Why no 28 f 1.4 lenses in M mount?

Nikkor AIS said:
This thread is turning into 28 mm bashing and I intend on turning that around.
I think to say the 28 mm isnt more commonly used is a personal opinion and not a statement of fact. 50% of my work is done with the 28 mm either in Nikon mount of Leica M. For me the often times the 24mm is a little bit to wide and the 35 mm is a little bit to long wheere the 28mm is just right and the third bowel of porridge and just right. While a couple of mm dosnt sound like much howevern in the feild the differnece can be significant.

The 28 really lets you "get in there" and yet still blur the background and yet give context to the enviroment. Here is a good example.
Click to expand...

Nobody bashes 28. I have several fast 28s (f1.9 and f2) and love them - check my flickr gallery and older Ultron threads for my contributions. None of your examples (except for the fence, maybe) was shot at f1.4. Your photo of the guy with the beard was heavily cropped ?

My point remains: if Leica made a 28/1.4, and I had US 5k to spare for a fast wide, I would still buy the Summilux 35/1.4, because it's more flexible, for people in particular. Outside of the internet, 28 and 35 are almost interchangeable (much like 40 and 50, or 75 and 90), unless one refuses to crop.

Roland.
 
Last edited:
I agree w/your Noctilux analogy. For me, anything wider than 35mm is predominantly an indoor lens, i.e., for when I actually can't simply step back from the action. Because available indoor lighting is usually low, every bit of speed is important & that's why I would be very interested in a 28/1.4 in M mount, even w/significant VF blockage. The 21 & 24 'luxes are too wide for me, but I can certainly see how someone would find them useful.

JSU said:
Wide apertures are not for everyone, but for those who use and appreciate them, then the wider the better, usually. I doubt many use f-1.4 hoping for the same IQ of f-2.8. They typically are after a different, and often distinctive, variation of looks.

ADD 1:

I would think that anyone who uses or even appreciates the Noctiluxes would likewise appreciate a 28 Summilux. There aren't as many Noctilux users as there are users of 50 Summicrons, but try convincing any Noctilux user that they don't need f-1.0, f-0.95 or even f-1.2 for those with the original version. There isn't as high a demand for the Noctilux but I suspect Leica sells every one they make.
Click to expand...
 
They're nice pics, Nikkor AIS. I'm not 28mm bashing (except that it's not my personal favourite lens), just pointing out that if there isn't the market for it then a sufficient number of other people are going for 35mm or something shorter than 28mm instead. One of the big-selling 35mm "how to" books recommends you ignore 28mm and go for 24mm or 35mm, but that was specifically talking about Nikon SLR lenses. In most systems 24mm was about two or three times the price of 28mm, so it wasn't such an easy choice.
 
My 35mm kits over the years have largely been based around the 24mm lens - 24mm, 35mm, 85mm & 200mm. My secondary kits are based around the 50mm - 21mm, 28mm, 50mm, & 135mm.

I use them all. I have two 24mm lenses in OM mount - the Zuikio 24mm f/2.8 and a Vivitar (Kiron) 24mm f/2. I have used the 24mm Vivitar lens more than the Zukio even though the Zuiko is a better lens. The extra stop comes in handy. That's why I tracked down the Vivitar Series 1 (Tokina) 28mm f/1.9 in OM mount about 10 years ago.

Now if Voigtlander brought out a 28mm f/1.4 in M mount it would be a hard choice to get it or the 35mm f/1.4.
 
Last edited:
28 is my favorite focal length. 35 just didn't do it for me - I was always either too close or too far away. I find 28 a great lens when you are interacting with people - you don't really have to change your distance from them to get a more 'environmental' shot. With 35, I always found myself taking a step back or having a tighter shot than I wanted. I also think 28 pairs up better with 50.

I love my 28/2. If a 28/1.4 came out, I might actually consider it depending on it's size.

I've not ever shot a 24 or 25. I don't really see a reason to do so since there are frame lines for 28. I do find 21 significantly wider, to the point that I have to use it a lot differently than a 28. It's definitely not an all purpose focal length for me.
 
Ferider, the guy with the beard is a full-frame shot @ 1.4 on Nikkor 28 1.4 with 72 polarizer. I always mention when I crop, and saying that, I hardly ever crop. The CB-driven shot is @ 1.4, the cow is @ 1.4 , the old car is @ 1.4. The girl showing her guns is @ 1.4 and the man sitting is @ 1.4. I should know, I shot them :).
Besides, I can tell just by looking at them that they're wide open. When the Nikkor gets stopped down, it has a totally different signature.

Getting back to the discussion, I really think the 28 mm is a perfect conversational lens as someone else has said. And I use it alongside the 35 mm 1.4 on a everyday basis. To me, one doesn't replace the other.

One thing about using the 28 1.9 on the M mount is that more often than not, I find myself using a polarizer to cut back the light in order to use it @ F1.9 and 1/1000 sec in the daylight. The same is true with the Nikkor but at least I have 1/8000 of a second on digital and 1/4000 on film (FM2).



Nikkor 28 1.4 AF-D on Nikon D3
 
Last edited:
For a long time my favorite prime was the Sigma 28mm AF F1.8 for Nikon. A really great and inexpensive lens. I really loved and still love that lens. But I dont use it much anymore. I prefer the much smaller Contax 28mm F2.8 for Contax G mount. It is much less obvious than the giant chunk of glass which is the Sigma or Nikon Fast 28's are, and that's important me when I am doing candid street shooting. I now prefer 50's and 35's more than the 28mm but its good for tight situations - Kievman
 
I have both 28s & 35s, all F2s. I'll go with Nikkor AIS and the other 28mm fans on this one. I find I tend to use my 28s more than my 35s--if I'm taking one camera and one lens, It'll be a 28. Not only a good landscape lens,but a good "people" lens as well--can get more in the frame when shooting close-in than a 35, and the extra depth of field helps cover up any slight errors in focus when shooting low light. So for me, it's pretty much a "general purpose" lens...
 
Like Paul, I feel that the 28 mm is my all-purpose lens. And it's funny but it took me over 20 years in my photographic journey to get a 28 mm focal length. I always thought it was too normal. And so when I wanted to challenge myself and broaden my palette, I chose the Nikkor 28 1.4 as my platform.
And I did it with the intent on taking more "personal" types of images. For me, it was time to make the image all about the subject and not the tricky lens I was using.

I can see Leica making a 28 1.4 ASPH in the near future. Sure it would be big, and heavy and expensive, but would it be awesome. I would get one.













































Nikkor 28 1.4 AF-D on Nikon D3
 
Last edited:
Thanks JS, I appreciate the kind words. I have a bunch of new work on film I'm really excited about scanning. In many cases, I shot the 28 1.9 ASPH on Leica M right alongside, so it should be interesting.























































 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom