have a 50 cron, now do I want a 28 or 35?

Just to make this even harder ... different photogs favor different 'normal' lenses

David Allen Harvey (until recently) favored the 35/lux/asph as his normal ...

Garry Winogrand favored the 28 and hyperfocal shooting ...

Nachtwey uses a 16-35/2.8 L zoom 😉

Moriyama Daido favors a P&S GR1 28mm ...
 
My former photo prof Geoff Winningham loves the 28mm focal length best. He used a Nikon SP and 28mm for his famous early book "Friday Night at the Coliseum," later switching to Leica M6 and 28mm Elmarit.

Personally, It's my favorite focal length too, with the 28mm Summicron ASPH being my favorite now. It's fast enough for low light and has tremendous flexibility. On the other hand the 35mm Summilux ASPH is very good too, and is even more low light capable. I also don't think they are interchangeable, because the 28mm has a whole different feel to it, especially if you get in the middle of crowds or use it indoors. 28mm is more expansive, while 35mm retains a certain selectivity, in common with the 50mm focal length.
 
I use 35 more than 28. With 28 you start getting into weird perspective effects, which require more care in composing shots. A 35 can be used more casually, much like a 50.

Richard
 
Just as one more data point, my prefered combination is 28/50/90. I am, however, one of those who prefer the classic normal and shoot 80 to 90% with my 50. OTOH, when I need it, it's nice to have a wide and a tele that are clearly separated from that normal FOV. As was mentioned upthread, you'll get lots of good conflicting advice here because all of us see the world just that wee bit differently.

My suggestion would be to get a 28 and see how it works for you. If you get a classic screwmount and adaptor or a CV lens, it need not be that expensive an experiment either 🙂

Good luck!

William
 
I'll go with William - 28/50/90 except I think I'll get rid of my 90mm. I have the 50mm Planar ZM and 28mm Biogon ZM. The only other lens I am considering is the ZM 50mm Sonnar. 28mm is a good complement to a 50mm and I think and see in 50mm - but that is me!
Cheers,
Nick
 
I have a 35, two 50s and a 90.

Started off with the 35. I wear glasses and have a .72 M6 [and also a .72 M2 now] and find precise framing with the 35 lines more difficult than I'd like. Once I got the 50 I realised that I like to stand back from the action a little, rather than getting in the middle of it. Using a wide in that way is something I'd very much like to do but I think I need to work on it...

The 90 I hardly ever use, but it is useful to pull in long views etc.

If you want a wide partner for your 50, I'd go to a dealer and try a 28 first. The 35 might not be wide enough if you want to fit in tops of buildings etc.

Hope this helps in some way

Paul
 
All,

Thank you for your comments. Looks like I will get a 28. I have always prefered the 50 as my "normal" lens. I think the 35 will not give me much more wide than the 50 so the 28 is my next lens. Now I need to find a nice clean used one!.

Thanks Again.
 
Having recently tried both a 28mm and a 35mm after regularly using a 50mm, i learned that the 28mm is great for indoors shots and the 35mm is great for street/outdoors shots. This is, of course, a gross overgeneralization. But what I experienced is that the 28, while great when taking a shot of a group of people, really requires you to get "up close and personal" with your subject (unless your subject is a building perhaps). Conversely, the 35 seems to be more of a slightly wider normal lens. As a result, my 28mm shots were good when indoors and typically not close enough outdoors and my 35mm shots were more like my 50mm shots but with a bit more surrounding context in the resulting image and with a deeper depth of field which can be nice for grab shots. So, while ideally you would get both, if it came down to one versus the other it might depend upon what type of shooting you want to do. Hope this rambling comment helps!

-Randy
 
28 and 50 make a great pair. 35mm is my "normal" lens so the 28 is a little wider and the 50 is a mild telephoto. But 28+50 makes a wonderful pair to go on a shoot. Good decision!
 
pvenables said:
I have a 35, two 50s and a 90.

Started off with the 35. I wear glasses and have a .72 M6 [and also a .72 M2 now] and find precise framing with the 35 lines more difficult than I'd like. Once I got the 50 I realised that I like to stand back from the action a little, rather than getting in the middle of it. Using a wide in that way is something I'd very much like to do but I think I need to work on it...

The 90 I hardly ever use, but it is useful to pull in long views etc.

If you want a wide partner for your 50, I'd go to a dealer and try a 28 first. The 35 might not be wide enough if you want to fit in tops of buildings etc.

Hope this helps in some way

Paul

I'm like Paul, except that I have two 35s; a 50 and a 90. When I had just my .72 rangefinder I never used the one 35 I had for the same reason; glasses. Then after years of debate I get a .58, and all of a sudden, that 35mm lens becomes more useable, and I end up getting a Summilux, because I use it so much. I still get great pics with the 50, but the 35 is so versatile (if you can see the framelines).
 
Like Sgy1962, I became a fan of the 35 focal length when I acquired a .58 viewfinder camera. The .58 is also great with the 28 focal length. I frequently carry the 28 and 50 'crons together - a wonderful 2 lens outfit. The 28 Summicron is such a fine lens that it has become a "must carry" lens in my kit. Those of you that use it know what I am talking about.
 
Back
Top Bottom