35mm lenses vs 28mm lenses

kshapero said:
If 35mm lenses give a wide field of view than isn't a 28mm lens better?🙄
Click to expand...

I guess he meant (joking):

If 35mm lenses give a wide field of view, then isn't a 28mm lens better?

No, it's just a bit wider, and offers a bit more "wide" feeling for close subjects' volume related to general and background volume...

Although this is very subjective, the 28 focal length is considered a real wideangle, and the 35 a wide normal.

I feel they're different enough as for owning both...

Cheers,

Juan
 
I'm 99% sure that this one was with a telephoto. Were you being sarcastic?

aizan said:
you need a 28mm. you cannot live without one. you are getting sleepy...so sleepy...

abell-branding-031407.jpg
Click to expand...
 
Actually, the best wide angle lens is one with a negative number as its focal length. Either it photographs the back of your head, images every scene as if it were on the inside of a sphere, or produces a point-light-source containing an infinite amount of information. I can't remember which.

Ben Marks

Ben Marks
 
The very best (real) lens of all is the 6mm f/5.6 Nikkor, with it's 220 degree angle of view. There is no way to get your toes out of a shot with one of those. In fact it often gets your knees as well.
 
narsuitus said:
Better for what?

I find the 35mm focal length better than the 28mm (on a 35mm camera) for “street shooting” because the 28mm give me more distortion than I want.

I find my 35mm focal length better than my 28mm (on a 35mm camera) for shooting in dim light because my 35mm is an f/1.4 while my fastest 28mm is an f/2.8.

I find the 35mm focal length better when I am carrying 85mm and 180mm lenses.

I find the 28mm focal length better when I am carrying 50mm and 105mm lenses.

I find my 28mm focal length better than my 35mm (on a 35mm camera) for landscapes and architectural because I usually need the wider coverage, plus, my 28mm f/4 is a perspective control lens while my 35mm is not.

I find the 28mm focal length better (on a 35mm camera) for macro shots when mounted in reverse position on a bellow unit because I can get higher reproduction ratios than I can with the 35mm.

I find the 28mm focal length better than the 35mm (on a 35mm camera) when shooting in tight quarters.
Click to expand...
My point exactly
 
Juan Valdenebro said:
That looks like a moderate wide slightly cropped just at subject's hand reach...

Cheers,

Juan
Click to expand...

Hi Juan,
Sam Abell has said in interviews that he uses the 28 and 90 for most shots, and it doesn't seem like a 28. He also said that while taking this photo, he was waiting for the red bucket to be at the edge of the frame, so it seems as though he didn't crop it. With the perspectives of the cowboys in the background, it seems like a 90mm to me. I could be wrong!
 


Widelux F7 on 160 Ektapress








I posted a couple of sample images for your viewing pleasure.

Wider isn't better, it's ... wait for it ... wider 😛, that's all.

The last couple of days I've been shooting with my 35 1.4 Summilux and leaving my 28 1.9 Voigtlander in the bag. A couple of weeks ago I was really favouring the 28 1.8's ebb and flow. I agree that they're different enough to make it worthwhile owning both. Which one's better? :bang:



28 1.9 Voigtlander on Leica M7 on Ektapress 100




35 1.4 Summilux on Leica MP on XP2

Gregory
 
Last edited:
lic4 said:
Hi Juan,
Sam Abell has said in interviews that he uses the 28 and 90 for most shots, and it doesn't seem like a 28. He also said that while taking this photo, he was waiting for the red bucket to be at the edge of the frame, so it seems as though he didn't crop it. With the perspectives of the cowboys in the background, it seems like a 90mm to me. I could be wrong!
Click to expand...

It totally looks like a 28 to me, including the bucket's distortion, the depth of field, and the "apparent" distance of the central subjects, which -as usual with wides- are clearly close if we look at the grass... A 90, for getting those subjects in the foreground, should be used from a considerable distance, and wouldn't have such a deep DOF... But especially the general space look, not flat but full of volume, is -to me- that of a wideangle...

Cheers,

Juan
 
Goldilocks tried the 28mm. "OOH this one is too wide." Then she tried the 50mm: "This one is too tight! Finally, she tried the 35mm: Ooh, this one is just right!

For me, 35mm is the "natural vision" focal length. It often takes in what I expect, based on my own vision. That's not to say that wider lenses don't have their uses. The 28mm gives a sense of air and space that you don't get with 35mm and longer. And I find a 24mm easy to use, and it does not call attention to itself for being a wide-angle lens.
 
At first I never thought I'd need anything wider than a 50 for my street photography. Then I got a 35, cos HK can get crowded.
Last week on the MTR I was convinced I needed a 28. Or even 25.

…now I need an LTM camera.
 
pagpow said:
Here we go again -- situational judgments! We need more absolutes.😉
Click to expand...

My response may be situational but so is the original question, “If 35mm lenses give a wide field of view than isn't a 28mm lens better?” It begins with the situation where wider is implied to be better. Then argues that since 28mm is wider than 35mm then 28mm is better than 35. If we accept the premise that wider is better as an absolute, then there is no argument--wider is better, 28mm is wider than 35mm, therefore 28mm is better than 35mm. End of discussion!

However, if we challenge the implied premise that wider is better, then 28mm is not necessary better than 35mm. I attempted to describe situations were wider was not necessarily better.
 
rbsinto, that is by far the funniest thing I've read in a long time. I always enjoy your posts and your photos on the Nikon Cafe. Take care.




Summilux 35 1.4 on Leica M7 Ektar 160 ASA film


Gregory
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom