Godfrey
somewhat colored
It's a curious thing: I've handled both several times. I am not enthused enough with the feel of the Q to do more than glance at it, somehow the Q2 just feels much better in my hands to the point where I could see buying one.
But I likely won't..
G
Guth
Appreciative User
Pardon my ignorance, but to be completely honest I am not sure what exactly constitutes a premium lens. Does any dedicated 28mm prime lens qualify? Or does this generally imply a certain level of performance that must be met?
I think that you raise a good point. To be honest, despite any embarrassment that it might bring, once I purchased a 28mm - 85mm zoom lens for my SLR back in the 80's I rarely ever removed the lens and only then to make use of a longer focal length.
In fact, the M-ROKKOR 28mm/f2.8 that I purchased from a fellow forum member here on RFF last year to accompany the Minolta CLE I had acquired beforehand represents the only 28mm prime lens I have ever owned. By default it also represents the widest angle prime lens that I've ever owned.
I've only spent just a very short period of time using this lens. Regardless of the opinions others might have pertaining to this specific lens, thus far I've found the focal length itself to be quite enjoyable. That might simply be due to the fact that I've been using a 35mm lens almost exclusively since my return to photography a few years ago. While the difference might seem minor to most others, I feel that I'm really going to appreciate having a 28mm lens at my disposal.
I think that you raise a good point. To be honest, despite any embarrassment that it might bring, once I purchased a 28mm - 85mm zoom lens for my SLR back in the 80's I rarely ever removed the lens and only then to make use of a longer focal length.
In fact, the M-ROKKOR 28mm/f2.8 that I purchased from a fellow forum member here on RFF last year to accompany the Minolta CLE I had acquired beforehand represents the only 28mm prime lens I have ever owned. By default it also represents the widest angle prime lens that I've ever owned.
I've only spent just a very short period of time using this lens. Regardless of the opinions others might have pertaining to this specific lens, thus far I've found the focal length itself to be quite enjoyable. That might simply be due to the fact that I've been using a 35mm lens almost exclusively since my return to photography a few years ago. While the difference might seem minor to most others, I feel that I'm really going to appreciate having a 28mm lens at my disposal.
Anthony Harvey
Well-known
John, it was exactly the same for me - the first non- normal lens that I ever bought was the 28/3.5 Super Takumar, screw thread. I had intended to get a Pentax 35mm lens but a good friend who had recently bought a Minolta 28mm as his first non-normal lens for his Minolta SRT 101 advised me to get a 28 instead. And I’m so glad I did - I used it as my standard lens for over ten years. I had a particularly good sample, exceptionally sharp all over, including wide open, and no distortion that I could see; great tonality for b&w and superb colour rendition with K25 and the prints that Kodak made from the slides. In fact I have two 10x8 prints from K25 slides on the shelf in my office, taken on our honeymoon in 1976 and printed soon after, that show the lens to perfection, with just as good and rich colours as they showed when first printed.
That lens affected my technique too, in that for nearly all my photos I set 1/125 and used whatever aperture the light needed, going down to wide open at f3.5, and only then moving to slower speeds. This meant that for the sort of photos I wanted to take I didn’t have to spend time working out or agonising over exposure choices, I could just concentrate on capturing the image I wanted, without any distractions or indecisions - move to the right position and just “focus and shoot” and don’t worry about anything else. In my case it was that 28mm that made it so easy.
Oddly enough, I’ve never felt the same about most other 28s that I’ve owned, either for rangefinders or SLR cameras, including paradoxically, the Pentax-M 28/3.5, and the Zuiko 28/2.8. They’ve always disappointed me and I’m not sure why (I suspect they have a very slight degree of distortion that puts me off). The Canon FD 28/2 was an exception though, another great lens, just like the Canon FD 35/2. At any event, since I found the Summaron 35/3.5 I’ve been content with 35mm and have rarely used anything wider (except for 24-85 zooms on DSLRs).
That lens affected my technique too, in that for nearly all my photos I set 1/125 and used whatever aperture the light needed, going down to wide open at f3.5, and only then moving to slower speeds. This meant that for the sort of photos I wanted to take I didn’t have to spend time working out or agonising over exposure choices, I could just concentrate on capturing the image I wanted, without any distractions or indecisions - move to the right position and just “focus and shoot” and don’t worry about anything else. In my case it was that 28mm that made it so easy.
Oddly enough, I’ve never felt the same about most other 28s that I’ve owned, either for rangefinders or SLR cameras, including paradoxically, the Pentax-M 28/3.5, and the Zuiko 28/2.8. They’ve always disappointed me and I’m not sure why (I suspect they have a very slight degree of distortion that puts me off). The Canon FD 28/2 was an exception though, another great lens, just like the Canon FD 35/2. At any event, since I found the Summaron 35/3.5 I’ve been content with 35mm and have rarely used anything wider (except for 24-85 zooms on DSLRs).
twvancamp
Thom
Interesting thread. Wonder if the decline of the 28mm is related to the rise of the camera phone. Iphone lens is ~28mm equivalent. So if you're competing against camera phones perhaps it makes sense to focus on lenses that offer a different look.
On another note some of my favorite 28mm lenses--OM 28/3.5, Nikon 28/2.8 AIs, Pentax 28/3.5--were favorites precisely because they didn't cost premium prices.
On another note some of my favorite 28mm lenses--OM 28/3.5, Nikon 28/2.8 AIs, Pentax 28/3.5--were favorites precisely because they didn't cost premium prices.
Anthony Harvey
Well-known
Very good point about the iPhone, twvancamp. I’m sure it’s true.
Bob Michaels
nobody special
Lens manufacturers design and build lenses based on their analysis of the market. So the real question is why don't more people want to pay for a "premium" 28mm lens.
I believe the market is so small because the "premium" is desired by only a small niche whose purchasing is based on internet lore more than actual use. Most potential purchasers are either regular users or those who make their living photographing. The large majority of them realize that the common ordinary 28mm lens fills their needs just fine, no real improvement for paying for "premium". I also think many of those wanting to pay "premium" consider the 28mm focal length simply too pedestrian, just like a 50mm lens. They have this subconscious bias that they must use a different focal length than the common folk.
Personally, I seem to always use a 28mm or 35mm and switch from one to the other every few years or so. The 28mm seemed to do Winogrand well and many others do OK with a 35mm.
I believe the market is so small because the "premium" is desired by only a small niche whose purchasing is based on internet lore more than actual use. Most potential purchasers are either regular users or those who make their living photographing. The large majority of them realize that the common ordinary 28mm lens fills their needs just fine, no real improvement for paying for "premium". I also think many of those wanting to pay "premium" consider the 28mm focal length simply too pedestrian, just like a 50mm lens. They have this subconscious bias that they must use a different focal length than the common folk.
Personally, I seem to always use a 28mm or 35mm and switch from one to the other every few years or so. The 28mm seemed to do Winogrand well and many others do OK with a 35mm.
back alley
IMAGES
in fuji speak...the 16 took over for the 18...if heading out with one lens and thinking wide...i opt for the 16 and leave the 18 in the storage bag.
the 16 is a bit more of a challenge to use and the 18 just does not have the same sort of zing.
the 16 is a bit more of a challenge to use and the 18 just does not have the same sort of zing.
CMur12
Veteran
In 135 format, the 28mm lens is one of my favorites, too. I focus wide-angle lenses primarily with the DOF (depth of field) scale on the lens barrel, rather than with the focusing screen, so a prime lens serves me better than a wide-angle zoom that has no such scale.
The new full-frame mirrorless brands are still building up their lens lines, so I would expect the 28mm focal length to be filled in eventually.
To use Canon as an example, they appear to be introducing lenses that show the full potential of the new RF mount first, leaving people to fill in the gaps for the time being with EF DSLR lenses on their excellent adapters. Canon offers zooms that include the 28mm focal length, but still no 28mm primes. Nikon is probably doing much the same.
- Murray
The new full-frame mirrorless brands are still building up their lens lines, so I would expect the 28mm focal length to be filled in eventually.
To use Canon as an example, they appear to be introducing lenses that show the full potential of the new RF mount first, leaving people to fill in the gaps for the time being with EF DSLR lenses on their excellent adapters. Canon offers zooms that include the 28mm focal length, but still no 28mm primes. Nikon is probably doing much the same.
- Murray
Guth
Appreciative User
Yet again, that which seems so obvious to me wasn't so until it was brought up by someone else.
DownUnder
Nikon Nomad
The 28 is my most used lens, even for many of my architecture shoots if I go about it with care, a tripod and a spirit level to keep the verticals suitably vertical. At the opposite end, if a little or even a lot of distortion is the look I want, the 28 provides it, with a bit of effort.
I own two Nikon 28 2.8 Ds. They live on my D800 and D700. Also three Nikkor 28 3.5s - one I bought new, two were gifts as in the '90s nobody seemed to want them and they were usually disposed of in favor of now long-forgotten (and mostly crap) zooms.
All photographers have their favorite lenses that correspond to their viewpoints, and for me the 28 does it all.
Last month I was offered to buy a near-mint demo Lumix GF1 kit with a choice of the two zooms, 14-45 and 45-200 or a 14 2.5 as a replacement for one of the zooms. I picked the lesser zoom and the 14. My ideal walkaround kit, it does just about everything I can do with a FF Nikon and if I really push myself and work carefully, the combo of 20 MB and the 14 (the 2x factor means it's 28 in FF tech) I get equally good results with striking colors and mid-tones in a portable package.
The Nikon 28 D has been a popular lens since its inception as an AF in the 1980s. With my Nikons or Lumix and the 28, I'm amazed at how good 2012 technology can be. New and shiny is not everything.
I own two Nikon 28 2.8 Ds. They live on my D800 and D700. Also three Nikkor 28 3.5s - one I bought new, two were gifts as in the '90s nobody seemed to want them and they were usually disposed of in favor of now long-forgotten (and mostly crap) zooms.
All photographers have their favorite lenses that correspond to their viewpoints, and for me the 28 does it all.
Last month I was offered to buy a near-mint demo Lumix GF1 kit with a choice of the two zooms, 14-45 and 45-200 or a 14 2.5 as a replacement for one of the zooms. I picked the lesser zoom and the 14. My ideal walkaround kit, it does just about everything I can do with a FF Nikon and if I really push myself and work carefully, the combo of 20 MB and the 14 (the 2x factor means it's 28 in FF tech) I get equally good results with striking colors and mid-tones in a portable package.
The Nikon 28 D has been a popular lens since its inception as an AF in the 1980s. With my Nikons or Lumix and the 28, I'm amazed at how good 2012 technology can be. New and shiny is not everything.
nickthetasmaniac
Veteran
I'm not sure about that. As far as I can tell, the decline in fancy 28's started well before smartphones even existed.
Fwiw I would have thought iPhones would have increased the interest in interchangeable 28's, as new photographers moving up to a full system tried to pick up a 'nice' version of the FL they were used to.
nickthetasmaniac
Veteran
In the context of the OP (I started the thread), I was thinking of 'premium' in terms of how a lens is positioned by it's maker (marketing, branding, price), more so than specific performance.
So, as other's have mentioned, the Fuji 18/f2 is a well performing lens, but I don't think it's positioned by Fuji as one of their 'premium' offerings (compared to say the 16/f1.4).
nickthetasmaniac
Veteran
Yep, I suspect that's hit the nail on the head.
When I first got seriously into photography I was very much seduced by the fast, 24-xxmm 'pro' zooms. For a long time I saw 28mm as a cheap version of 24mm, and it took a lot of learning about my own style to realise that wider/longer didn't automatically mean better.
f.hayek
Well-known
The decline of the 28 FL seemed to follow the loss of interest in 100/105 for portraiture and the short tele fixed 180. Tastes change. It was interesting that Apple chose 28mm but this seemed to post-date Ricoh's reliance on 28/28 equivalent APS-C for its GR. Perhaps as the GR developed a cult following, Apple simply followed suit.
Archiver
Veteran
24mm seems to be the current 28mm. So many companies have nice 24mm lenses these days, although Nikon has the awesome 28mm f1.4E, and Sigma have made the excellent 28mm f1.4 Art recently. That Sigma is on my 'would be cool to own' list as I love 28mm, and a premiium f1.4 would be useful on a DSLR or mirrorless body. It's a bit disappointing that Canon haven't made a premiium 28mm in, well, ever.
f.hayek
Well-known
I'm afraid you're right. Leica just nixed the 24/3.8 and 24/1.4 and implied they're out of that FL for good.
In truth, unless you're making a 'statement lens' like the 75 & 90 Noctilux, not much point at reduplicating the excellent efforts of others as the proliferation of mirrorless bodies allows easy adaptation.
CMur12
Veteran
This is an interesting observation. My "normal" is 85mm (and I also like 100mm). My next most-used lens is a 28mm. I probably do 90% of my 135 format shooting with the 85 and the 28.
- Murray
kiemchacsu
Well-known
interesting dicussions;
i have nikkor 28/2 AI, fantastic lens; but I tend to use 35mm lens on my Leica more than the Nikkor;
don't know if it's because of the body Leica vs Nikon
i have nikkor 28/2 AI, fantastic lens; but I tend to use 35mm lens on my Leica more than the Nikkor;
don't know if it's because of the body Leica vs Nikon
nickthetasmaniac
Veteran
CharlesDAMorgan
Veteran
I don't think I've ever owned a premium (being faster than f2.8) but I still have the 28mm f2.8 Zuiko I bought as a 17 year old (but a mere 38 years ago) which is mint and takes lovely photos, and of course, the 28mm Elmarit R f2.8 - Leica never making anything faster for the R system. That is a cracking lens.
I don't use 28s on rangefinders, but on the R system I'd say I use the 28 more often than any other lens.
I don't use 28s on rangefinders, but on the R system I'd say I use the 28 more often than any other lens.