Follow-up question to Joe's poll on 28mm vs. 35mm

[DougK]

Interesting thread Joe started and I didn't want to drag it off-topic with my question so I'm posting here.

I'm becoming increasingly curious about the 28mm lens as 35mm is starting to feel a bit awkward, not really a wide angle but definitely not normal. I've had good results with the 35 but it seems like it's time to try something new. I've dusted off my heretofore unused 28/2.8 K-mount and stuck it on my Pentax MG but haven't had the chance to test it out yet.

As a relative newcomer to wide-angle lenses, I'd like to ask the folks who use the 28mm length as their most frequent lens choice (whether it be on an SLR, rangefinder, or point-and-shoot) what it's like to work with.

 

[jano]

Hi Doug,

My experience has been with 28, 45, and 90 lenses. I am in the market for a 35 now, to check out whether I like the focal length or not. My comfort zone is the 28, followed by 90, then the 45 (close to 50) -- I think because it approximates the span of what I see through my glasses but not necessarily the perspective (I'm -14 diopter, so anything outside the frames is.. well.. natural bokeh 🙂)

At this focal length, you also begin to have some control over perspective. Slightly off the horizontal, and parallel lines begin to converge at some vanishing point. It offers an additional option for creativity 🙂

Have fun with it!
Jano

 

[Honu-Hugger]

Doug,
For many years I had a 24/2.8 and 35/1.4 in Nikkor and thought I had it covered; when I finally bought a 28/2 it quickly became my favorite lens...I used the 35 less often and never used the 24 again. I've given up a little speed with the 28/8 Tessar for the Contax (that's right, not a typo...f/8 😀) but I still like the focal length.

 

[Doug]

Hi Doug-- I'm pretty happy with 40mm, 35mm, and 28mm about equally I guess. When I know quarters will be tight, I'll tend to choose 28 or even 24/25 because I'm usually trying to get context with the person or more than just a small abstract of an interior, etc. When I'm after a stronger emphasis on the person, say, then I'll use the 40 to include less context. I think all of these are good general-purpose lenses, and I do go through phases where I'll prefer one or the other, also depending on what I'm doing...

This is in medium format as well, with 55 and 75mm on 6x7 and 45 and 60/65 on 645.

I think your idea of working with the focal length in question on the Pentax is a good test of whether you like that view-angle "look", or a reminder of what you'd best use it for. I did this when I was considering a 24mm; I stuck my Pentax 24mm f/2.8 on my ME Super and ran a roll of film as a test. I then did the same with my Pentax 28mm f/2 and decided that better fit my need. Thus the commitment in the form of a 28 'cron. The extra stop was a factor too, and might also influence your choice. You won't find f/1.4 or 1.2 in a 28mm, but you can in 35...

 

[richard_l]

At this focal length, you also begin to have some control over perspective. Slightly off the horizontal, and parallel lines begin to converge at some vanishing point. It offers an additional option for creativity 🙂

It's precisely that "additional option for creativity" with a 28mm which bugs me a little. 🙄 Often I don't realize how "creative" I've been until I see the prints. 😱

 

[Rico]

On the 135 frame, a 28mm lens is wide without a doubt. For film SLR, I selected 28 over 35. The 28 can capture a group of people in a room (but look out for egghead distortion near the corner). I don't consider the 28 a single-lens option like the RF-favorite 35, so it's always paired with a 50.

 

[rover]

When you know you are going to be in close quarters or up close to your subject. I put the lens on the camera and just step closer too.

 

[Pherdinand]

the 24mm i have for my minolta slr body is the most frequently used lens on that body. still i use normal lenses mostly, inn any format (fixed on rf, folder, tlr...), but the 24 is the second option. (I have no 28mm except on a zoom i never use, that's why i talk about 24, no big difference imo.)
i think everybody should have a wide lens. sometimes it is very useful, and sometimes one just needs a break from the 'normal world' and distort the view a bit. when i really want to go wild, i use a 17mm but the success to shot frames ratio is much much lower with that.

don't be disappointed if the first rolls have lots of 'empty' frames with the subject being way too small. how to use a wide lens,that has to be learned by practice, imo.

allow me a non-rf example of the 24mm here😉
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/2019602-md.jpg

 

[Richard Black]

I use the 28mm on my Bessa R most of the time. With the vf, it is what I've become comfortable with. Beware of converging lines, but you will get use to it. I use a 28mm on my Minolta X370 with occasional use of a 24 or 45.

 

[zeos 386sx]

how to use a wide lens,that has to be learned by practice, imo.

I agree. There are some people who use wides "naturally" but I really think most photographers need to study wide-angles before they can use them effectively.

 

[peter_n]

I also used a 28mm for many years on my Nikon F3, it was my only wide-angle lens. Then when I bought a rangefinder camera a couple of years ago I bought my first ever 35mm and was thriiled with it. I really missed the 28 though and a couple of months ago I bought one and it hasn't been off the camera since.

I see definite differences between 28, 35 and 50mm lenses. To me the 35 is almost a "normal" lens for a rangfinder whereas the 50 is a normal on the SLR. Why that is I don't know but that's how it feels to me. But to me the 50 on a rangfinder is like a mild telephoto lens and so like Rico above I think that the 28 and 50 make a fantastic pair.

The 28 is wonderful if you like to get in really close, particularly if you have one that focuses to at least 0.7M. I have missed several shots because I have a 35 that only focuses to 0.9M. Also the 28 can provide dramatic images if you shoot from an unusual perspective, near the ground for example. I would strongly consider trying one! 🙂

 

[jano]

Often I don't realize how "creative" I've been until I see the prints. 😱

😀 😀 😀

Hey, pherdinand.. how did you manage to get a close 24mm shot like that without so much distortion of the face? Or was there correction done in post?

 

[kiev4a]

I've had several 28mm over the years but almost never used them. I consider 35mm pretty much "normal" for my shooting and 28mm is too close. The 24mm has always been my choice for the next step below 35mm at least on slrs. I would love to have a 20mm for my rfs.

 

[DougK]

Wow, that was quick!

Thanks to all who've responded so far. I had the same anxiety/fear when I switched over to the 35 as my main lens, but that turned out OK. I have to admit that one of the reasons I asked the question is I'm considering the Ricoh GR digital camera to replace my now-sold Coolpix 8700 and my now-completely-defunct Dimage 7i. I'd hate to drop that kind of cash on a digital camera and find out that I can't work with the only focal length it has. I guess I just need to get out there and burn some film... won't know until I try and I should have some fun doing it 🙂. I also did a little Googling and found this web site. Pretty good photos and some interesting articles too.

 

[DaveSee]

I see definite differences between 28, 35 and 50mm lenses. To me the 35 is almost a "normal" lens for a rangfinder whereas the 50 is a normal on the SLR. Why that is I don't know but that's how it feels to me. But to me the 50 on a rangfinder is like a mild telephoto lens and so like Rico above I think that the 28 and 50 make a fantastic pair.

This is interesting, the 35/RF 50/SLR comment. To me, using an SLR takes the "other" eye out of the picture(shooting with one eye closed) and thus I am, ah, focussed more on the center of the VF frame with an SLR. With my RF camera, I shoot with both eys open and am using the VF frame edges more... that is, more concentration on framing than focus, so the 35 seems more like the view I have with both eyes open. With my 25 and 28 lenses, I see more of my body's physical orientation in the shot and less the flim plane.

Goofy? Well, sure... tele(50+) reaches in, normal(35/40) frames, and wide(2😎 places me--the photog--in the shot(sometimes including my toes!).

rgds,
Dave

 

[panamacolin]

never really had a problem with my toes in the shot unless using something 21mm or wider...

 

[DougK]

Well, I went out and blew off a roll today in the Pentax with the 28mm to test it out. I'll have to wait until the film comes back to see how I really did compared to what I think I shot, but it was definitely a fun experiment.

I found myself playing around more with foreground/background than I usually do, getting lower to the ground, and I was much closer to subjects than I'm used to being. I liked the generous depth of field even wide-open and handholding all the way down to 1/8, which is something I almost never do with any camera. I couldn't imagine using this lens on a rangefinder, though... I need to see through the viewfinder what I'm going to get with this length.

So what's my verdict? The 28 is great for landscapes, buildings, and tight quarters, produces some cool effects, and I'm glad to have spent time getting more familiar with it, but I wouldn't be comfortable with it as my only lens. I need a little bit more working distance to be comfortable.

 

[VinceC]

The 28mm (well, a Nikkor 2.8cm f.3.5) is one of my most-used lenses. I tend to use it 3 to 6 feet from the subject, and it's marvelous at showing context of the subject's surroundings in an environmental portrait. It's a very comfortable distance from which to photograph people, and the distortion is minimal. Mine is nearly always shot wide-open at f/3.5 because I use it indoors a lot to open up space. I tend to use it alongside a 35mm lens mainly because my 35mm is two stops faster. With a rangefinder, the inability to focus closer than 3 feet (on the Nikon RF) is also a factor, so I'm often using the 35mm for really tight close-in framing that I might do with a 28mm or even 24mm on an SLR. In fact, I never shoot the 35mm lens on an SLR, opting instead for a 28 or 24mm.

Here's a couple of pictures with the Nikon SP and 2.8cm lens.