Is something wrong with 28mm FL?

MikeL said:
Just curious, but where is your data coming from?

Why do you believe for each 28 they are selling ten 35s?

Is this just from reading the internets that you think 28mm is phasing out?
Click to expand...

Looking to fill out my Minolta SLR collection, I found 28's a dime a dozen, second only to anything 50mm, but 35mm's very hard to come by.

Probably different for RF's.
 
I'm in the camp of those who like 28mm. However, I did come from a 20/50/80-200 background in SLR.

I agree with those who've attributed the popularity of 21's to changing aesthetic sensibilities. What attracted me to ultrawides was the easy extra drama thrown in for free in every frame. However, I'm getting over it (only took 12 years!).

Ironically what moved me toward the 28 was using a 35 on my first RF. 35 seems to dominate in the RF world because so many viewfinders are designed to really give good space for that frameline --not too big, not too small. It's also a "natural" focal length that matches well with the transparent nature of RF photography. I resisted the 35 at first (especially because I did not get along with my Ultron 1.7) but it taught me a different way to see --less aggressive than the 20mm... and that was the lesson that allowed me to ratched back from ultrawides to 28mm and be comfortable with it.

At least, that's what I keep telling myself every time the urge to spring for a 21 Biogon comes up!
 
My choice of 35mm lens is because I can see the 35 frame lines comfortably with spectacles using 0.72 VF. 28mm leaves too much guess work on what I cannot see in the viewfinder.

I use a Nikkor 28mm f/2.8 Ai-S lens on my F3/T and love it to bits.
 
kanzlr said:
35mm is easier, as I see in 35mm. 50mm forces me to pick, 28mm to include more.

If I feel creative I use 50/28, if I carry a single lens or just want to get it done, I use a 35
Click to expand...

Yes, I think 35mm is rather a "Goldilocks" focal length. I think one reason for this is that the width of horizontal coverage is the same as your distance from camera to subject plane. That makes it easy to know intuitively where to stand for the shot you want, before even needing to look through the finder.

That said, I use all the various wide-angle focal lengths. A 28mm opens up space more so than a 35mm lens. And I find 24mm or 25mm to be the tipping point at which the area covered is often as wide as I can go without the picture screaming, "wide angle!"

But I think 35mm facilitates easy, casual shooting. If it remains the most popular, perhaps that is why.
 
Aristophanes said:
Looking to fill out my Minolta SLR collection, I found 28's a dime a dozen, second only to anything 50mm, but 35mm's very hard to come by.
Click to expand...

Sure but that's because 28-50-85/135 is the classical Japanese SLR kit. There are a LOT more 28's out there for most Japanese SLR systems.
 
I think the biggest part of photographers are to shy to get close enough to make a 28mm work. I am sure the pros that use them really like the DOF and being able to prefocus.
 
cosmonaut said:
I think the biggest part of photographers are to shy to get close enough to make a 28mm work. I am sure the pros that use them really like the DOF and being able to prefocus.
Click to expand...
Only if you're shooting strangers in the street. There's usually lot's of good pictures to be taken of people you know! After all, the rest of us don't know them..
 
Very recently sold off a perfectly sharp Color-Skopar 50/2.5 and it was my only modern 50mm.

Currently I shoot the Super-Angulon 21/3.4 and the Summilux 35/1.4 pre-asph, as well as a Jupiter-9 85/2.0 with Zeiss cell.

If I want 50 it's either gonna be a prewar uncoated Elmar 50/3.5 or a Rolleiflex 80mm Planar shot. I'm fine with that. :)
 
"If the pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough" — you know who.

I've shot a lot of street with the 28 on my late, lamented GR-1. More recently I've been shooting street with a 21 Biogon on an M6. Just got the 18mm (28mmEFL) Fuji for my Xpro and that is a fantastic lens -- fast, compact, draws absolutely gorgeously, and I can't wait to get that one out on the street.


Untitled by Semilog, on Flickr
m6, 21/2.8, 2tmy, xtol 1+1
 
In the beginning (right after light was created) . . . . I started out at 50mm "normal" because that's what the guy told me was normal , and then I also got a 28mm for "wideangle" shooting.
Eventually I came to see that 35mm was my personal "normal", and so, 24mm became my wideangle, and the 28mm got lost in the shuffle.
 
My first serious camera had a 35mm equivalent lens. My second had a 28mm eq. lens and I loved it, moreso than the first. Since then I've always tried to get cameras with 28mm or wider lenses, and I tend to see in 28mm.

I did, however, become a 50mm convert after I got a Summicron. It's probably my favourite lens on the M9, which has lead me to the usual 28/50 walkaround combo. I use the 28/50 combo with the Ricoh GXR, the Ricoh GRD III and Sigma DP2 (28 and 41), and the Pentax ME (28/2.8 SMC and 50/1.4 SMC). I only really use 35mm if it is fast, like a f1.4 or f1.2.
 
I have a nice cheap array of Nikkors...28,50,105,135...the one I use most...the 28. I really like it on my digital crop camera.
 
I have a few Nikkor and Rokkor 28/2s and have no problem with this FL. Like any length, if you won't or can't get close enough, don't bother shooting. 35mm in general is a great length but 28mm just has a bit more edge/width before one gets all wide angle with 24mm.
 
I bought an Ultron 28/2, thinking I should have a wide-angle in the bag. But it doesn't really work for me, wearing glasses. And I have two cameras with lenses mounted that works with eyeglasses on; M3+90 and a ZI+50. The 28 is great if I bother to switch lenses (which is a bit of a handful) and don't mind the slight blur with glasses flipped up. I just never got used to the wider angle since I rarely use it. So that's another aspect on why it might not be quite as popular...

It's a mighty fine lens though - I like the fact it's distortion free. Black, mint, for sale if anyone's interested ;)
 
Another way of looking at it is that if you force yourself to learn and see with it then you can begin to take advantage of it's benefits. Truth is anything between 24 and 90 or so are all going to have different advantages and perspectives in different situations.

28 has probably been a less popular length due to manufacturers more than anything.
 
wides are simply harder to use composition wise.

the narrower you get, the more automatic clutter removal you have built into your lens.
 
kanzlr said:
wides are simply harder to use composition wise.

the narrower you get, the more automatic clutter removal you have built into your lens.
Click to expand...

And also the less environment you pull in. Wides are great for immersive "being there" type of shots.

50mm is like pulling shards from a large scape. 20-24mm is being in it.
 
sure, but you have to think more.

browse any Canon/Nikon forum and you have oodles of 200mm f2.8 or 85mm f1.4 shots of peoples faces in front of brown/green/whatever goo :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom