28mm vs 35mm

28mm vs 35mm

  • 28mm

    Votes: 147 43.8%

  • 35mm

    Votes: 189 56.3%
  • Total voters
    336
*chris

*chris

Established
Local time
11:58 AM
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
84
hi guys along with my rf i have a slr camera and am interested in picking up something to go with my 50mm. i had a wide angle lens in mind so the 28mm seemed to be my first choice. i am wondering if you guys can post why you favor one over the other. thanks. i mostly shoot around town,nature, at events and sometimes my friends. so i guess a good all around lens is what im looking for too (aka 35mm ;))
 
I think 35mm is my ideal wide angle. Any wider without going into UWA and I don't like it. I realize 50 and 35 are close, but since I like this focal range the best the additional fine grain that I can distinguish helps.

Unfortunately I have not found an SLR 35mm I really like. The stinkin distagon is HUGE.
 
What do you like to shoot? I prefer 35 to 28 for street, but use 28 more often for landscapes and interiors. How close do you want to be to your subject? With a 35, you can get a person's entire body in the frame from about 10 feet. With a 28, you need to move in closer. There is also a noticable difference in perspective between 35 and 28. With a 50, I tend to pack a 28, but will take a 35 along with a 50 if I'm going to be shooting street mostly.
 
Bingley said:
What do you like to shoot? I prefer 35 to 28 for street, but use 28 more often for landscapes and interiors. How close do you want to be to your subject? With a 35, you can get a person's entire body in the frame from about 10 feet. With a 28, you need to move in closer. There is also a noticable difference in perspective between 35 and 28. With a 50, I tend to pack a 28, but will take a 35 along with a 50 if I'm going to be shooting street mostly.
Click to expand...

how much closer are we talking when using a 28mm vs a 35mm? if i am going to be shooting people occasionally i don't want to have to get in their face with the camera but if it's more like a couple feet closer i don't think it'll matter because i usually know the people i take pictures of. im going to try and look at more pictures shot with 28mm and 35mm. im leaning a little towards 28mm at the moment
 
Disregarding the bias of my name, get the 28mm. It's great for indoors shots when you want to include multiple friends.
 
35mm. I don't find it too close to 50 at all. And I don't know about 28mm for people shots, a bit too wide IMO.
 
It amounts to this... the 35mm FL is tailored to a lazy eye. The 28mm (and 50mm) FL is tailored to a trained eye. You must make the choice... which eye you need to be.
 
i guess the reason i am leaning towards the 28mm is because i am wanting something different in comparison to the 50mm and 42mm i have shot at. plus i don't think getting closer to a subject if i need to will be much of a problem for me.
 
35mm and 28mm are two different beasts to tame.
The 35 was easier for me, but I discovered the 28 and like it too.
My advice, ask yourself what photography you like and would like to produce.

Also: 35mm allows you to get f/2 quite easily (only two 28 f/2 I know of, and they are both a serious compromise). If you need indoor, and 400 ISO, it may be an important difference.
 
sanmich said:
35mm and 28mm are two different beasts to tame.
The 35 was easier for me, but I discovered the 28 and like it too.
My advice, ask yourself what photography you like and would like to produce.

Also: 35mm allows you to get f/2 quite easily (only two 28 f/2 I know of, and they are both a serious compromise). If you need indoor, and 400 ISO, it may be an important difference.
Click to expand...

im glad you brought that up as i do shoot 400 iso so the faster lens may prove to be worthy in those sorts of situations. i'm also seeing that the 35mm is just wide enough to get some background into portrait-ish shots which i like. seems like it brings more context to the picture if that makes sense :confused:
 
If indoor is a important part of the game, I would choose 28mm.
I found the 35mm FOV too tight for indoors.
 
I think that whether you go for a 28mm or a 35mm depends upon a number of factors but perhaps most of all whether you are comfortable with wide angles. They have a number of characteristics that set them apart from "normal" lenses and the wider you go, the more marked those characteristics become. I find that when shooting WA there is an awful lot of foreground to contend with. I struggle to deal with that (and dealing with it usually means getting closer) otherwise there can be a lot of empty real estate at the font bottom of my images. The other thing I struggle with is the tendancy of WA lenses to make the background look further away from the main subject. This can be a problem with the wrong subject and of course is particularly an issue with human faces as it distorts them and makes them look less natural. And of course on both counts, a 28mm has these characteristics in trumps compared with the 35mm (and much less than say a 20mm) . But if you can handle these issues and your style of photography supports it, then go for it. The other issue this gives rise to is what type of photography you mainly do. A 28mm may be essential if you habitually shoot groups in tight indoor settings for example. These are all questions for you to consider. If you decide you want a 28mm for your Leica M (is that what we are talking about?) then I would recommend the Voigtlander 28mm f2 Ultron. Its sharp has few serious flaws and is competitively priced. Also many shooters find that if their main lens is a 50mm 35mm is too close to it to really be worthwhile. Finally if you are shooting a digital say an M8 a 35mm on a cropped sensor delivers the same image as a 50mm on a full frame. This strengthens many peoples' tendency to select a 28mm as their main WA lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom