28mm versus 35mm

[NZDavid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've always thought it would be better for lenses to be classified by FOV not focal length. This classifcation would be univeral regardless of image format. With the 35mm format, the 28mm lens has a FOV of 75deg vs. 63deg for the 35mm lens. The shorter the focal length,the greater the difference those few millimeters make. So no, I reckon there is a big difference between a 28 and 35 lens, but it depends what your main subject is. If you want to show something of an interior view, for example, or pack a whole group in to the frame, or get a wider landscape, 28 is much more effective. But for street shooting, travel, and environmental portraits, the 35 is ideal. I don't think any wie-angle lens is ideal for close up portrait because of inherent distortion.

[Guest JoanMarianne]

The previous reply describes effectively the matter of the relevant coverage of the two focal lengths. Earlier comments referred to perspective; but perspective depends exclusively on the position of the camera relative to the subject, so enlarging out the 35mm coverage from a 28mm frame would lose the edges somewhat but the prespective would be exactly as if a 35mm length lens had been used in the first place.

[menos I M6]

The previous reply describes effectively the matter of the relevant coverage of the two focal lengths. Earlier comments referred to perspective; but perspective depends exclusively on the position of the camera relative to the subject, so enlarging out the 35mm coverage from a 28mm frame would lose the edges somewhat but the prespective would be exactly as if a 35mm length lens had been used in the first place.

 

It is absolutely not correct Joan.

 

Any cropped wide angle shot gives a very different look towards a not cropped longer lens frame with same focus distance.

 

The key word here is indeed perspective distortion, which becomes more obvious, the wider the lens.

 

I specifically like a slight edge of perspective distortion, ever so not obvious. It pulls the viewer unconsciously - which a 35 or 28mm lens does very beautifully on a crop body.

 

The field of view looks very common to a normal lens and one can use the camera this way in framing - the images though do involve the audience more, rather than disconnecting.

 

The obvious difference between a 35mm lens and the much more extreme looking 28mm lens is very powerful here.

 

Any 28mm image, cropped to the field of view of a 35mm lens will show more perspective distortion and tends to pull more. The two frames would look rather different (except, planting the camera on a tripod and photographing horizons of course).

[Xmas]

We are going to have a flame war for sure...

 

The lens does not distort perspective, but there is a transform between a solid object and the flat film (or sensor), which does annoy the brain when it looks at a print (or screen).

 

A 28mm or 35mm does not really show this perception effect/problem, whereas a 24mm or (to a greater extent) a 21mm can demonstrate the effect.

 

If you have a human face at the edge of a 21mm frame and at 10 feet it is horrible, dont ask about 16mm or 12mm. It is not much better at 20 feet with a 21mm.

 

If you have a rotating slit lens camera and you arrange all the pupils in the school at the same distance around the camera then every thing looks normal, even if the lens is 28mm on a 35mm film, the film in this case is not flat... the perspective will be the same.

 

If you keep the human face on the axis of the lens you wont detect the problem at all with 28mm, unless you get really close, which is not in the domain of the OP.

 

I believe Winograd one of the greats in street photography took most of his shots with a 28mm Canon f/2.8 LTM on a M4.

 

I'd not use a 28mm for a group shot, the people at the edges would not look normal.

 

Noel

[Guest jung]

I think the 28 focal length is the perfect for the M-system.

 

And for R it's also the sharpest lens (latest version).

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!

[Guest JoanMarianne]

Well, here's a couple of frames I exposed today; one with a 35mm f3.5 Summaron and the other with a 28mm Elmarit-M/V4, the latter trimmed to look similar to the first. But which is which?

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!

[menos I M6]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

We are going to have a flame war for sure...

 

The lens does not distort perspective, but there is a transform between a solid object and the flat film (or sensor), which does annoy the brain when it looks at a print (or screen).

…

 

Noel - any lens other than so called "normal lenses" do distort perspective, which is the main reason, to make use of specific focal lengths for artistic purpose other than just having more reach or getting all in.

 

Wide angles do distort with the effect of "pulling" ones eyes into the image, while longer lenses distort perspective in a way, the scene does get a "compressed" look.

 

A 28mm lens very clearly shows this distortion effect obvious to the eye, which makes scenes look very different even from the "so close" 35mm focal length.

 

You can make the experiment by yourself and shoot the same scene from the same spot with a 35 and a 28 and crop the 28mm image afterwards for the same FOV.

 

You will clearly distinct the difference (if it is not a scene at infinity).

 

I use my 28 Cron mainly not, to get a wider FOV, but a different look of a subject, than with a tighter 35mm lens.

 

I don't see the need for a "flame war" as we are talking here straight hard photographic technique facts, one can learn in every photography course in high school rather than highly scientific gibberish .

[NZDavid]

Those two pics aren't the same at all. With the bottom pic there's more space on the right hand side; also the trees are not in the same place. Wider angle? So if they have both been taken from the same spot and just the lens has been changed, there is a slight difference in perspective. Interesting. I guess a wider lens might have revealed the whole dragon...

[menos I M6]

Well, here's a couple of frames I exposed today; one with a 35mm f3.5 Summaron and the other with a 28mm Elmarit-M/V4, the latter trimmed to look similar to the first. But which is which?

 

Joan - your "Wallington-1.jpg" clearly is made with the 28 Elmarit.

 

Unfortunately, you changed slightly the position of the camera, so the difference in distortion at this subjects focus distance is not very pronounced.

 

The imprecise crop doesn't help either.

 

I got tipped off only by the lower contrast and flare of the Summaron opposed to the pin sharp Elmarit with higher contrast and less veiling flare.

 

There is a difference in distortion between the two lenses of course. One might get a hint of the "nose length" of the outermost left dragon the earliest in the image and of course by the subjective distance between dragons in the foreground and distant building in the background, as this perception changes between different focal lengths images.

 

The different position, you took both photographs from though make any objective display of these factors very difficult to believe to the uneducated about the effect.

 

Interesting subject though - do you have a story about these dragons Joan?

[batmobile]

I find 28mm very different to 35mm in use. 28mm allows you to create more powerful and dynamic wide angle pull when you want to, but most of the time I use 35mm for its subtlety. I am probably transtitioning from 28 to 24 to allow for a better gap, but were this not the case I would merily continue shooting 35 and 28 with both in the same bag.

 

When comparing FLs, instead of aiming at a distant scene and seeing how much extra space 28 allows over 35 (not epic), instead play around with near-far relationships, using something/someone and pulling it in close and seeing what relationships you have with the background. Try this with things and people and I think you will see that the difference between 28 and 35 can be quite considerable. 35 allows only for subtle push-pull of near and far, whereas 28 allows this to be quite noticeable without being overpowering. 21 and beyond allows for this in powerful terms and 24 somewhere in between.

[Guest JoanMarianne]

Agreed, the framing was imprecise and the cropping sloppy! Paradoxically, however, the contrastier and apparently-sharper picture was taken with the Summaron, with an orange filter. The Elmarit was fitted with a pale green filter and this can be confirmed by the lighter tones of the grass in that picture. Not sure how this has happened although I have just had the Summaron cleaned and serviced. The Elmarit should have done better but I'm thinking of selling it anyway. To be certain, I might repeat the exercise with more precision, using a tripod.

 

The carvings were originally on the mediaeval London Bridge, I think, and came to the North-East of England as ship's ballast. They are now at Wallington Hall, Northumberland, a National Trust property, famous for having been the place where G M Trevelyan wrote his History of England. An Internet search for Wallington Hall Northumberland should give more information.

[raizans]

menos, if you have access to a zoom lens, i suggest conducting an experiment. stick it on a tripod, then take a picture at the widest setting. take another picture at the next marked zoom setting, and repeat. use the same aperture for every shot. then compare crops from the first photo to the ones after zooming in.

[palec]

Paradoxically, however, the contrastier and apparently-sharper picture was taken with the Summaron, with an orange filter. The Elmarit was fitted with a pale green filter and this can be confirmed by the lighter tones of the grass in that picture.

 

I find it hard to believe as in Wallington-3 the perspective is more flattened and DOF is narrower. I guess the only explanation is that you've moved backwards with 28mm Elmarit and later cropped (and used smaller aperture number).

[Guest JoanMarianne]

I find it hard to believe as in Wallington-3 the perspective is more flattened and DOF is narrower. I guess the only explanation is that you've moved backwards with 28mm Elmarit and later cropped (and used smaller aperture number).

 

 

I was trying to emulate field conditions, rather than conduct a laboratory test. What I can confirm is that I did not move between pictures (I was standing on a stone in a flooded ditch) and that the aperture for both shots was f8; speed was 1/125 second, focus was on the second stone from the right. The Elmarit frame was, as stated previously, cropped to approximate 35mm coverage. I have checked the negatives against the notes I took at the time and reiterate that the 1953 Summaron seems better than the 1992 Elmarit-M.

[Xmas]

Hi Joan

 

Did you have the Elmarit serviced? The white spots would tend to flatten the image, the green filter would not help (recover) as much as the orange filter on the aron,and orange is pretty exteme.

 

The aron will have an advantage over the Elmarit, both cause of its simpler design and longer focal length.

 

Hi Menos

 

I'm using the dictionary definition of 'perspective', I'd suggest you are using 'perception' rather than 'perspective' instead. The difference you are addressing is caused by the projection on to a flat film, the effect is not detectable with a Widelux rotating lens curved focal plane camera, some of these use 38mm lenses on 35mm film.

 

But independent of that as Joan's samples show it is perfectly acceptable to use a 28mm and crop the centre, if your technique is good enough, there is no perception difference.

 

Give the choice of 28, 35, 40 and 50 I use the 35 for 95 % of shots, the 28 for 4%.

 

Noel

[Guest JoanMarianne]

Hello, Noel. I agree; I ought to have removed both filters since using orange on the Summaron gave it an unfair advantage. As it happens, I was also trying out an Orion-15 at the same time and the results were so good that I have this morning posted the Elmarit off to a dealer to be sold. I do most of my landscape photography while fell-walking and it seems desirable not to have to be too concerned about the value of one's equipment when clambering about in the hills. Also, I think I would prefer people to say "That's an interesting picture" rather than "That's a SHARP picture" when they look at my photographs. On the whole, however, It seems logical to use Leica lenses wherever possible; even when they are only inexpensive because they are so old!

[Xmas]

Hi Joan

 

The weight of equipment is important if you are fell walking.

 

The Orion-15 is light, its significant limitation is its aluminum threaded mount which if you were not using it on an M (i.e. via an adopter) can cross thread and damage easily. The similar slow 28mm lens from Leitz is also a stellar performer but a real collector.

 

The Canon 28mm LTM lens are faster, and only a little more expensive, but seem to have been caught up in the inflation caused by the M8 and M9 user base expansion. Even Orions are getting more expensive.

 

Noel

[Guest JoanMarianne]

Thanks for the tip, Noel; I'll keep the Orion on an adapter and just use it on my M4-P. You are right about prices; I paid £125, accepting that a premium was worth paying when buying from a reputable source and it is in near-mint condition, with end caps and the original plastic box.

[Xmas]

Hi Joan

 

That may have been reasonable, mine is a bid sad looking, optics scratched, and the helicoid lube impossibly stiff, 80 £.

 

The Canon f/2.8 bit taty £180, CV f/3.5 nice £220.

 

My Orion will do flare flashes when light sources are in the frame, but I've seen similar from other manufacturers.

 

You will be able to afford film when the Elmarit sells.

 

Noel

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Tim B]

My favourite "standard" lens has for a long time been 28mm, although recently I have found myself using 35mm and 50mm more often.

 

The latest 28mm Elmarit-M ASPH is a fantastic lens. It is tiny, very sharp and if you don't need f/2 is possibly unbeatable.

 

I use 28mm a lot because in confined spaces like interiors it gives just that bit more elbow-room. Outside again I find the sense of space it gives me very creative. I like the hallmark extension of perspective when including close objects within distant scenes. The Elmarit or the 'cron ASPH are both fairly free from optical distortion.

 

I got a 35mm 'cron ASPH mainly to use on my M8 as a 50mm equivalent, but I find its moderate wide view on film Ms increasingly useful.

 

It is all a question of using the tool that enables your creative vision to be translated into the image you are looking for.

 

Does one ever have enough lenses?

 

Tim