28mm, or step back with 35mm?

Remember,
you ALWAYS have a step FORWARD but NOT ALWAYS a step back...
Nothing else to say, I'd prefer the 28 but I know too the 35 to be a gem.
 
I'm a wide angle fan and the most Tele lenses i got are two 90/2 1960's version :D
I love Summaron 28/5.6 so much that i bought 3 of em, until I discovered 28/6.3!
If i want to describe three 28mm lenses from leica (Hektor 28/6.3, Summaron 28/5.6 and 28/2.8ASPH) i would say Poetic, Romantic & Realistic. I think of 35mm as a normal lens and 50mm as a select-n-crop tool for better compositions. but my Platinum setup for wide is MDa + SBKOO + SuperAngulon 21/3.4 (all chrome).
 
Before my Leica-M system, the Ricoh GRD2 used to be my prime cam. Therefore I was pretty used to a 28, and for me the true "wide" started from 24 (the Natura Black F1.9).

Then when I got into the Leica-M system, my prime became 35 and 50, which to use depending on where and what I was shooting. That was also when I found 28 an interesting FL:

35, 40 & 50 are all "crops from what my eyes see"
24 & wider are, well, true "wide"

28 is close to 35, but instead of a "direct crop from what my eyes see", it shrinks the world a little bit to put it into the frame. That starts to bring a little "artificial story telling" sense into the photo.

So, for me, the 28 is not just stepping back with 35. And that's why I still love my Ricoh GRD2 and Minolta TC-1.

My 0.02.
 
Do you always have time to step back ?

Do charts exist where you can see the distance you need to place yourself from an object to get the same object size (not perspective) in the finder ? Obviously it will vary on the subject size, but let's imagine a truck (Jeep).
 
Rob-F said:
Think of a lens as part of a lens system. Then the question is, "What other lens(es) will I also carry, and how apart in focal length do I want them to be." If you want to also carry a 35, then a 28 may seem too close in focal length to bother with (I don't feel that way). I think the ideal set would be one where each focal length is 1.414 (the square root of 2) times the last one. That way, each next-shorter lens covers exactly twice the area of the next-longer one. An example of lenses spaced exactly this way would be 25-35-50-70-100. In practical Leica M terms, an approximation would be 24-35-50-75. An alternative set would be 21-28-40 (a good start, but there is no 56mm lens to fill the next step; though 75mm would fill the step after that.)
Click to expand...
You 1.414 factor got me thinking a couple of days (not always ;)). I found this approach interesting to put a mathematical formula and reasoning (doubling the picture area) to a lens system. Therefore I used it and came up what it would give on the RD1 (with the 1.53) crop factor. So if you take the full CV line up, the progression that matches better your formula is the following :
12 - 15 - 21 - 28 - 40 - 50 - 75 - 90 - 135. Trimming it down to a travel kit of 5 lenses :
15 - 21 - 28 - 40 - (50 or 90).
That is exactly what I have been using. So you helped me put a mathematical logic behind my choices, thanks ! (not that it is going to help my picture taking, but at least I know how to explain it :D)
 
yanidel said:
Do you always have time to step back ?

Do charts exist where you can see the distance you need to place yourself from an object to get the same object size (not perspective) in the finder ? Obviously it will vary on the subject size, but let's imagine a truck (Jeep).
Click to expand...



This very point bring us to the concept of knowing your lens rather than worrying about charts. Even with mathematical calculations, coverage width relative to distance from a subject is probably a more useful guide. Especially with a prime, if you really know its angle of coverage - and that takes a lot of regular usage - then if youre aware of your surroundings and potential shots forming, you know where to place yourself before you even lift the camera to your eye. 35mm lens on film (or whatever your digi equivalent is) are great for this judging as the width of coverage, on the long side was equal to the distance from the subject.
 
craygc said:
This very point bring us to the concept of knowing your lens rather than worrying about charts. Even with mathematical calculations, coverage width relative to distance from a subject is probably a more useful guide. Especially with a prime, if you really know its angle of coverage - and that takes a lot of regular usage - then if youre aware of your surroundings and potential shots forming, you know where to place yourself before you even lift the camera to your eye. 35mm lens on film (or whatever your digi equivalent is) are great for this judging as the width of coverage, on the long side was equal to the distance from the subject.
Click to expand...
Agree but no in all cases and depends of your surroundings. Paris has very tiny streets and large avenues. Many shots cannot be taken by just moving yourself. For example, street will be done with 35mm but street where you merge people and building is more of a 25mm, especially in the old Paris. Markets, museums and events probably with a 50mm while far compressed views and portraties will be better with a 90mm.
As for worrying about charts, this is just intellectual curiosity :rolleyes:as I like mathematics, it does not influence the shooting but it did help building the lens system. Once done, as you mentionned, regular usage is the way to control distances.
 
I'm a 50mm, sometimes 35mm person and somehow I just can't get on at all with 28mm lenses. To me, it seems both too wide and not wide enough.

I guess it's just personal preference, but it surprises me how strongly I dislike 28mm. Then again, I find 85mm to be scarily long so maybe I'm just strange.
 
Its a hard question to answer without knowing what kind of photography you do. If its a lot of interiors, the 28 is better. For environmental portraits, it might have some advantages as long as you don't get too close. As a general purpose lens, ie for travel, the 35 is better. Its also better for street. Id take the 35 because its the widest view that doesnt have the wide angle look. And yet you can still use it like a wide angle by positioning people/objects in the foreground to give them some prominence. Its also easier to throw the background a little out of focus with a 35 - especially if it's f2 or faster. Overall, Id go for the 35.
 
Personally, I'd prefer 35mm over 28mm FOV.

I feel it is more versatile with a 35mm FOV, since I can step backwards for a 28mm FOV, or step forwards for a 50mm FOV.
 
desire said:
Personally, I'd prefer 35mm over 28mm FOV.

I feel it is more versatile with a 35mm FOV, since I can step backwards for a 28mm FOV, or step forwards for a 50mm FOV.
Click to expand...

But FOV is only part of the equation, spacial rendering is just as important when considering which lens to choose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom