mfogiel
Veteran
A 28mm is the basic street lens and a great companion to the 50mm.
As you can see. it is a very versatile fl...
craygc
Your undergraund station shot is truly fantastic !
As you can see. it is a very versatile fl...
craygc
Your undergraund station shot is truly fantastic !
stefan_dinu
Established
Ask google images about Gary Winogrand. You will find out. 
HuubL
hunter-gatherer
Any excuse to post some pics...
These are all from the Fuji Klasse W which is a fixed 28mm P&S. I love 28mm and for as close as I like to shoot, I dont find it that different from a 35mm lens. I think its just practice and understanding what works and what doesnt with this focal length.
Great shots! I like #1 and #4 the most. #7 is nice too
craygc
Well-known
Yep, that certainly is Toshihiro. Also, if you know him, its Kohiyama Takahiro in the out of focus background. This was in Shinjuku last year.
craygc
Well-known
Thanx. That was going to a customer meeting carrying PC, etc and as I was leaving the platform I just had to pull out the P&S and shot a couple of times while being pushed myself
maddoc
... likes film again.
Nice !!
Kohiyama-san, I don't know ... it seems you guys had a good time ! I haven't met Tommy in person just a short exchange of emails. Hopefully, next time I visit Tokyo ... Cheers,
Gabor
nixarma
Established
Hi Marko,
I think the perspective distortion that the 28mm focal length offers can be quite interesting. While not as dramatic as the 21mm it can still offer quite a bit.
Nikhil
I think the perspective distortion that the 28mm focal length offers can be quite interesting. While not as dramatic as the 21mm it can still offer quite a bit.
Nikhil
FifthLeaf
amateur
Google Garry Winogrand, Bruce Gilden, and Sam Abell to see some good photographs taken almost exclusively by 28mm lenses.
alcaraban
Established
As Rob-F said above, a 28mm gives you a wide field of vision without the sometimes distracting and often quite obvious wide effect of the 24mm or 25mm. Good for a kind of portrait in which you can stand at some distance of the subject.
palec
Well-known
It's also great for interior shots, where the space is tight but the perspective distortion is not overemphasized. With this lens you have to forget your "invisibility", you are more in the picture, but not unnoticed. As such I like it for close-up portraits.
Spider67
Well-known
"It's also great for interior shots, where the space is tight"
I can confirm that! 28mm is also a very ggod lens if you take pics in narrow streets. A 50 or 35mm will just show a small part of these streets whereas 28mm replicates the whole stretview. But I have also used 21mm for street and for portraits.
I can confirm that! 28mm is also a very ggod lens if you take pics in narrow streets. A 50 or 35mm will just show a small part of these streets whereas 28mm replicates the whole stretview. But I have also used 21mm for street and for portraits.
Anthony Harvey
Well-known
When I go out I prefer to use only one body and one fixed lens. I used to use a 28mm and nothing else for some ten years (except for the very occasional 50mm head and shoulders or face-only portrait). Later, with an M4-P I just used the 35mm. At the moment, returning to rangefinders and black and white film from what seems a lifetime with digital bodies and zooms , I'm finding it difficult to decide between the 35 and the 28. One minute it's one, and the next it's the other. But little by little I'm coming to the conclusion that, for me, the 35 is neither one thing nor the other - it's not a 50 or close to it, and it's often not quite wide enough as a wide.
I therefore used the 40mm and found that, for me, it did the job better than the 35 of being a bit wider than a 50; and in addition it came very close to the perspective of the 50 that I wanted for horizontal upper-body portraits. Of course it wasn't wide but I convinced myself that it was wide enough for what I wanted. I used the 40 for a bit but then I tried the Zeiss f2.8 28 and re-discovered all the good things about the 28 that I'd forgotten. So it's back to the 28.
As Memphis says, the secret to the 28 is getting in close, and if you've got a good lens you don't get horrible distortion. His first example proves the point - in a way it doesn't look wide angle at all. Just perfect. To my eyes it could have almost been taken with a 50 from a distance.
So for the time being at least, I just take the ZI and the 28. I must say that so far I feel much happier and am not continuously fretting that perhaps I should have taken the 35 or 50. It puts me back in the happy days when I only had the humble f3.5 28 screw Super-Takumar and a Pentax K1000. That Pentax lens was perfect too cos it gave me no real distortion and allowed me to take the sort of photos exemplified by Memphis's first photo.
(I sometimes think that what I really want is the optically-perfect short zoom, 28-50. But then I remember that I've still got to decide what zoom setting I should use!)
Anthony
I therefore used the 40mm and found that, for me, it did the job better than the 35 of being a bit wider than a 50; and in addition it came very close to the perspective of the 50 that I wanted for horizontal upper-body portraits. Of course it wasn't wide but I convinced myself that it was wide enough for what I wanted. I used the 40 for a bit but then I tried the Zeiss f2.8 28 and re-discovered all the good things about the 28 that I'd forgotten. So it's back to the 28.
As Memphis says, the secret to the 28 is getting in close, and if you've got a good lens you don't get horrible distortion. His first example proves the point - in a way it doesn't look wide angle at all. Just perfect. To my eyes it could have almost been taken with a 50 from a distance.
So for the time being at least, I just take the ZI and the 28. I must say that so far I feel much happier and am not continuously fretting that perhaps I should have taken the 35 or 50. It puts me back in the happy days when I only had the humble f3.5 28 screw Super-Takumar and a Pentax K1000. That Pentax lens was perfect too cos it gave me no real distortion and allowed me to take the sort of photos exemplified by Memphis's first photo.
(I sometimes think that what I really want is the optically-perfect short zoom, 28-50. But then I remember that I've still got to decide what zoom setting I should use!)
Anthony
john341
camera user
28mm lens
28mm lens
I would like a 28mm lens for my Leica. I often look at the view through a 28mm viewfinder and think what a great coverage the focal length.. I sold one many years ago (darn!) and I think is is a great lens to experiment with..
28mm lens
I would like a 28mm lens for my Leica. I often look at the view through a 28mm viewfinder and think what a great coverage the focal length.. I sold one many years ago (darn!) and I think is is a great lens to experiment with..
raid
Dad Photographer
I now have three excellent 28mm lenses in Leica mount, and this may be one too many.
Canon 28mm/3.5 ... very small and very sharp and low contrast
Kobalux 28mm/3.5 ... very well made and sharp with higher contrast than the Canon lens
Rokkor-M 28mm/2.8 ... superb little lens is of Leica quality overall.
Canon 28mm/3.5 ... very small and very sharp and low contrast
Kobalux 28mm/3.5 ... very well made and sharp with higher contrast than the Canon lens
Rokkor-M 28mm/2.8 ... superb little lens is of Leica quality overall.
navilluspm
Well-known
The same is true for me! I always loved 28 or 85, until I forced myself to shoot 50. I tried 35mm for a while but I could not get used to composing. One eye shut helped me, but the 28 just seems natural to me. I can walk up to a subject and know where to stand before I lift the camera to my face.
That being said, I probably still use the 85 the most (because my only AF lens for my Canon Rebel XTI is a 50mm, which I use alot for my kids indoors - and that ends up being the equivallent to an 80mm)
Last edited:
john341
camera user
2.8cm lens
2.8cm lens
Quite so..looking out over Brisbane now, the view is a 28mm one. I had just returned from o/seas and I'd taken many pix with my 50mm Summitar (love that lens) and a few with a Jupiter 35mm..I am now sorry I did't use the 35mm more..for me it is often my standard lens.
2.8cm lens
Quite so..looking out over Brisbane now, the view is a 28mm one. I had just returned from o/seas and I'd taken many pix with my 50mm Summitar (love that lens) and a few with a Jupiter 35mm..I am now sorry I did't use the 35mm more..for me it is often my standard lens.
besk
Well-known
I settled on the 28 and 50 combo as the principle lenses for all my 35mm photography several years ago.
The 28 stays on the camera when traveling with the 50 in my bag and when at home and not traveling it is the 50 that is on the camera and the 28 in the bag.
The 28 gives a "natural" wide angle look without obvious distortion most of the time. When traveling I want to bring home shots that are a fairly accurate representation of what I saw. Of course if you are just trying to "get it all in" say in a small room a 15 would be handy!
The 28 stays on the camera when traveling with the 50 in my bag and when at home and not traveling it is the 50 that is on the camera and the 28 in the bag.
The 28 gives a "natural" wide angle look without obvious distortion most of the time. When traveling I want to bring home shots that are a fairly accurate representation of what I saw. Of course if you are just trying to "get it all in" say in a small room a 15 would be handy!
Last edited:
john341
camera user
By the pictures I have seen today, the 28 certainly looks like to lens to use. Some great stuff here!
Nh3
Well-known
its all about the subject. its all about what you want to do.
if what you want to photograph does not fit in whatever focal length you're using, you go wider until it fits! or if its too far you go longer until its close enough!
its as simple as that.
if what you want to photograph does not fit in whatever focal length you're using, you go wider until it fits! or if its too far you go longer until its close enough!
its as simple as that.
raid
Dad Photographer
Close-up with a 28mm lens. It works.