Nylund
Newbie
Hello, first post here!
I´m saving up for a Zeiss Ikon. I want to use just one lens and i´m decided to go for a 28 or a 35 (want to keep it simple - currently using a Canon 5D with 16-35, 24-70, 50, 100 macro, 70-200 well you get the point
) My question is which lens is optically better and does all the information inside the 28 mm framelines get distracting?
Thanks in advance
I´m saving up for a Zeiss Ikon. I want to use just one lens and i´m decided to go for a 28 or a 35 (want to keep it simple - currently using a Canon 5D with 16-35, 24-70, 50, 100 macro, 70-200 well you get the point
) My question is which lens is optically better and does all the information inside the 28 mm framelines get distracting?Thanks in advance
Nachkebia
Well-known
Don`t forget 35mm is f/2, 28mm is f/2.8
Wish you best.
Wish you best.
back alley
IMAGES
i don't find the 28/90 framelines distracting at all. in fact the zi has a very clean viewfinder.
the 25 is supposed to be the best of the line up.
the 28 and 35 seem to rated at about the same excellent level.
for me, if i can only have one lens it would be the 35.
if 2, then, the 25 or 28 and the 50.
the 25 is supposed to be the best of the line up.
the 28 and 35 seem to rated at about the same excellent level.
for me, if i can only have one lens it would be the 35.
if 2, then, the 25 or 28 and the 50.
Nylund
Newbie
Thanks!
The 25 looks interesting but i don´t want to use an external viewfinder.
Just have to pick one - I can always buy more later
The 25 looks interesting but i don´t want to use an external viewfinder.
Just have to pick one - I can always buy more later
back alley
IMAGES
i use the 25 w/o an external finder.
i use the entire vf area. seems to work ok.
joe
i use the entire vf area. seems to work ok.
joe
Nachkebia
Well-known
Same here, using 25mm without finder, works fine
ghost
Well-known
it's silly to choose between lenses of different focal lengths based on sharpness, or whatever. you have to think about your setup.
do you wear glasses? if so, 35mm is your best choice on the zi. if not, then 28mm would be fine as a standard lens. 25mm would make a good second lens, and you can get by without the accessory viewfinder if you don't wear glasses.
if you plan on a 35/25 pair, you could split the difference with the 28mm, in the same way some people split the 50/28 pair into a 35mm. a recent poll has shown that the 35/50 pair is very popular, so who knows? 28/35 may also be an option (alex majoli used this pair when he shot leicas), as well as 25/28.
do you wear glasses? if so, 35mm is your best choice on the zi. if not, then 28mm would be fine as a standard lens. 25mm would make a good second lens, and you can get by without the accessory viewfinder if you don't wear glasses.
if you plan on a 35/25 pair, you could split the difference with the 28mm, in the same way some people split the 50/28 pair into a 35mm. a recent poll has shown that the 35/50 pair is very popular, so who knows? 28/35 may also be an option (alex majoli used this pair when he shot leicas), as well as 25/28.
back alley
IMAGES
i use the 25 w/o finder and i wear glasses.
it may be just as silly to tell people what to do.
joe
it may be just as silly to tell people what to do.
joe
ghost
Well-known
well, at least he wouldn't be the one doing something silly.
Nylund
Newbie
Reallyghost said:
, damn. I didn´t think it would be this hard
Dougg
Seasoned Member
You should be able to adjust your mental view of the scenes around you to to match any of these lenses, but as you move wider it gets a bit more challenging to keep "WIDE" from being the subject. I think 35 is very versatile, just wide enough to be a "real" wide angle, but long enough to serve as "normal" pretty easily. If I were to have just one lens, the 35 would be the one. Or a 40 if the camera has 40 framelines. Despite success by some, I wouldn't set out to use a 40 with a camera having 35 framelines. Just note how many fixed lens leaf-shutter RFs were fitted with 40mm lenses... 35 or 40 is great for an all-purpose choice.
Nylund
Newbie
Yeah, I know about "WIDE" being the subject. When I first got my hands on the Canon 16-35mm
I basically treated it as a prime 16mm. A lot of the shots very really nice and pretty, but that
was the problem. They were just that, PRETTY, with very little "content"...
How ironic.
I basically treated it as a prime 16mm. A lot of the shots very really nice and pretty, but that
was the problem. They were just that, PRETTY, with very little "content"...
How ironic.