Why is 24/25mm better than 28mm?

R

Ruhayat

Well-known
Local time
5:31 AM
Joined
Dec 22, 2010
Messages
266
I came across a quote on the Cameraquest website where Stephen Gandy stated that a case can be made that 24/25mm is a better wide angle focal length than 28mm. But he didn't elaborate. It reminds me of another quote I had come across, this time for film-making, where it was said that 24mm is the best focal length for wides.

Any thoughts on why that might be so?

I just bought a 25mm Color Skopar after using a 28mm Elmarit for about 2 years, and I'd like to learn as much as I can about this new focal length.
 
A 25 is great for getting more in. And for zone focussing with such great depth of field and for hand holding a slower speed and for compactness with that little Color Skopar you just got. With an external finder and presetting focus and exposure it makes a very quick point and shoot. Controlling perspective isn't so tricky as with a 21. Many people think 35 is too close to 50. Since I disagree and have two 35s I find I don't need a 28, and I have two 25s. The best focal length for a wide angle lens? Sounds reasonable to me.
 
Possibly because some people equate 'wide' with some distortion and dramatic angles to act as the main point of the photograph, so prefer a 24mm etc, and some like the 28mm precisely because it doesn't distort perspective in the same overblown way. Many photographers use a very wide lens as a crutch to replace content in just the same way as some buy a very fast lens just to display 'bokeh'. It requires a very good photographer not to fall into the trap of visual cliches with a very wide or a very fast lens.
 
"best focal length for wides" belongs to the same realm of hyperbole and delusions of universality as most "the best" statements. Even when it is narrowed down to wide-angle lenses only, the best focal length for you will differ from so many other people. I think an argument could be made that, for many people, a 24mm lens is the most versatile as it comes between two widely-loved (sorry) focal lengths of 21mm and 28mm, however many would disagree with me. If anyone manages to work out the best wide angle focal length though, they will then have hours of fun finding the best manufacturer and the best camera to put it on ... ; )
 
After shooting regularly with one focal length, especially wides, I tend to mentally adjust to the look and think it is normal. For example, for a few years I 'saw' in 28mm, primarily because it was the default focal length of my camera. After some time I got a 25mm and I loved the extra width, and came to think of it as wide as you could go without looking abnormally distorted.

Then I got a 21 and shot extensively with that for only a month or two, and that became my new 'normal'. 28mm is no way near 35, in the same way that 35 is no way near 50. Having said that, I prefer to keep fairly big jumps between focal lengths if I am traveling, so a 21-35-50 combo is what I'd prefer.

As for 24/25, I do agree that it's a great focal length, but not the be-all and end-all of wides.
 
from my experience there is no such thing as "best" lens. its about preference. i personally prefer 28mm for a variety of reasons none of which are relevant to this thread.

imo, shoot extensively with the 25. if you like it, stick with it. if you dont, sell it and keep using the 28.
 
One thing I know from experience is that 24mm designs tend to give image quality I prefer against 28mm designs. I think that might be because the 24s are, on the whole, several years later in design terms. I also think that many 24s were produced as premium products and thus might have been built to a higher standard from higher quality materials.

Then again, that is only my highly selective experience...

:D
 
I use my 24mm Nikkor and my 25mm Zeiss more than the 28mm Nikkor when using a Nikon; unless I need a PC lens. Then I use my 28mm PC-Nikkor. On Leica M, I use my 28mm Summicron a lot. It works well with the 28mm framelines on the MP; and on the M8.2, where it functions as a good 37mm "walkabout."

Notice this. 25mm X 1.414 = 35mm. 35mm X 1.414 == 50mm. And 1.414 is the square root of 2. Long story short, this means that a 25mm lens covers twice the picture area of a 35mm; which in turn covers twice the area of a 50mm. So these three focal lengths make a nice system together, well spaced--not too close, not too far apart. And if we wanted to go wider, the next one to add at the wide end would be 17.5mm (in practice, 18mm is close enough). The next one to add at the long end would be 70mm (for Leica M, make it 75mm).

How to fit a 28mm into a similar system? Like this: 20-28-40 makes a good start. The next step would be add a 56mm. So in a Nikon system, we could use the 55mm MicroNikkor. And after that, the 85mm would be a fairly good fit into the square root of two progression. In the Leica system, we don't have a 55/56, and 50 is a bit too close to 40; while 75 is too long to fit the progression. Still, one could live with 21-28-40-75.

So. It's as much about how well a given lens works harmoniously with the other focal lengths in our outfit, as it is about any one focal length. Beyond that, it's a matter of which lens "sees" the scene like the photographer does. It will be 24 or 25 for one, 28 for another. I seem to need a 24 or 25 in my kit.
 
Rob-F said:
How to fit a 28mm into a similar system? Like this: 20-28-40 makes a good start. The next step would be add a 56mm. So in a Nikon system, we could use the 55mm MicroNikkor. And after that, the 85mm would be a fairly good fit into the square root of two progression. In the Leica system, we don't have a 55/56, and 50 is a bit too close to 40; while 75 is too long to fit the progression. Still, one could live with 21-28-40-75.
Click to expand...

Thanks for this insight. I have this lens spacing in medium format using various cameras.

Its just about the right tool for the job IMHO.

Cal
 
By the way, I found out why 24mm on full frame DSLR is considered the "best" wide angle focal length for film-making: it's sufficiently wider than 28mm to give a more dramatic wide shot, while being the limit where distortion at the edges of the frame can still be reasonably controlled. Go any wider and the picture will start to distort noticeably, especially if you have people walking to, from or near the edges of the frame. Unless of course that's the effect you're aiming for, eg experimental arthouse features.
 
Erwin Puts has a lot to say on the matter, here: http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/lenses/24mm/comp24.html. If you have the lens compendium, he goes into some detail regarding the 24/25mm focal length.

I like the 24/25 for the drama it offers and the FOV seems to be "natural" to me. That being said, I want a 24 f/2 for my Leica that's the size of the 28 Elmarit ASPH, but we don't always get what we want, do we? :D

I'll just have to shoot this Fuji Natura Black until it dies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom