28mm versus 35mm

[xjr]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Each focal length is different and the difference is what defines its use. Having said that each individual will define that use for his type of perspective in photography. As a very personal opinion I found the 28mm focal length rather limited when I was in the SLR mode. However I only appreciated its potential when I borrowed one to use on my Leica in the ...rangefinder mode ! Since then I bought a 28mmf2 ASPH boxed and mint for £1350 !....and has replaced the 35mmf2 asph in street scene mode.

[Guest JoanMarianne]

The original query here was the relative negative coverage of 35mm and 28mm lenses and whether one can achieve a 35mm image area from within a negative esposed with a 28mm lens. Actually, the M series viewfinder that takes in 28mm gives a graphic demonstration since it shows the coverage of all lenses from 28mm to 135mm. The latter, for example, is just an area selected from the centre of the frame; the perspective does not change, although graininess would be a factor if the selected area was taken from a photograph taken with a wider lens, rather than using a 135mm lens.

 

As it happens, I for one do not automatically print the whole negative area. In most cases, I crop and also alter the aspect ratio; so I conclude that 28mm is a viable alternative to 35mm (but not to anything longer) ; and I quite like an element of graininess. Those who like ultra-sharp, grain-free images will take another route.

 

"Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos" (Terence, ca 190-159 BC)

[Jeff S]

The M finder is indeed useful for viewing alternative lens framing (and helping to decide future lens purchases). In this case, it appears to have taught you about the general properties of lenses and the fact that perspective is not altered unless the subject to lens distance changes (or maybe you knew that). Of course, film grain can be altered by choice of films as needed. I also happen to like grain...to a point.

 

Another cropping tactic, by the way, for shooting buildings and avoiding converging verticals...just use a wide angle lens, stand back so camera can be leveled while still capturing the building, then crop the foreground. This substitutes for having to use a tilt/shift lens or using software (or darkroom) corrections.

 

Jeff

[Guest JoanMarianne]

I have just been seduced into buying a 1972 35mm Summilux 1.4. I now understand why the favourite lens for a rangefinder is 35mm and why the pairing of a 50mm with 35mm is so popular. The rest must go. (Well, it was rather expensive......and what else do I need anyway?)

[thrid]

On looking through a Voigtlander finder that covered both 28mm and 35mm, I was struck by the small difference between the angle of view of these lengths. This suggests that, for black-and-white at least, 28mm will be the better option since the 35mm area can be enlarged out of the frame without noticeable stress. Does this seem a reasonable philosophy or is there a catch somewhere that I have missed?

 

 

For many years the 35 was my main lens and then a few weeks ago I bought a VC Ultron 2/28.

I was surprised at what a difference 7mm makes, but the FOV of the 28 is a whole different animal.

 

I'm still experimenting with the lens, but my initial impression is that the 28 is a little too wide for me as a standard lens. It's great indoors and in tight spaces, but overall I think the 35 is a better choice.

 

As far ass cropping down the 28 to a 35 goes, it obviously is possible, but I'm not sure if it is an ideal solution. I tried 35 -> and while it is technically possible, it just wasn't the same. Mainly because I did not compose shots with the 35, like I would have with the 50...

 

By the way the Ultron 2/28 is one heck of a lens for the money. I'm very impressed.

[Xmas]

I have just been seduced into buying a 1972 35mm Summilux 1.4. I now understand why the favourite lens for a rangefinder is 35mm and why the pairing of a 50mm with 35mm is so popular. The rest must go. (Well, it was rather expensive......and what else do I need anyway?)

 

Warm clothing for next winter...

 

The lux tends to not like contra jour, but at /5.6 it is as good as the other contemporary 35m lenses

The 35mm lux needs the late summicron 35mm non asph and Elmarit 28mm asph common hood, this is small square and deep, it does not seem to vignette on the lux.

The standard hood with the series 7 filter does not shield the lens enough.

You only need to fit an elastic band into the hood ring of the lens to stop the hood rotating but other wise it is practical. The other lenses have cut outs to stop rotation.

The hood transforms the lens performance in open sceanes, it is rather expensive....

 

Noel

[Guest JoanMarianne]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Oh dear, that sounds ominous. Actually, I did originally try for the pre-aspherical 35mm f2 Summicron but these seem to be snapped up as soon as they come on the market in the UK. Something to do with the popularity of the M9, I believe.

[Xmas]

Hi Joan

 

The lux is as practical as the cron, the largest problem is that the official lux hood takes a series filter but does not shield the filter, much, If you fit the elastic band and the late cron (non asph) hood then the lens behaves normally and you have an extra stop.

 

Either hood is mega expensive, the original is a collector, even a beaten up one is not cheap...

 

You darn't use either the cron or lux without a hood, the official lux hood evenwithout a filter, is not all that effective.

 

Lots of people use the elastic band bodge, some bodge the hood to include a clamp on ring.

 

If you are shooting in low light against Fresnels & profiles in a night club the lens will bleed and flare, It was a statement lens fron the '60s, where Leitz out did Canon and Nikon, for speed. Tha asph lux is reported to not be exceptional in strong backlighting either,

 

If you use the non standard hood then you need to blue tack in a 39mm screw in filter cause there are no threads to hold a filter.

 

Others should tell you what they do. But they are ok lenses if you are gonna use at f/8 or if you might need f/1.4, they are getting expensive whereas when new they were the same as rhe cron in the UK because of tariff duties.

 

Noel

 

[edit] all the lenses seem to be getting difficult to get and more expensive, even CV and ZM,[/edit]

[steve kessel]

JoanMarianne

 

I've had this type of 35 lux since Dec. With the vented hood and screw in filter. Hard for me to get used to the wider angle from my preferred 50 lux (also pretty old) but worth persisting.

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/people/119472-mothering-sunday-columbia-road.html

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/people/115206-notting-hill.html

 

Best wishes

 

Steve

[Xmas]

Hi Steve

 

Those seem as if you can use a 35mm.

 

Think you have an earlier lens they changed from screw in to series seven filters about '71.

 

Noel

[Guest JoanMarianne]

Thanks Steve. My 1972 Summilux has arrived; in excellent condition and with the correct, vented hood that takes the type VII filters. I think I will stick with that, at least at first, rather than trying to modify a different hood. When I track one down, a yellow or green filter should provide some protection for the front element, although I read somewhere that a Nikon 58mm lens cap will also fit. I went for this type becuse it became available while I was being exasperated by the scarcity of non-asph 35mm f2 Summicrons I think I will not be disappointed. I will also take extra care to look after it; its previous owner(s) kept it in pristine condition for 38 years! Hope I am not turning into a gadget fanatic.

[mod2001]

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.

 

I know what you mean,but, not the lens is responsible for this, only the distance to the subject.If you want to shoot the same frame from different positions, you have to change the lens and then you get a different look. Sad that i don't have my Ansel Adams books any longer, there is a perfect example in the book.

 

Yogi

[mod2001]

here's an example. First shot with 24mm, second with 135mm, both from same position.

 

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!

 

Yogi

[Gentleman Villain]

This thread has some great left brain / right brain stuff going on. Left brainers tend to focus on exact science while right brainers tend to focus on applied science.

 

It's true that perspective is related to distance of the subject and lens. Perspective doesn't change between a 28mm and 35mm if the distance between camera and subject remains the same. However, in application, it is assumed that most photographers would alter the distance between themselves and the subject when changing between a 28mm and 35mm in order to fill the frame. Therefore, it's completely logical to say that there is a difference in perspective between 28mm and 35mm in actual use since most all photographers will change distance in order to fill the frame in application. And it's also perfectly logical to say there there is no difference in perspective between a 28mm and 35mm in terms of exact science.

 

So the right brainers are correct about perspective as it relates to application and the left brainers are correct in terms of exact sicence. But sometimes they will think they are arguing with each other, even though they're both basically saying the same thing.

[menos I M6]

Left my left brain at home

 

Who needs photography class theoretical basics, if one has this great forum

 

Thanks for the lesson guys.

[steve kessel]

Hi Steve

 

Those seem as if you can use a 35mm.

 

Think you have an earlier lens they changed from screw in to series seven filters about '71.

 

Noel

 

Thanks Noel, still learning to get close enough. My 35 lux is from around 1976 - the filter screws into the hood.

 

Best wishes

 

Steve

[mod2001]

So the right brainers are correct about perspective as it relates to application and the left brainers are correct in terms of exact sicence. But sometimes they will think they are arguing with each other, even though they're both basically saying the same thing.

 

Totally aggree, but sometimes you need the theoretical background. For example, have you ever asked yourself why we normaly use for FF a lens with 80 to 90mm for portrait? It's just a simple calculation of the distance to the subject to get a "correct" perspective, after that i decide which lens i need to get the head complete in the frame. Ok, for portrait, we have the experience, if i use a 90mm (FF) it will look good. Then my customer comes and want a picture of a remote control for a A4 magazine, he wants that the remote looks nearly 3D if the reader look at it. Now, which lens do you need?

 

So, left brain is ok, but you often get better results when you activate the right brain too.

 

Yogi

[mod2001]

btw, 35mm is my favourite lens. My right brain loves the perspective of this lens

 

Yogi

[Gentleman Villain]

 

So, left brain is ok, but you often get better results when you activate the right brain too.

 

Yogi

 

oh definitely, one isn't better than the other...there's a balance. However, most commercial artists are right brained....and most people in forums are probably left brained due to the format being more conducive to left brain analytical thinking and detail orientation. Just thought it was worth pointing out since this thread has some great examples of left/right brain interactions at work...It's good for people to be aware of these differences so as to help eliminate much miscommunication and better understand each other.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[hamey]

Comparing my R28mm 2.8 Rom agains't the M35mm f2 asph couldn't spot the differance except perhaps

the R was slightly warmer.

Last week I was loaned a Canon 40D as a try out before buying the 7D, tried it with a few of my R lenses

and was very impressed with it.

 

Shot taken with the 28mmR-Rom on the Canon 40D with a crop factor of 44.8

 

Ken.

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!