Why is 24/25mm better than 28mm?

I don't shoot anything wider than 28 (even though I used to):

For 25 and wider you have to work really hard on your composition and foreground. Otherwise most of the picture is boring sky and empty street.

Most 25mm or wider shots on the net look like lens test photos to me. :)

Roland.
 
It struck me recently when I was shooting with the CV 28/2.5 for a couple of days, that 28mm is really what people think 35 is.... sort of. Meaning it's natural and flat of field but wide. Meanwhile, I love the square root of two progression. Made the whole thread worthwhile.
 
lens factor calculations

lens factor calculations

Rob-F said:
[...]
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. [...].
Click to expand...

Nice calculus. I started with 28mm and did the similar calculation with a factor of 1.8 which led to my 15-28-50-90 lens line.
Are we all crazy? Is this all nonsense? :eek: But I like this forum also for such threads. :)
 
Hi,

Interesting " ... well spaced--not too close, not too far apart... " and that brings us to the Golden Sector ratio which has hundreds of years thought behind it. Has anyone used it?

Of course, the real problem is that you work out the maths and then find they don't make them to fit your camera with the frame-lines missing too...

Taking favourite lenses I'd go for 30 (based on the old Lydith) and 42mm (based on the Olympus 35SP and the frame's diagonal) and 85 or 90 mm (based on every decent portrait lens I've ever owned). Great fun but a bit academic.

Regards, David
 
lens factor calculations

lens factor calculations

It is really fun, even if a little bit academic. I just realized my 1.8x lens line-up with 15-28-50-90 could be matched with the same factor starting at 12mm:
12-21-40-75-135

Having "standard Leica M" frame lines on my RF I only miss the 40mm lines: But the 35mm lens/line is not far away. So I just confirmed mathematically that I NEED five more lenses. This is definitly not GAS :bang:
 
I just got a 25mm f4 for my Nikon Rangefinder, and loving it, it' just gives
that slight bit more than the 28mm that you need indoors and outdoors
as well.

Range
 
I want the 1600mm that fruitcake in the middle east got made by Leica ... now that's a lens!
 
Years ago I carried 21 and 28mm lenses, then realized I could lighten my load and do what I needed to do with just a 24. The combo I finally settled on was 24, 35, 85, and 180, all Zuikos.

Although I did sometimes wish I had a 50.
 
For years with SLRs I used 24/50/85/180 as my standard lens assortment. With RF, I've always preferred 28mm, perhaps because you don't need a separate finder, also because of lack of distortion (most of the time) So I usually keep th 28mm on he camera and 21mm in the back when you need to go wider. Sometimes I'll carry a 25 in lieu of a 21/28 combo, but then I'm back to using a separate finder all the time, which isn't my preference.
 
20/21-28-50 works best for me. 24/25 is neither fish nor fowl for me. But totally a matter of personal preference. It's all good. :)
 
It's better because I am more comfortable with it. 35 works for me. 28 is just wide enough that I lose the focus fo the shot (failing to move in) but 25 forces me to do so. That, and on a crop, the 25 is about 35, so I get 2 useful FLs in one lens depending on the body.
 
I think it is a matter of how a given photographer "sees" his/her subject, his/her photographic vision and what focal length a person has become accustomed to.

I like the 28mm perspective for a wide lens. The 28 is wide enough that you get a lot of coverage but it has a natural perspective - there is no distortion near the edge of the frame. In other words, people's heads retain their natural shape and do not become elongated or oval shaped like eggs.

I like the 21mm too, especially for tight quarters. People near the edges of the frame will have egghead distortion if you are close to them, though.

The wider the lens, the closer to the centers of the frame you need to keep your main subject(s) to avoid distortion, particularly when you are close to them.
 
24mm ist as wide as you can go without noticeable distortion. I shoot 90% of all my photos with a 24mm lens because it matches human eyes field of view. You don't even have to look through the viewfinder: what you see with your eyes is exactly what it you'll get on film. I love that :D
 
Ruhayat said:
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?
Click to expand...

Yes. The profit margin for retailers is higher on 24/25mm lenses than on 28mm lenses.
 
What BS. Better because it takes more in. Better because it is a better quality, i.e. resolution & contrast. Better because it fits your lens kit spacing, 50 35 24 or 50 35 28 21.

My Leica 24 & 28 current are both very fine lenses.

Nikon 24 1.4 is very nice as is my 28 Leica R shift remounted to Nikon.

I thought my CV 25 was decent on film. When Digital came, I can see the defects are so bad I would be embarrassed to sell it. One side is out of focus which means decentering of elements. All four corners are out of focus. Focus jams and I "rebuilt " it several times. Shade jams on way to easy. I will never buy another CV product. It works well as a paper weight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom