Is something wrong with 28mm FL?

Something Wrong With 28mm FL?

Something Wrong With 28mm FL?

Nothing wrong with the 28mm FL. I've shot with all the wide angles. I always come back to the 28mm. This 28mm and the 40mm Voigtlanders are my standard kit. Well along with an 85mm Nikkor. These three cover what I need. The 50mm is just a bit boring to me. The 40/F2 gives you a bit more angle to work with. And it's super sharp on my F2T and F3T.
 
The asp-c dslr cams come with the 18(28)-55(82)mm kit lens, and most of the flickrati shoot them at 18 most of the time. I love time travel.
 
[This thread being revived 3.5 years after going dormant, I'll first be explicit that I am talking about fov of 28mm on '36x24' 135 film (or equivalent in MF) ;) .]

For pocketable landscape/townscape/street shooting, I'm very happy with the Orion-15 on FED body, with an add-on viewfinder for leisurely framing and a bubble level for waist-level snapshots. When using MF, it's the comparable 65mm on '6x9' 120 film.
 
Bob Michaels said:
Then there are those who just do not care what is most popular with the rest of the world and use what works for us. That happens to be 28mm for me but I understand other people have other choices. My choice may be different in a few years, just as it was many years ago.
Click to expand...

You're SO right, Bob.

And the history of how various lenses came into common use seem to have been forgotten. There are a number of factors, not the least of which was the introduction of rectilinear wides... a relatively recent invention. Once upon a time, anything wider than a 35 had a fair amount of distortion, hence the unpopularity of the 28mm. A 21mm began to look like a fish-eye.

Now, with more modern computer-generated lens formulas, much of the distortion has been removed down to the 21mm lenses, so wider lenses are seeing more regular use. Cost also used to be a factor. 35mm could be had relatively inexpensively; wider lenses cost more... sometimes a LOT more. Folks didn't have the funds to buy a fistful of lenses either... typically a 35 f/3.5-50 f/2-90 f/4 combo was a working kit for most pros. I was stoked to find a Canon IIF with a 35 f/3.5-50 f/1.8-85 f/2 outfit in 1973. It's really only been the past twenty years or so that fast wides have hit the market at affordable prices and that folks have had the disposable income to buy them.

Each focal length has its place. My lens set has a 21, 28, 35, 50, 75, 90, 135 and 200mm lenses in it. Each gets used when appropriate for what I'm shooting. And I prefer large aperture lenses.
 
28mm is the "lives on my camera" lens in my kit. I use all of them but when I put it away, that's the lens that goes back on the camera.
 
citizen99 said:
[This thread being revived 3.5 years after going dormant, I'll first be explicit that I am talking about fov of 28mm on '36x24' 135 film (or equivalent in MF) ;) .]
Click to expand...

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. :)
 
28mm is the most popular FL on earth. There is a reason it is the FL of the iPhone 6.

Simply put, there is no more versatile FL. It will do anything, UWA style ultra DOF shots which the 35s can't even think about, to up close portraits, and if you have a fast 28, the subject separation is good.

28 cron on my M9 outperforms every lens I own from f/2 to F/11. Literally. Nothing beats that thing at f/11. OK maybe the SEM 21 is as good.

However, on the street you need to get closer with a 28, so people like the 35 better, and the frame lines are also easier. So for sure 35 is king on digital M.

I also like 35, but 28/50, as many here say, gives you alot of leeway and is very fun :)

28 cron at f/4:


Ready by unoh7, on Flickr
 
There is no such thing as absolute right or wrong focal length. If you can make a good photo with a lens, that's all that matters.
 
I never felt comfortable with 35mm. I find 28mm very natural to use.
 

Attachments

  • 2015-12-16-0104.jpg
    2015-12-16-0104.jpg
    25.5 KB · Views: 0
28 is and always has been my favorite FL. My Sigma 28mm 1.8 lived on my D700 for 4 years and I've finally gotten a 28/1.9 ASPH Ultron for my M6. Life is good!
 
Depends on your vision, or training.

I like the 28mm and 24mm best for my street. I like getting close, but still want the environment included. And urban/rural landscape.

I like fast 35mm and 50mm for indoor family and occasional urban/rural landscape.

-----------

There is no correct focal for any genre, just what works best for your vision, not what everyone else is using.
Granted, a street 'tog will not use a lens over 100mm for the most part, and most likely have a few.... 28/35/50 that are their staples.

Your vision, your lens, your framing is all that matters.

Now talent is a subjective matter with street. I am seeing more and more ultra close face shots, or half body women shots (bottom half), all with no story at all, just a strange framing trying desperately to be unique and missing the larger point of the story in a street photograph.
 
I like the 28 a lot and enjoy it on walkabouts in the city, markets, and fairs. I have the VC 28/1.9 as well as a Leica 24/3.8 and enjoy them both. I thought I would make a decision and just keep one of them. That has not been the case, each of them produce wonderful images so they stay in the cabinet to be used on another day.

6098707095_d820c23b2d_z.jpg


MP - 28/1.9

6125938977_1b74a68d49_z.jpg


MP - 24/3.8
 
sevo said:
There has been a general tendency towards wider lenses in the past two or three decades (perhaps driven by wide-screen cinema and now TV formats), so that many now use 35mm as a "wide normal" - which reduced 28mm from "first strong wide in the series" to "not wide enough to warrant owning".
Click to expand...
This is my analysis of the history as well.
 
For years, my routine three lens kit consists of the following lenses:

a) 35mm f/2 (later replaced by the 35mm f/1.4 version)
b) 85mm f/1.8
c) 180mm f/2.8

One of the rare times when I deviate from this three lens kit is when I am shooting theatre. For some reason, for theatre, I prefer to use the following three lenses:

a) 28mm f/2.8 (center)
b) 50mm f/1.4 AF (right)
c) 135mm f/2 (left)

This week, I replaced the Nikon 28mm f/2.8 with a faster Zeiss 28mm f/2.


Nikon Three Lens Kit by Narsuitus, on Flickr
 
Visited Berlin, 2 months ago. Camera's in bag and used, OM4/28/3.5 loaded with Tri-X(off course) and my X100 with wide conversion lens.
Visited Auschwitz in Poland, 1 month ago with the same setup.
Worked out good. For me. I like 28.

In the spring of 2016 I will visit Berlin again. And bring my Fuji 645GA as well with me.
Including the previous setup.

Best regards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom