Does it make sense to replace single 35 with 28 + 50?

[mfogiel]

It's simple:
1 body - 35mm
2 bodies - 28 and 50mm
3 bodies - 28, 50, 90 (with the 90mm which could pretty well sit atop an SLR)

As a rule, the 35mm should be a fairly universal lens, therefore I personally use either an f2.0 or f 1.2, I'd think that f 2.8 as only lens would be somewhat limiting.

 

[kennylovrin]

It's simple:
1 body - 35mm
2 bodies - 28 and 50mm
3 bodies - 28, 50, 90

As a rule, the 35mm should be a fairly universal lens, therefore I personally use either an f2.0 or f 1.2, I'd think that f 2.8 as only lens would be somewhat limiting.

I actually find 2.8 problematic at times, but so far quite rarely. Not at all as much of a problem as I first imagined. Especially since the M6 tops out at 1/1000 and I haven't managed to get an ND filter for it yet. I rarely shoot indoors.

It has started to become a slight problem now though when there is about 30 seconds of daylight per day in Sweden. So yeah, I might change it for the f/2 in the future, or even go back to the Voigtländer 35/1.4 (used to own one for my r-d1, didn't like the distortion and I found it soft, so might not happen).

 

[Jerevan]

I can always borrow your 35/2.8 while you try other focal lengths. 🙂

Jokes aside, I Iike the idea of 28/50 as a two lens kit. One normal, neutral and one wild, dynamic.

 

[Richard G]

I agree with most of what has been said. I like domagojs and aperture 64's way of looking at it. Even by mfogiel's analysis you'll probably kick yourself for selling the C Biogon, as most often on a walk you only want one lens. I quite liked the 28 for the OM but I don't have one for M. I might try one, but I prefer 25 and increasingly 21. What is the opportunity cost for you in getting a 28? You'll soon want wider and will take a hit on another lens sale. Keep the 35 and get a 21.

 

[chavez_ding]

i prefer the 28/50 combination like some people here. since your curiosity is mostly on the wide end, how about buying a 28mm first and if it feels right you can sell the 35mm and buy a 50mm with the money.

 

[kennylovrin]

i prefer the 28/50 combination like some people here. since your curiosity is mostly on the wide end, how about buying a 28mm first and if it feels right you can sell the 35mm and buy a 50mm with the money.

yeah that is kind of what i was thinking actually, but still a bit sceptic, hence my original post. but that might be the "only" way to find out in the end 😉

 

[Joosep]

35mm best walk-around lens in my opinion, my tourist focal length.

 

[oftheherd]

I find the 35mm neither here nor there. I love the 28mm view of the world, wide but not ultra wide, without much distortion. No problems with the 50 either for details and portraits. So I never really could find a place for the 35.

I am very much the same way. Of course, I can only speak of experience with SLR since I don't have a 28mm in RF. My preference is normally wide, but I use whatever is needed. To me, 35mm isn't wide enough. For my Kiev, someday I may purchase a 15mm. That would be wide. The widest I now have in SLR is 18mm. Nice way to look at the world many times.

 

[Spicy]

I'm currently at a 21/50/100 kit, but am working towards a 21/40/85 (I think, haven't decided on the last one -- could be 75/85/90) kit.

I read once somewhere that it was generally thought that a good way to avoid overlap while still being well-equipped for anything was to have focal lengths that roughly double. I know that isn't really the classical 35/50/90, but it always seemed like an interesting way of thinking about it. I'm big on economizing my bag. Carry as little as possible, and be ready for as much as within reason. If you don't have the perfect lens, so what -- that's where photographic creativity comes in...

1 lens is bold, 2 lenses is (what I would say) optimal, and 3 lenses is "i want to be ready for anything." Anything more than that is overkill, IMO. You can get away with 2 lenses pretty easily if you adopt the "zoom with your feet" mentality. Also perfect for 1 main body and a backup.

But, as was mentioned by someone earlier, I think that often times something that is left out of the consideration process is WHERE you'll be shooting. Yeah, a 75-90 lens is great for portraits, but if you're in Morocco, a 50 will suit you just fine, whereas in Mongolia, a 90 would probably do the trick.

 

[Nescio]

Yeah, a 75-90 lens is great for portraits, but if you're in Morocco, a 50 will suit you just fine, whereas in Mongolia, a 90 would probably do the trick.

You mean to say distances in the Sahara are not as big as they are in the Gobi desert? 😀

 

[boomguy57]

IMO, 28 works with 50. If you have one lens 35 is the way to go, but I can see the argument for 28+50 over 35. I use 35 and 50, but never really could get along with 28; I find it too wide for everyday, all-around use, but not wide enough when I want wide. I had 21 for a while but that was too wide for me. Now I'm on 25, which works for me I think (more time is needed with it, however). So my lenses now are 25-35-50. But to each his own!

 

[Marc G.]

I got 28/50 but just because the 28 is so small, light, sharp and has zero distortion (current elmarit)

I like the 28mm focal length with a 50, because I dont need to use external viewfinder and it's wide enough.

when i had the comparison of shooting with a 50 and a 35 (x100) as a standard focal length I realized how much I liked the 50 and disliked the 35. thus the 28 was the perfect choice.

sometimes I even take the 28 as my only lens and just go out. you have to get closer by 2-3 steps but it works perfectly. only thing that would bother me if the 28 had visible distortion over the 35, but its more the opposite way round with the elmarit vs X100

 

[maddoc]

Hm .... 28/40 or 21/35 for me recently .... or 35/50 ... I tried 28 / 50 a couple of times but found the distance in fov to large and always ended up only using the 50.

 

[slava]

I had for some time 28+35+50mm but sold the 35 because just don't need it. 28 is more like tourist all around lens for everything and 50 more for portrait and stuff. 28+50 is a great combo.

 

[Roger Hicks]

To the OP: Do not listen to ANYONE who tells you that because a particular lens suits them, it will suit you. I almost never use a 28, except when I borrow my wife's, but my wife almost never uses a 35, except when she borrows mine. Neither of us would consider buying the focal length we don't use.

Cheers,

R.

 

[enero]

Ive actually been tossing around this question in my head for the past week. I just bought a VC 28/1.9 on another forum and if it works out, I was thinking that I would just get rid of the 35 altogether (ive been using 35 and 50 pretty exclusively). I find 35 to be a pretty static length and use it only because of the digital aps-c/h thing. Though if I did get rid of it, I would miss the convenience of the shallow DoF. I doubt the 28 will come even close in that regard.

 

[kennylovrin]

To the OP: Do not listen to ANYONE who tells you that because a particular lens suits them, it will suit you. I almost never use a 28, except when I borrow my wife's, but my wife almost never uses a 35, except when she borrows mine. Neither of us would consider buying the focal length we don't use.

Cheers,

R.

Yeah, I don't intend do buy one just because other people like the focal length in itself, rather what I was interested in knowing is how many people just skip the 35 if they have both a 28 and 50. I figured that 28 and 50 both can cover 35 in a sense by moving around physically.

It's a good point though, and well worth remembering.

EDIT:
As an addition, I was lying in bed thinking about it yesterday night, and I think maybe I will find 28mm too wide in the end actually, and that maybe I would be better of with my taste to go longer than 35, and keep 35 as my widest.. I did kind of start playing with the idea of 75/90, but need to investigate that more.

 

[jsrockit]

The reason I'm considering a 28mm purchase is because lately I've been enjoying shooting wider views. I wouldn't say "i like landscape shots", but rather when I shoot with my 35mm I sometimes thing "It would be nice to be able to fit a little bit more". And by that I don't mean more stuff, but more area, if that makes sense.

I'm not much for this "if the photo is bad you're not close enough", it's not really my thing, but I rather enjoy putting things in a wider context, for lack of a better description. I don't mind small objects far away in the shot, if I can get other stuff in there to give a sense of scale and so on.

Just don't fall into the wide angle trap that a lot of people fall into. Remember, you need to be very close with wides generally. Many people try to cram way too much into a wide angle from far away and the lens perspective pushes everything back and makes it even smaller. Generally (note I say generally) this does not work.

You want to include more in the frame with your 35mm.... can you just walk back more? Are you working in tight quarters?

Then again, there are no rules... so try it, but just realize you have one of the best 35mm lenses out there.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . I figured that 28 and 50 both can cover 35 in a sense by moving around physically.. . .

Not for me. This is of course nothing to do with whether it will work for you. But for me, a 35 gives the minimum working distance I am happy with unless I want to go REALLY close, or to get a lot in.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Just don't fall into the wide angle trap that a lot of people fall into. Remember, you need to be very close with wides generally. Many people try to cram way too much into a wide angle from far away and the lens perspective pushes everything back and makes it even smaller. Generally (note I say generally) this does not work.

You want to include more in the frame with your 35mm.... can you just walk back more? Are you working in tight quarters?

Then again, there are no rules... so try it, but just realize you have one of the best 35mm lenses out there.

Highlight 1: Exactly. Especially landscapes.

Highlight 2:: Rule 1: There are no rules...

Cheers,

R.