efix
RF user by conviction
Which focal length do you prefer as your 35mm equivalent on the M8? The 24/25mm or the 28mm? Pro 24/25mm: gets more into the frame. Con 24/25mm: wider than actual 35mm. Pro 28mm: Framelines easier to see. Con 28mm: narrower than actual 35mm.
What's your wide lens of choice on your M8? And for what reason?
What's your wide lens of choice on your M8? And for what reason?
nlubis
Well-known
I used Cosina 28/2 Ultron on my M8. My main reason was the speed and affordability. In practice, imo, either lens would be great, and you would not notice if one or the other is not 35mm.
Maybe someday I can try the 28 Summicron.
Maybe someday I can try the 28 Summicron.
nksyoon
Well-known
There are no cheap fast 24/25 lenses whereas you can get a CV 28/1.9 or 28/2.
Paul Luscher
Well-known
Full frame was one of the reasons I was glad to get the M9, even though it probably didn't justify paying what I did when the M8 was a perfectly good camera. But I like being able to use my lenses at their proper focal lengths.
ramosa
B&W
how wide to go?
for my M8, my first lens was the elmarit 28mm. i added the cron 50mm--and then was pondering something longer or something shorter. i opted for the super-elmar 18mm, which--in hindsight--seems too wide for how i shoot.
per this post, thus, i really don't find a need to go wider than 28mm. that, of course, isn't a hard rule, but a statement of how i shoot--and how we all see and shoot differently. in the latter regard, i've read lots of places that people think the best lenses for street are 28mm or 35mm--and never longer than 50--but cartier-bresson, for example, primarily used a 50mm (while also relying on 35mm and 90mm).
how wide to go? we all need to figure it out for ourselves. but try not to misstep (as i did)
for my M8, my first lens was the elmarit 28mm. i added the cron 50mm--and then was pondering something longer or something shorter. i opted for the super-elmar 18mm, which--in hindsight--seems too wide for how i shoot.
per this post, thus, i really don't find a need to go wider than 28mm. that, of course, isn't a hard rule, but a statement of how i shoot--and how we all see and shoot differently. in the latter regard, i've read lots of places that people think the best lenses for street are 28mm or 35mm--and never longer than 50--but cartier-bresson, for example, primarily used a 50mm (while also relying on 35mm and 90mm).
how wide to go? we all need to figure it out for ourselves. but try not to misstep (as i did)
Ben Z
Veteran
The spread in coverage angle is not linear with change in focal length. A 24 "sees" quite a bit more on an M8 compared to a 35 on FF. The 28 is closer. That said, another reason I stuck with 28 is because knowing one day I'll be using FF, I didn't want to sink money into a focal length I never used with film.
RobertB
Established
One vote here for 28mm. I don't have a fast 28 so for me thats no big difference, but the lines for 28 on the viewfinder are to me much easier to see. The 24mm lines are just to wide to see them at ones.
And its no science, but the 28mm focal length feels more natural to me. It suits the m8 well.
And its no science, but the 28mm focal length feels more natural to me. It suits the m8 well.
efix
RF user by conviction
Thanks for all your replies. I tend to 28mm, because I feel 24/25mm would be too wide for a walkaround lens (for me at least - I'm used to the 20/1.7 on my E-P1 and like its fov quite much). If I want to take architectural shots one day, I can still add a wider lens (12/15/18/21 - there's enough choice ).
I'm currently watching a 28mm M-Rokkor, maybe I'll take the plunge if the price doesn't go too high. I'm positive I'll regret to sell my 35/2 Biogon, but I want a faster 35 (Nokton 1.2) plus one smaller walkaround lens. And I'm pretty sure I'll end up with either another Biogon or a pre-asph Summicron 35 one day anyway
).I'm currently watching a 28mm M-Rokkor, maybe I'll take the plunge if the price doesn't go too high. I'm positive I'll regret to sell my 35/2 Biogon, but I want a faster 35 (Nokton 1.2) plus one smaller walkaround lens. And I'm pretty sure I'll end up with either another Biogon or a pre-asph Summicron 35 one day anyway
Last edited:
I prefer the 28mm as a glasses wearer.
MCTuomey
Veteran
+1
i have used both a 25 and 28 on my M8. the 28 feels closer to a 35 on full frame. the 25 seems a lot like a 28 on full frame.
efix
RF user by conviction
Ben, could you (or anyone who understands what Ben is talking about) elaborate this please?
jarski
Veteran
28 Biogon is my everyday lens on M8. 15 and 75 Heliar's for those situations when wide or tele is needed, but changing the lens on street can be a pain.
25mm = 33.25mm
28mm = 37.24mm
Is a 35mm usually too wide or too narrow for you?
28mm = 37.24mm
Is a 35mm usually too wide or too narrow for you?
efix
RF user by conviction
Yes, I am aware that the M8 makes the lenses a 33 and 37mm effective, because of the 1.33x crop factor. I was just startled by Ben's comment on "linearity", so I hoped he could elaborate what he meant with that. I'm not sure how wide I'd go, but I feel for an allround lens, 37mm equivalent would be more to my liking 1st because I am used to the 40mm eq. on the E-P1, 2nd because I like the "normal" focal lengths between 40 and 50mm quite much for general shooting, and 37mm is closer to 40, while 33 is closer to 28, which would in fact be too wide for a general purpose lens - at least for me. So 28 it is, I guess. Thanks for your comment!
I wasn't trying to imply you didn't know. But sometimes it is easy to just see both numbers next to each other in text.
I agree... I feel the same way about 37mm. The fact the 28mm is a little tigher than a 35mm and a 35mm is a little wider than a 50mm on an M8 is actually a PRO for me.
ChrisC
Established
My first choice lens for the M8 was initially 24mm, however, I would be loathe to go back to it and now consider 28mm the natural 'wide' lens for the camera. The reason is simple; the twinned 24 and 35mm framelines
plonk a large rectangle in the middle of the viewfinder image you are constructing when shooting with a 24mm lens. That twinned 35mm frameline was always an immense distraction to me when using the 24mm lens and negatively effected my work with an otherwise superlative lens. The 28mm viewfinder image framing in the M8 is very significantly better than the 24mm framing.
.............. Chris
plonk a large rectangle in the middle of the viewfinder image you are constructing when shooting with a 24mm lens. That twinned 35mm frameline was always an immense distraction to me when using the 24mm lens and negatively effected my work with an otherwise superlative lens. The 28mm viewfinder image framing in the M8 is very significantly better than the 24mm framing.
.............. Chris
Ben Z
Veteran
Sure, here's an example.
A 21mm lens (on full frame) has an angle of coverage of 92 deg.
A 28mm lens, 7mm longer in focal length, has an angle of 76 deg. The change is 16 degrees, which works out to 2.3 deg/mm.
A 35mm lens, 7mm longer than the 28, has an angle of 64 deg. The change is only 12 deg, or 1.7 deg/mm.
In other words, despite being exactly in the middle in terms of mm of focal length, a 28mm is closer in coverage to a 35 than to a 21.
So therefore, a 37mm lens is closer in coverage to a 35mm than is a 33mm , even though they are both 2mm apart from a 35 in focal length.
Of course it still it boils down to whether you want a little wider than 35 or a little narrower.
efix
RF user by conviction
Okay, I think I got it. The change in focal length (mm) does not correspong linearly to the change in angle-of-view, right? Especially not when downwards instead of upwards. Makes sense. The difference between 28 and 35 mm is far more obvious than that between 128 and 135 mm.