best pic - 28 or 35 ?

[VinceC]

It's almost an even split. I'm using old glass, so my 28 is an f/3.5 whereas my 35 is f/1.8, so it get's used in more low-light work. I prefer the 28mm view, but switch to 35mm in poor light, and that ends up being where I take the majority of my favorite photos.

 

[kbg32]

28 is my favorite focal length, followed by 21.

 

[J. Borger]

None of them: 50mm & short tele is all i need. The rest is a waste of money and energy on my part. I'm simply not a big fan of the wide angle look!

Han

 

[Ergo]

90cron 40cron 15cv

 

[jan normandale]

Joe this may be a tilted survey. I'm for a 35 because most of my cameras are fixed lenses. None have a 28mm. As an aside I prefer the 35 to the 40 or 50mm lenses. I like the ability to put a subject into context. Up close and uncomfortable I like the 50mm. Bigger than that and I personally am uncomfortable using those larger lenses.

 

[thelucia4]

This is an enjoyable discussion. I use both the 35 and 28 often, mainly a 4th gen. 35 Summicron and a 28/2.8 Canon (the lens Winnogrand used for most of his street photography). I enjoy using a 28 more than a 35. I often feel more engaged with the environment and the work when shooting with the 28 (but of course the environment often demands its own focal length).

 

[back alley]

some very nice shots there!

 

[anandi]

very nice shots!

 

[raid]

I have just received back some scans form my first roll of film with the old Canon 28mm/3.5 lens, and I am thrilled by the creamy rendition of faces. I am sold on this lens.

 

[egpj]

I voted for the 28. I have a 28 Summicron ASPH that has such a unique look to it's pictures. My 35 Summilux goes everywhere with me as my "Normal" lens and then the 50 as short tele and environmental portraits. The 90 goes along every so often to be free in the light.

 

[Ken F.]

Hi Joe,

28mm for me, the new Zeiss to be exact.
One of these days I'll figure out which scanner to buy, and finally get around to posting some photos!

Cheers,
kf

 

[amateriat]

Before there were any 28mm lenses, there were 35mm lenses.

Before there were any good 28mm lenses, there were great 35mm lenses.

This, to some degree, IMO, explains the poll results here, thus far.

I came to photography when there were great 35's, great 28's, great 24's...you get the idea. Sky was the limit if you had the bucks. The buck, for me, stopped at 24mm (Canon FD f/2.8), but I was in heaven. Briefly had a faster 35mm companion (f/2.0), but the 24 got more use. Only when I switched to Nikon gear some years later did I get happy with a 35mm optic (and, at f/1.4, why not?) but I eventually got another 24 for that setup as well, and the 35 got progressively less use.

Last SLR system I had found me with 20mm f/2.8 and 28-70mm f.2.8 optics on the wide end; the zoom got the lion's share of use, and most of that at 28mm, which I became quite fond of, but I wasn't fond of the thing's weight (but that lens, a Minolta AF "G", might've been the best damn zoom lens I ever owned, hands-down). This helped inform my next move, away from SLRs and back to rangefinders. When I got my first Hexar RF, the only M-Hexanon lens in the entire store was a lone 28mm f/2.8. I was hoping for a 50 for starters (and to save a few bucks), but bit the bullet and got the 28. Awfully glad I did – it's the most-used lens of the trio (the 50 f/2 and 90 2.8 rounding out the set), and I find it highly versatile, but at the same time it's not too hard to be careless with it, which might also explain some people's preference for 35mm, which is a bit more forgiving in some circumstances.

That lens, along with the rest of the Hexar rig, got a workout last night doing a photo shoot at a benefit event honoring Eli Wallach and Anne Jackson (words and pictures to follow; BTW, Wallach's favorite focal length to shoot with is 60mm...we had a most interesting series of conversations). A 35 wouldn't have come in quite as handy, while anything wider would have been occasionally unweildy.

So for me, in terms of general use, 28 is the Good, anything wider is the Bad, and 35 is...okay, anything but Ugly, but it doesn't quite do it for me (and this was a cheap analogy that I couldn't help using, okay?). 😉


- Barrett

 

[ghost]

i love the 28mm m-hexanon. color, sharpness, tonality, flare resistance, bokeh, size, weight, the ingenious hood, the feel of the focus and aperture rings, and overall build quality...it's got everything.

 

[Bill58]

My favorite? The one that's NOT on my camera at the time!!!!! I gotta learn to walk forward and backward faster.

 

[Spyderman]

I love 35mm focal length (about as much as i love 85mm).

I used to shoot 28mm quite often when I had 'cheapo' zooms, but now with prime lenses on my SLRs and RFs, I use 28 less and less. I'm beginning to feel like 28 is an ultra-wideangle. BTW: some time ago (like '60s and '70s) 28mm lenses were really marketed as ultra-wideangles 😀

 

[jonasv]

I used to shoot with a 28mm and a 50mm but it never felt quite right. Nowadays I'm shooting a 24mm and a 35mm combo and it's perfect for my needs.

 

[StuartR]

I also started out shooting 28 and 50, but I switched to 35 and 75 and find it better for my uses. I usually have a 25 in there too. There is really not that much that you can shoot that can't be handled by either a 25, 35 or 75mm lens...unless you are shooting sports, wildlife or macro...

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

i love the 28mm m-hexanon. color, sharpness, tonality, flare resistance, bokeh, size, weight, the ingenious hood, the feel of the focus and aperture rings, and overall build quality...it's got everything.

Totally agree with that ... it is one of the most underappreciated lenses around, incredibly smooth signature.

 

[rogue_designer]

I have found the 28 to be too wide for all around use, and not wide enough for when I want something to look wide angle. So 35 gets my vote. I'll break out something in the 21 - 24 range if I want really wide.

 

[ampguy]

I think that every photographer should experience the perspective of 18mm.

this is generally considered ultra wide angle.