Jump to content

How True is the Following:


Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don't have a lot of experience shooting with a 28mm lens.  I have a M240 and have shot with a 21mm.  I was wondering if you could take a look at:

 

http://www.theinspiredeye.net/28mm-focal-length/

 

And let me know how much of it you agree or disagree with.  Ideally -- those of you who already have a Q might be in a better position than those who have no direct Q experience yet.

 

Thanks-

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello my friend.  Excellent article and dead on. 

 

I've had to adjust my shooting style since getting this focal length with the Q and it's been fun.  If forces you to fill the frame by having one look at an entire story OR to get very close to your subject. 

 

Since I have plenty of detail with the sensor, I can still crop if necessary.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello my friend.  Excellent article and dead on. 

 

I've had to adjust my shooting style since getting this focal length with the Q and it's been fun.  If forces you to fill the frame by having one look at an entire story OR to get very close to your subject. 

 

Since I have plenty of detail with the sensor, I can still crop if necessary.

 

 

Though I have the 35mm Lux 35 FLE and only the humble 28mm f/2.8 Elmarit-M, I'd have to say that light permitting I far prefer using the 28mm. Indeed, so much so that I'm tempted to replace the 35 with the new Lux 28.

 

If I was minded to buy yet another camera I've no doubt I'd plump for the Q as for me it would be the perfect fixed lens set up. Actually, upon reflection, buying the Q would cheaper than buying the Lux 28 ............... now there's a thought ;)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Q camera is not for me, but I do love the 28mm focal length.  28mm is the widest wide that still looks natural.  When photographing people with a 28mm lens, they still look normal for the most part.  Once you get to 24mm, people start to look abnormally stretched toward the edges of the frame.  28mm often seems to describe people and places very nicely and naturally — the way we see — without imposing itself on the scene.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

I don't have a lot of experience shooting with a 28mm lens.  I have a M240 and have shot with a 21mm.  I was wondering if you could take a look at:

 

http://www.theinspiredeye.net/28mm-focal-length/

 

And let me know how much of it you agree or disagree with.  Ideally -- those of you who already have a Q might be in a better position than those who have no direct Q experience yet.

 

Thanks-

 

I didn't much like the article but it was as much the style as the substance.

 

Until the Q, I have to confess I did not use a 28mm focal length too much, with most of my use getting decided between 35mm and 24mm.  However now with the Q, I'm finding the focal length to be very useful indeed.  It feels very natural and you only have to look briefly at the pictures at http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/248576-leica-q-image-thread/ or at  http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/260179-leica-q-macro-image-thread/ to appreciate the capabilities.

 

- Vikas

Edited by vikasmg
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

In my film days, my cameras usually has a 28mm f/2.8 mounted all the time.  During the 60s I shot street scenes during protests, so the 28mm set to hyperlocal with Tri-X and 1/125 pretty much got the unexpected.  Boy have we improved now.  50 years later the Q has a level of perfection we could only dream about then.  And 1.7 far sharper than film at 2.8 in those days!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The article is pretty simplistic and aimed at people not familiar with using wide angle lenses, but still a good primer on their basic use. I consider 28mm to be my "normal" lens, and use the Q as my go to camera for photojournalism. I use Ms for wider (24 and 21) and Nikons for longer. Your best results will be getting in close your your subject. Sometimes uncomfortably so. Don't use it so much to just get a wider field of view so you can merely get more "stuff" into the frame. If you look at the last series of pictures in the article - they all share one thing - something of strong interest in the foreground. 28s and wider are best when you frame something in the foreground that leads the eye into the rest of the picture - you need to look at things in "layers" with a wide angle - foreground, mid, and background.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Like others have said, the article seems aimed at new users of the focal length.  I think the point of little bokeh was over emphasized as the Q is capable of very nice bokeh.  A 28mm lens will never render out of focus as a telephoto can but with the Q and the fast speed of the lens it can provide satisfying bokeh. 

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would agree with the article with one exception:  You can create bokeh with a 28mm lens.  Not the same kind of bokeh as with a Noctilux or a 90/2 Summicron, but the 28 is more than capable of creating bokeh - even the 28/2.8 Elmarit.  Get to arm's length of your main subject and shoot at maximum aperture - you will most certainly get bokeh.

 

I shot with a 28/2 Summicron (2003 version) for many years on film M cameras (M4-P and MP) and did not find the lens to be difficult to use or difficult to create quality compositions with.  The article talks about balance and what it says is true - the more people you have in your frame, the more difficult it is to manage the image.  In street photography, the issue is that you will almost always have someone stepping in or out of your framelines, giving you a person with a missing foot, hand or head - or half a person.  That is just the way it is when you shoot on a busy street, regardless of focal length, unless you use a 75-300mm zoom lens and photograph people across the street from you.

 

I have also shot a lot with the 35/2 Summicron, which no one seems to complain about in terms of balance or managing your human elements within the framelines.  The 35mm lens is very close to the 28mm in terms of field of view; particularly when you are doing street photography and you get close to your subjects. 

 

When you are photographing people with a wide angle lens, getting close is an absolute must; the shorter the lens, the closer you must get.  With a 21mm, you need to get to half an arm's length when photographing people. 

 

That is the difficulty in using a short lens - not so much angle of view or composition, but getting over the fear of getting close to your subjects.  You have to get right up to the edge of their personal space (arm's length) or inside their personal space and that is not easy for any of us to do. 

 

You just have to make yourself do it, though; that is the only way to overcome the fear and get accustomed to photographing people at arm's length or closer.  My experience has been that the resulting images are well worth the temporary discomfort of "getting up in someone's business" as the saying goes.

Edited by Carlos Danger
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...