, take a 28mm photo (a), then a second 35mm photo (b) from the same point and at the same f-stop, the only (minuscule) differences between (a) cropped by 35/28=1.25 and (b) will be due to the specific lenses you use. Meaning, to do your "test", just take any 28mm photo from flickr and crop it in PS. Voila.

Ferider,
thanks, but not following you, I'm afraid...I don't have the lenses, that's why I was asking...It is not that I am lazy to do it on my own.
Regarding cropping any 28 mm image from flickr: That's exactly what I am trying to see: is it the same thing or there are other lens characteristics that would change the simple math. I have a fixed lens 28 mm digicam. So I don't need flickr to implement your test.
What you are claiming is that, the image I posted at the opening post is correct. that it is simply a view angle difference. Many argued otherwise...
Thanks again,

 

[ebino]

When people begin to treat focal lengths as holy objects that one must conform to, they forget that the famous focal lengths such as 28/35/50/75 were simply "averages" of the best "compromise" for a focal length in a time when zoom lenses were not feasible yet.

 

[rondo]

Ferider,
I think distance of the object you are photographing is a factor here. In a landscape shot, I assume you will be right.
But if you are composing something few meters away from you, the difference will be more than angle of view.