Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
Oh, do shut up! Why does someone always come along and ruin a perfectly good theological argument by injecting reason into the discussion?
:angel:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Whereas I realized quite quickly that a 28mm is neither fish nor fowl: neither a 'wide standard' like a 35mm, nor a true wide angle like a 21mm.
Cheers,
R.
one90guy
Well-known
A 28 and 50 are my favorites, then a 135 in 35mm.
David
David
DNG
Film Friendly
For Street, I prefer a 24 or 28, although I use a 40/50 on occasions, but, the 24/28 are used more. a 24/50 is nice combo for me on my SLR
kokoshawnuff
Alex
35mm (typically with a 90mm) or 21mm with a 50mm...never liked the 28 field of view.
taxi38
Taxi Driver
What a fascinating thing to say,I'd be interested if you could go a little deeper.
arseniii
Well-known
35mm takes pictures that look like they were taken in mid 90s with P&S cameras (horrible time, by the way). If one is after this certain look then 35mm wins, hands down.
I voted 28mm. 50mm and 28mm that's all I have (need)
I voted 28mm. 50mm and 28mm that's all I have (need)
Bruno Gracia
Well-known
Roger Hicks
Veteran
An incisive analysis! Shame that more RFF members are unable to think as clearly. (Pity I don't do smileys)
Cheers,
R.
Exdsc
Well-known
Alex Webb (color) uses a 35mm and Daido Moriyama (B&W) uses a 28mm...
I'm just speculating but that is in fact one reason in some photographers focal length choice.
raytoei@gmail.com
Veteran
yeah...i just started liking the 35mm (from 50mm)...tried the 28mm canon, found it a bit too wide... well as someone once said, "Tame your 50mm", I take that to mean take my time to master one FL before trying too many at once...
35mm Goggled Summaron, Neopan 400@800.
35mm Goggled Summaron, Neopan 400@800.
dct
perpetual amateur
Do the math:
15mm * 1.8 ~28mm
28mm * 1.8 ~50mm
50mm * 1.8 ~90mm
90mm * 1.8 ~160mm
...
These are my RF (and SLR) lenses and so I voted for the 28.
Of course you could have started with a 12mm -> 21mm -> 40mm -> 75mm -> 135mm
Not a coincidence you see the Leica standard focal length replicated in these equations.
15mm * 1.8 ~28mm
28mm * 1.8 ~50mm
50mm * 1.8 ~90mm
90mm * 1.8 ~160mm
...
These are my RF (and SLR) lenses and so I voted for the 28.
Of course you could have started with a 12mm -> 21mm -> 40mm -> 75mm -> 135mm
Not a coincidence you see the Leica standard focal length replicated in these equations.
presspass
filmshooter
My ideal combo is a 21, 35, 75, and 135. That said, every time I take a 50, I enjoy using it and get shots I really like. I've tried the 28/50 combo, but for some reason it never really works for me. The 28 isn't a wide-wide like a 21 and it's too wide to be used in place of a normal, which a 35 can be in an emergency. Then there's the available light issue - several times a week, I shoot at 1.4 and there are no 28 1.4s available for rangefinders.
Gary Sandhu
Well-known
28,35 and 47-- those are the crops (well, not the 28) available on the ricoh GR with the latest firmware. The 47 gives 5.8 megapixels.
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
Currently using 15, 25 and 35 on the Bessa. Seems to work for me.
mrksgrn
on your lawn.
35 and 75 here.
I find a lack of intimacy with 28, mostly likely do to the distortion. 35 emulates the FOV of vision which is probably why it feels most natural to me.
I find a lack of intimacy with 28, mostly likely do to the distortion. 35 emulates the FOV of vision which is probably why it feels most natural to me.
judsonzhao
Well-known
I tend to have 2 bodies, one mounted with 35 one with 50
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I have 28mm for DSLR, but I didn't even tried it on FF. Not even once. Sold 35mm lens as well. Happy with 50 prime and normal zoom.
On RF side I have 35mm for close ups and wide. Looking at 28mm pictures and they are too wide for street photography for my taste. And some distortions are present on landscape, not my cup of tea either.
I don't mind to try it by myself but 28 RF lens costs the fortune, even ORION-15 is above $200 mark. Comparing to my SLR prime which is $60 and two times faster.
On RF side I have 35mm for close ups and wide. Looking at 28mm pictures and they are too wide for street photography for my taste. And some distortions are present on landscape, not my cup of tea either.
I don't mind to try it by myself but 28 RF lens costs the fortune, even ORION-15 is above $200 mark. Comparing to my SLR prime which is $60 and two times faster.
mretina
Well-known
I feel like 21/28 and 50mm do it for me when I walk about and have no specific photo in mind. They are focal lengths I find more comfortable in 'creating shots' and probably the shallower depth of field or the wider perspective help.
35mm I prefer when I know what i am going to take photos of and I plan to shoot only that event and/or subject, group of people, etc, and also I want to be able to take several pictures of the same subject without changing lens or camera.
Do not know if that makes sense.
35mm I prefer when I know what i am going to take photos of and I plan to shoot only that event and/or subject, group of people, etc, and also I want to be able to take several pictures of the same subject without changing lens or camera.
Do not know if that makes sense.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
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
Sometimes I carry just 35 and 50, other times I want 20/50/90, other times I want 24/50/135, etc. Lately with the M9 I've taken to carrying just 28 and 50. My current Nikon F kit is 18/50/85/105. My CL kit is 21/40/90. And so on.
There's no one answer to this. And yes: I do not like zooms in this range overall. I'd rather have two good primes.
Pick your poison and figure out how to make the most of it.
G