Is something wrong with 28mm FL?

Canyongazer said:
I think it may have something to do with what one's "anchor lens" is.
If, like many RFFers, your "normal" is 35mm, changing to 28 probably will not fulfill your desire for "wider" the way a 24 or 21 will.

If, OTOH, you're like me with everything revolving around the 50mm, going to 35mm may not seem to be enough. From the 50mm FoV perspective, a 28 seems more like a real w/a.

FL discussions are always fun and deserve the "Lazarus" treatment. :)
Click to expand...

This is a very interesting point, I think you're onto something here.

My anchor lens is 50mm, I love 28mm very deeply, and 85 (and yes, I'm an SLR shooter).

28 just works for me, when it comes to compacts I dismiss most of the ones that start at 24mm, rather than 28mm (i.e the later Rx100 models, and the LX100 are no gos for me because they start at 24, wheras I love my Rx100 mk1 and the Ricoh GR series)

I've always struggled with 35mm, I've put a lot of work in at 35mm recently to get the hang of it, and I'm getting there, but it's not a natural FL for me,
 
28 for me.
When I used the leicas the ultron did much more work than the Summitar. The zoom on the fuji XE2 mostly stayed at 18 mm, so I got the prime. And now the GR, which is a revelation to me. After the hell of PASM, I found out it is possible to implement perfectly useful ergonomics in a digital camera. Ricoh does it right.
 
Hi,

It's our old friend the Weber-Frehner Law, which is about how much things have to differ before they look (in this case) different. And the line-up 28-50-90 fits it nicely. And 35-50-90 doesn't because the 35 is too near the 50. OTOH a 35 and 90 work well together and make a decent holiday kit. Ditto the 40-90 for the Leica CL.

Regards, David
 
I love the geometric perspective of a 28mm.
I think use of 35mm all the time, a lazy photographer.
50mm my main length. I do own and use 35mm.

I have had the 28mm since the 60"s on my Pentax.
A totally manual Soligor 28mm f2,8.
Low contrast, almost impossible to focus, thankfully well engraved distances.
Amazingly sharp. Later a real Pentax-Takumar 28mm f3,5.
It was way better than a friends Elmarit.
I have 28mm for my Canon A-series, Minolta X-series and of course for my old
pro kit, Nikon's Nikkor 28mm f3,5.
My digital point and shoots all start with 28mm.
I guess with the Phones it is the most lens! (in the world).
My M6 has frames for 28mm, but too hard to see.
I never use added viewfinders.
 
I figured out I was a 28/35/50 guy myself, with an occasional sprinkling of 85/105/180 whenever I need more compression or background separation.

If I carry 2 lenses, I carry 28 and 50 as the 28 is truly a great environmental lens without the distortion that comes from wider lenses. If I carry 1 lens, it's a 35 for the reasonable balance of scene inclusion vs subject separation.

On M's, I only ever carry a 35 because I don't have the disposable income to have a 28+35+50.
 
David Hughes said:
Hi,

It's our old friend the Weber-Frehner Law, which is about how much things have to differ before they look (in this case) different. And the line-up 28-50-90 fits it nicely. And 35-50-90 doesn't because the 35 is too near the 50. OTOH a 35 and 90 work well together and make a decent holiday kit. Ditto the 40-90 for the Leica CL.

Regards, David
Click to expand...

David on RFF there's this sort of good sense, but the Weber-Frehner law battles for supremacy with Freud's narcissism of minimal difference. E.g. I have the very handy Elmarit ASPH 2.8 28, but I am bowled over by what I see from the Summicron including less harsh contrast. I hope I don't bother changing.

And when I went from 50 to 35 my subjects were floating free in an ocean of foreground that took me a while to tame. I still never find 50 and 35 similar.

More generally on the topic of 28, I wear glasses and struggle to see the 28 frame limes in the M6. Moving to an EVF for film just to get a 28 FOV was not worth it. For a 21 it was exciting and worth it, or less risky to try 21 without the EVF.

With digital there are two factors favouring adoption of the 28: the frame lines are slightly easier to see in the M9, and you can review the picture. I used my 25/28 external finder the first outing with the new 28 and didn't bother after that. I often don't bother with the 21 or the 18 either.
 
This is one reason I like the 28 :

med_U54266I1450909773.SEQ.0.jpg


To see the face, you're looking up, and you look down at the feet, and the claw holding the camera is an intrusion into your personal space. 'Objects may be closer than they look in the mirror'.

cheers
 
I just have (1) 28mm...Nikon AIS...it was the 2nd lens I ever bought for myself..the 1st came with Nikon FM ..a 50..
Modern photography mag was my advisor..I was about 20 years old and knew nothing..
The mag said..make sure you have a 2.8 aperture..so you can bring in more light..
So here I was a few days later in some NYC camera shop..looking at the 28s..and the guy at the counter says..we got a Nikon 3.5 cheep..you will save a lot of dough over the 2.8 AIS...but something inside told me to take Modern's advice and pay the extra $35- or so...this was around 1976..
The 2.8 left with me...
I didnt know then that it was one of the best 28's ever made..ok..it does everything...focuses down to the macro range...and has incredible resolution..
Back when I was processing my own color prints at home..I just could not believe the resolution on Ektar 25 asa...
So I still use it today..and it still is in LN cond..so do I need another 28..probably not..
 
Just ran into a very young man in central Melbourne: Leica ME plus the 28 Summicron. Didn't like DSLRs. Very discerning fellow. He has the 50 Summicron too. And doesn't want more. Wise beyond his years. We had a nice chat and I recommended he visit here.
 
Richard G said:
Just ran into a very young man in central Melbourne: Leica ME plus the 28 Summicron. Didn't like DSLRs. Very discerning fellow. He has the 50 Summicron too. And does t want more. Wise beyond his years. We had a nice chat and I recommended he visit here.
Click to expand...

He's wise beyond his years for not liking DSLRs?
 
im only a 10 months into using film and a 1 year 7 months into photography in general. i started with and still use my canon 70d (crop) i mostly have a 24mm prime on the camera which is a 38mm focal length. on 35mm film i use a 50mm on my nikon f apollo and 50,35 on my om1n. from my very short time with learning photography i have found that what ever i have infront of my camera i just adjust. i do find 50 to tight indoors. 35 is for me a all rounder. sometimes i do want more in frame when at 1.5 metres. ive never tried a 28mm. my friend let me borrow his canon 5d mkii and i used my 24mm and actually really enjoyed the experience. i may pick up a 28mm for my nikon f and c if i like it.
 
I have stuck with the 28mm focal length more and more. The 28 2.8 ASPH was the smallest current Leica lens until the 28mm Summaron-M f5.6. That is more subtle than the faster lens and it is very compact.

With digital one advantage of the 28 is shooting from the hip or chest and checking the result. And because the sky so often influences the exposure, blown highlights are much less of a risk than with narrower FOV lenses.
 
28mm is 1.1023622047 in., or approximately 1 in. plus 13/128 in. —— don't tell me that's *not* a completely weird figure!

:D
 
It is individual. Here is something wrong with 50mm FL. I'm finding it useless. On RF and for street. It is nothing but static portraits FL to me.

28FL is most common FL because it is in mobile phones.

28 FL on RF is for tough cockies like GW. You have to be close and within the action.
Most of the pictures in this thread are miss. IMO, not close enough to make 28 FL shine.
I'm not talking about portrait, those are taken as selfies on 28 FL in billions :).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom