Benjamin Marks
Veteran
This is such a subjective question. I really think that it depends on how "wide" you see and how often you feel that you need just a bit more in the frame. When I was in my 20's the 50mm was my normal lens. I just "saw" that way. At the time for urban street photography, a 28 seemed quite wide and I used one quite a bit as my "wide" lens on 35mm. I don't think I even owned a 35mm lens at the time and I couldn't really afford a 24 or a 21.
These days, a 35mm lens is my go-to lens. Dunno what happened, I just started seeing wider as a default and a 35 or equivalent is my leave-it-on-the-camera lens. But interestingly my sense of what was "wide" shifted too and a 28 just didn't "see" enough for me. Today I will be traveling to Vienna, Austria for a week with my wife who is attending an academic conference. I get to roam the streets by day and eat schnitzel in the evenings. I am pretty excited. My lenses are: 15-21-35-50 for this trip, although I do tend to overpack for these sorts of trips. In my case, the oh-why-not lens is the 15, which is tiny, weighs almost nothing, but offers a brilliantly different perspective.
So, how do you see? If a 50 is bolted to your camera most of the time, I think 28 would be a fine shift in perspective. I love my 21 and wider lenses, but they take a bit of learning. Still, why let that scare you off? Isn't that part of the fun?
These days, a 35mm lens is my go-to lens. Dunno what happened, I just started seeing wider as a default and a 35 or equivalent is my leave-it-on-the-camera lens. But interestingly my sense of what was "wide" shifted too and a 28 just didn't "see" enough for me. Today I will be traveling to Vienna, Austria for a week with my wife who is attending an academic conference. I get to roam the streets by day and eat schnitzel in the evenings. I am pretty excited. My lenses are: 15-21-35-50 for this trip, although I do tend to overpack for these sorts of trips. In my case, the oh-why-not lens is the 15, which is tiny, weighs almost nothing, but offers a brilliantly different perspective.
So, how do you see? If a 50 is bolted to your camera most of the time, I think 28 would be a fine shift in perspective. I love my 21 and wider lenses, but they take a bit of learning. Still, why let that scare you off? Isn't that part of the fun?
mfogiel
Veteran
Amsterdam = 12 mm
Rotterdam = 14 mm
The Hague = 16 mm
Bruxelles = 18 mm
Bruge = 21 mm
Etc...
Just get as wide as you can go and crop the bottom part later.
Rotterdam = 14 mm
The Hague = 16 mm
Bruxelles = 18 mm
Bruge = 21 mm
Etc...
Just get as wide as you can go and crop the bottom part later.
Spanik
Well-known
Addy101
Well-known
It isn't a stupid question. The OP asked our opinion and insight - what is stupid 'bout that? If you think it is a stupid question, be polite and refrain from replying. That is what I would do, I wouldn't make a wisecrack...
The people who say it depends on your shooting style are right. However, that doesn't mean that your experience might not be useful for the OP.
Addy101
Well-known
Well, a 24mm on an APS-C camera is like a 35mm on a film/FF camera. But you're right, it is funny
rondo
Established
Ok, many sarcastic and cynical responses, for the obvious and understandable reasons...but I will add a comment about wide angle and architecture: if you want a building to appear in your frame in its entirety, you will surely need a wide angle in an urban setting. If your purpose is documentation, I can understand that. But wide angle distorts the feelings and senses that the built environment has on the individual as experienced by a person's natural vision. For architecture, a tighter angle, such as the one produced by 35 mm lens is more appropriate in my opinion...
ChrisLivsey
Veteran
I agonised on a lens set for Iceland, 7 day stay based in Rejkavick. I ended up taking a 35mm on one body as main shooter, S3 Olympic & 3.5cm 1.8 ( I am 35mm rather than 50mm shooter) second body with 21mm & 85mm, 21mm Color Skopar f4 and 85mm f2 Nikkor on A Bessa R2S.
Shot 24 rolls across the set.
I didn't miss a 28mm but would have missed the 21mm had I taken the 28mm.
If I went back, no WHEN I go back, would I take the same set? Yes, but three bodies, it was tedious switching 21/85.
Shot 24 rolls across the set.
I didn't miss a 28mm but would have missed the 21mm had I taken the 28mm.
If I went back, no WHEN I go back
, would I take the same set? Yes, but three bodies, it was tedious switching 21/85.Merlijn53
Established
I did not say it was a stupid question. But a question that has been asked numerous times before, on which everybody has his own answer and every answer is correct for the person who is giving the answer, well, it is at least a funny question or unnecessary. I can hardly believe it was a serious question. Maybe the OP just wanted to start a discussion like this?
Canyongazer
Canyongazer
???
???
???
The page looks like RFF but half these wisea$$ replies read like they are from DPReview.
???
???
The page looks like RFF but half these wisea$$ replies read like they are from DPReview.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
One advantage of very wide lenses is that you can adjust the verticals afterwards and not crop off too much to get the picture rectangular.
A minor point, I never find the lens the problem in narrow streets; what I have problems with is that often one side of the street will be in shadow and the other brightly lit and on holiday it's often difficult to return when the light is better.
Lastly, learning from others' experiences is the easy. Your own experience comes dear, usually. So why shouldn't people ask for opinions and advice?
Regards, David
One advantage of very wide lenses is that you can adjust the verticals afterwards and not crop off too much to get the picture rectangular.
A minor point, I never find the lens the problem in narrow streets; what I have problems with is that often one side of the street will be in shadow and the other brightly lit and on holiday it's often difficult to return when the light is better.
Lastly, learning from others' experiences is the easy. Your own experience comes dear, usually. So why shouldn't people ask for opinions and advice?
Regards, David
ktmrider
Well-known
I posted something similar a few weeks ago about photographing in the cities of the Old World. I ended up taking 21/35/90 for the M9. So far, the 35 has not been off the camera but I have spent the last week hiking in the Scotish Highlands. I am looking forward to using the other lenses when I get to Edinburgh, London or whereever. It is so small I do not think about it. And glad I have it with me.
varchs
Well-known
I have done the Netherlands trip three years ago with an EOS 3 coupled with a 28-105 zoom lens.
I am an architect and 28 was ok for it!
I have plenty of images on Rotterdam's contemporary architecture as well as Amsterdam's canals and picturesque frames.
I think that 28 and even 35 will perform great.
One concern will be that contemporary tall buildings might need a tilt shift lens...
I am an architect and 28 was ok for it!
I have plenty of images on Rotterdam's contemporary architecture as well as Amsterdam's canals and picturesque frames.
I think that 28 and even 35 will perform great.
One concern will be that contemporary tall buildings might need a tilt shift lens...
lxmike
M2 fan.
the last time I was in Amsterdam I took a 50mm and a 28mm and encountered no prblems, you will love the Netherlands, very nice friendly people and superb to photograph, have a great trip
thmk
Well-known
Wow, so many reactions! The main intend of my question was indeed to get some real life impression how tight the spaces are. I am not an architectural photographer by any means but I like modern buildings and churches and also want to take complete pictures, not only details. Especially Den Haag and Rotterdam are totally unknown to me but now I know that there is a good chance that I do not have to stay directly in front of a building having to use an ultra wide-angle. My other point is weight. I do not carry a backpack in cities, just a shoulder bag and if I do this the whole day, every gram (or ounce) counts
peterm1
Veteran
I don't know about you but too many tourists like to stand back with a wide-ish lens and get it all in. You know - the traditional wife and kids in the foreground and Taj Mahal in the background. (You probably wont see that in Holland, unless Amsterdam has changed more than I remember).
If we stick to this paradigm we tend to get boring and typical tourist photos. I tend to operate under the premis that more often than not, you get better images by getting closer and shooting details that represent the whole setting. This incidentally, is what no other than Robert Capa advocated "if your photos are no good...... you are not close enough" Mind you, people were shooting at him so getting close had a particular piquancy in his case!
But I still think its the same rule for travellers. When I come back from overseas the photos I like mostly are not the grand sweeping images of skylines or landscapes - although there are always a few of those of course. It is the closer shots of people in the street, doing what people in the street normally do.
I traveled to Hong Kong the year before last. Hong Kong is by any measure more densely packed than Amsterdam. Most of my shots were taken at 35mm and above. Mainly well above including up to 200mm (I took my DSLR instead of my Leica which I mainly used on a prior trip). Links below.
As you see - some wider landscape type shots but even here many are taken with a long lens.
2012
https://www.flickr.com/photos/life_in_shadows/sets/72157631879282028/
2010 (Leica
https://www.flickr.com/photos/life_in_shadows/sets/72157625302258709/
You might want to consider this and if you agree, do not worry too much about ultra wide angles. True there may be an occasional shot you miss in a small room where you cannot get back far enough to fit it in with a more normal lens but believe me this does not happen much and is much outweighed by the occasions when you get a terrific shot because you got closer.
If we stick to this paradigm we tend to get boring and typical tourist photos. I tend to operate under the premis that more often than not, you get better images by getting closer and shooting details that represent the whole setting. This incidentally, is what no other than Robert Capa advocated "if your photos are no good...... you are not close enough" Mind you, people were shooting at him so getting close had a particular piquancy in his case!
But I still think its the same rule for travellers. When I come back from overseas the photos I like mostly are not the grand sweeping images of skylines or landscapes - although there are always a few of those of course. It is the closer shots of people in the street, doing what people in the street normally do.
I traveled to Hong Kong the year before last. Hong Kong is by any measure more densely packed than Amsterdam. Most of my shots were taken at 35mm and above. Mainly well above including up to 200mm (I took my DSLR instead of my Leica which I mainly used on a prior trip). Links below.
As you see - some wider landscape type shots but even here many are taken with a long lens.
2012
https://www.flickr.com/photos/life_in_shadows/sets/72157631879282028/
2010 (Leica
https://www.flickr.com/photos/life_in_shadows/sets/72157625302258709/
You might want to consider this and if you agree, do not worry too much about ultra wide angles. True there may be an occasional shot you miss in a small room where you cannot get back far enough to fit it in with a more normal lens but believe me this does not happen much and is much outweighed by the occasions when you get a terrific shot because you got closer.
Addy101
Well-known
You can see groups of Asian doing just that in front of the Peace Palace in The Hague
For Amsterdammers hard to believe, but Amsterdam isn't The Netherlands...