28mm vs 35mm

28mm vs 35mm

  • 28mm

    Votes: 147 43.8%

  • 35mm

    Votes: 189 56.3%
  • Total voters
    336
21mm+ 50mm is a good set.
25mm+50mm is good too.
28mm+50mm is not bad at all
35mm alone is fine
50mm alone is fine
 
i am thinking and now i will probably go with the 28 for now and if i can find a fast 35 for a good price for my slr i will go ahead and get it as well. i tend to only shoot what i have in my hands so 35mm will be good for those days where i only take my camera. other days where im not worried about carrying around lenses i will take the 28mm, and 50mm or 35mm when i get one.

i think that getting both sorta helps band aid the "dilemma" a little but i think what i have taken away from this thread is that you can't really go wrong with either but they do serve slightly different purposes. thanks guys.
 
I found - that I still do not know: 35 / 50 is what I regularly have with me. Recently I tried an old ltm Canon 28 2.8 and am very pleased / stunned.
I also noticed that once I start shooting I do not like swapping lenses - yet I like to have a kind of plan B lens with me.
 
Merumeni said:
I found - that I still do not know: 35 / 50 is what I regularly have with me. Recently I tried an old ltm Canon 28 2.8 and am very pleased / stunned.
I also noticed that once I start shooting I do not like swapping lenses - yet I like to have a kind of plan B lens with me.
Click to expand...

I agree with this too; changing lenses interrupts the workflow. The problem is that while I love 28mm for landscapes/nature I don't really like it for people, whereas the 35mm can seem very natural for environmental portraits. Not saying 28mm is no good for this, of course, as loads of photographers have used 28mm successfully for portraits but it usually doesn't work well for me.
 
For landscapes and street shooting that encompasses a person's whole height, I like using 28, 25 or even 21.

If I'm out with friends and I want to see context across a dinner table, 35 works. 21-25-28 is a bit wide for that situation.

If I'm at an event like a birthday or party, with lots of people milling about, and I want to capture head and shoulders or even waist upwards, 50mm is good, and 75mm is better.
 
The thing about a 28mm or a 24/25 for that matter, is you really have two lenses to work with -- landscape orientation and portrait orientation. If you turn a 35 or a 50 upward to portrait position it doesn't feel so much that you've de-widened it, for lack of a better term. But a 28 in portrait position is a different feel from landscape. This sounds stupid and incoherent but I swear it isn't.... ok maybe it is but not for me, man.

And, one other thought -- I tend to prefer 35mm but people who say 28mm is not a street lens are ignoring a lot of awfully fine street photography. A LOT.
 
35mm will get you more keepers than any other focal length. That is if you're only interested in what is in front of you.
 
I've shot the vast majority of my film on 35mm lenses (or MF equiv). I find it a very pleasing aspect. But hey - use whatever you're happiest with. Personally, I find a 50mm difficult to get on with, as it's neither one thing nor another. I like 28mm for the lovely wide angle shots of landscape and shapes within urban landscape. I like 24mm for a play sometimes. But I'll keep coming back to a 35mm. It doesn't matter. If we all took the same photos all the time, it'd be pretty dull, wouldn't it?
 
on X-pro just got the 18 ...

on X-pro just got the 18 ...

So, shooting with an effective 28/50 combo now, I find myself going more and more to the 28 .....

Have the 15, but that is MUCH more a specialist range for me. Landscapes and such, or when I want to really distort.

I'd vote for 28/50 on 35mm, or maybe even 28/75, I find myself getting much closer or cropping the effective 50 to really get a portrait look from it!

Dave
 
28/50 combo is a winner, especially with small, light lenses.

For a one-lens solution, definitely a 35.

When I'm in Europe or South America, 28 in the street, and 50 for portraits. 35 was never really wide enough, or tight enough.
 
As some others mentioned, you might consider going wider than 28mm if you want a 2 lens combo that you can extend over time. My reasoning on this is that 28/50 make a nice combo but if you expand over time you may want a wide that can also work with a 35mm. a 21/35 works nicely and 21/50 also works for me. 24 would also work. 28 is too close to 35 to be used as a combo in my opinion, as is 35/50.
I tend to use 28/50/135 and 20/35/85 on SLR although my combos vary deepening on things like amount of light and whether I need AF.
On rangefinder my wides are a 21mm and 15mm and a 90mm telephoto which I combine with a 35 or 50.

I used to prefer shooting 50mm but I do like the 35mm/85mm combo as my SLR 35 and 85s are probably my favourites (1970s thorium glass 35mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.4 afd). It did take me quite a lot of persistence to get comfortable with the 35mm.
 
For me its not actually about the field of view, its more about the perspective the 35 gives. I do find it more acurate of what I percive. Thats why my camera cap is a 35.

I do use a 50 and also wider ones. But they are just not my regular lenses.
 
I found I have more keepers with 28mm but I believe the reason is just for quite a long while, I had only got cameras with 28/40/45 focal length and somehow I have got used to 28+40 for street.

Then I get a 35mm and it is very useful for street too. This 28 vs 35 vote result will tell us people's preference, rather which is 'better'.

Ok I should do the vote now 🙂
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom