how to properly use a 28

[Tonki-M]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

In my opinion camels with any lens will look distorted.

 

lol. reading this post brings a smile to my face

[gniquil]

Hi All,

 

Thanks for all the input. I came very close to selling the elmarit this weekend but decided to keep it. Nevertheless I do have a small epiphany that I would like to share.

 

One thing I realized was the way I approached constructing a lens kit was wrong. The reason this whole question regarding the 28 came about was I was trying to "perfect" my 2 lens kit (currently 28/50). The thinking was, each time when I am walking about, if a shot requires getting more subjects into the scene, i would swap out my 50 for a 28, and vice versa. But the reality is different. I generally walk around with my 50 and when a "scene" comes up, i just have to run back a few steps and take a shot rather than reaching for the 28.

 

So here's my thesis. WHILE WE ARE SHOOTING, WE ONLY HAVE A 1 LENS KIT. For street shooting, it's too complicated/time consuming to change lens. Whenever you change your lens, you should assume, in the coming 20/30 shots, I will shoot with the particular look entailed by the lens currently mounted on my camera. Forget about what else I could've achieved had I had another lens on my camera. I don't.

 

Now, what about my kit? Here's my new philosophy/system of thought. First, for me, I mostly do a few different things:

 

1. street photography in a crowded area or indoor (35, think Hong Kong, India)

2. street photography in a less crowded area, or striving for a slightly detached feel (50, San Francisco, or a project on "doors" or "bikes", etc.)

3. landscape/street landscape (28)

4. portraits of 1 person (50)

5. portraits of few or many (35)

 

Second, here's the process of shooting:

 

1. shoot with intent

2. use the lens that would best achieve the intent with a given environment

3. stick with the lens until you've somewhat achieved the intent or the environment changed

4. swap lens and repeat step 1

 

With the above in mind, i will probably still bring my whole kit if i were to shoot in a place that I am not familiar with. I will decide on which lens to use once I become acquainted with the environment.

 

Now what about 28/50, or 35/75, or 28/35/50 or even 35/50/75? I think i don't mind owning them all as long as I have the above kept in mind and be realistic about what I want to achieve and what my shooting environment is. I think each lens has their own merit. The whole philosophy of simplifying one's kit to a manageable size is to refocus one on shooting rather than gears. But the system I mentioned above already reduced that to a single lens. So I think what I mentioned before does not contradict with the idea of simplification and focus (in fact it takes to the extreme). In addition, both Leica ($$$$$) and a sane-frugal wife are more then enough to keep us in check on that front. So hopefully by the time I acquire another glass, i would have mastered what I have already and incorporated it into the above system.

 

Anyway, what do you think?

 

(Excuse my poor writing, this is a brain dump)

 

Frank

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[rramesh]

Like this post, Frank. I never change lenses in the field unless absolutely necessary. These days when I travel my daytime lens is the 28 Summicron and my evening lens is the 50 Summilux.

 

The 28 works well in tight street shots and landscapes. For groups you just need to vary the distance from subject.

[microview]

lol. reading this post brings a smile to my face

 

As long as you didn't 'get the hump'! (Or is this just a British expression = become annoyed and veer away.)

[algrove]

Frank- You have come to where many of us are. Keep it simple and anticipate the environment if at all possible before entering it.

 

That's why many prefer the 35 as it can cover with a few steps backward and/or forward both the 28 and 50. But to further complicate the discussion, many might also own the 28 and 50 because the overlaps are so many and varied.

 

28-assuming walking is possible-can cover the 24 and 35.

 

50-assuming walking is possible, can cover the 35 and 60, and perhaps even the 75.

 

To me an important difference is how the perspective is changed by a lens. Often I prefer a 90 versus walking forever with a 50 since the 90 compresses the shot which creates a different mood (for me) rather than framing the same shot with a 50. But then often a 75 can cover with a little walking the 90 perspective, but sometimes not the 50 perspective. Long lens compression can be good at times and not so beneficial at other times.

 

The same with wides due to their edge distortion. I shoot landscapes with a different set of lenses that I might use in a city or crowded environment. I have lately come to appreciate the little 40/2.0, in the later environment. Although, it is so small to my touch sometimes I have to make sure it is still on the camera. After using the "larger" M lenses this tiny titan has me realizing what a beautiful little lens it is since it renders very nicely and on the MM creates beautiful tonality. Sorry, I got carried away.

[rramesh]

And legs are the most inexpensive Leica accessories.

[Einst_Stein]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I had te same similar problem. I've gone through difference mental phases.

 

At first I tried some experiments. I learned (I think) how to use this lens so that I can show its strength and to avoid its weakness.

 

One day, suddenly (not exactly, but kind of), I found I had some extra money to burn, and I recalled the wise man's word . "There is no problem that money can't fix". So I proudly put the money in front of the camera's store's counter, and got my 35mm lens. I have been quite happy ever after got blamed by my wife. Now the annoying problem is gone.

[Manolo Laguillo]

Hi All,

 

Thanks for all the input. I came very close to selling the elmarit this weekend but decided to keep it. Nevertheless I do have a small epiphany that I would like to share.

 

One thing I realized was the way I approached constructing a lens kit was wrong. The reason this whole question regarding the 28 came about was I was trying to "perfect" my 2 lens kit (currently 28/50). The thinking was, each time when I am walking about, if a shot requires getting more subjects into the scene, i would swap out my 50 for a 28, and vice versa. But the reality is different. I generally walk around with my 50 and when a "scene" comes up, i just have to run back a few steps and take a shot rather than reaching for the 28.

 

So here's my thesis. WHILE WE ARE SHOOTING, WE ONLY HAVE A 1 LENS KIT. For street shooting, it's too complicated/time consuming to change lens. Whenever you change your lens, you should assume, in the coming 20/30 shots, I will shoot with the particular look entailed by the lens currently mounted on my camera. Forget about what else I could've achieved had I had another lens on my camera. I don't.

 

Now, what about my kit? Here's my new philosophy/system of thought. First, for me, I mostly do a few different things:

 

1. street photography in a crowded area or indoor (35, think Hong Kong, India)

2. street photography in a less crowded area, or striving for a slightly detached feel (50, San Francisco, or a project on "doors" or "bikes", etc.)

3. landscape/street landscape (28)

4. portraits of 1 person (50)

5. portraits of few or many (35)

 

Second, here's the process of shooting:

 

1. shoot with intent

2. use the lens that would best achieve the intent with a given environment

3. stick with the lens until you've somewhat achieved the intent or the environment changed

4. swap lens and repeat step 1

 

With the above in mind, i will probably still bring my whole kit if i were to shoot in a place that I am not familiar with. I will decide on which lens to use once I become acquainted with the environment.

 

Now what about 28/50, or 35/75, or 28/35/50 or even 35/50/75? I think i don't mind owning them all as long as I have the above kept in mind and be realistic about what I want to achieve and what my shooting environment is. I think each lens has their own merit. The whole philosophy of simplifying one's kit to a manageable size is to refocus one on shooting rather than gears. But the system I mentioned above already reduced that to a single lens. So I think what I mentioned before does not contradict with the idea of simplification and focus (in fact it takes to the extreme). In addition, both Leica ($$$$$) and a sane-frugal wife are more then enough to keep us in check on that front. So hopefully by the time I acquire another glass, i would have mastered what I have already and incorporated it into the above system.

 

Anyway, what do you think?

 

(Excuse my poor writing, this is a brain dump)

 

Frank

 

Well said, I agree 100%! So it is: actually there is only one lens available, the one on the camera. Changing lenses is something that can't be done constantly.

 

There is something that must be taken into account besides the foreground-background relationship as well: the side-to-side relationship, which involves the lateral, peripheric vision.

Fore-back means moving the eyes (even the head) vertically.

Left-right implies moving them, even the head, laterally.

The first type of movement is easier than the second one.

The ability of including those subjects that are laterally far away from the vision's main area, the central one, can be improved.

Professional soccer players, for instance, are notorious in their capacity of a very wide vision.

 

Cheers,

Manolo

[Christoph13]

I had te same similar problem.

....

I proudly put the money in front of the camera's store's counter, and got my 35mm lens. I have been quite happy ever after got blamed by my wife. Now the annoying problem is gone.

 

You are referring to...your wife?

[CaptZoom]

It's been interesting reading this thread. I too have the 28 Elmarit (a spectacular lens) with which I have difficulty composing. It's too wide for my style. However the compact size and the superb image quality/qualities make it difficult to let go of the lens. The way this lens renders colors on the M9 is simply astonishing. In any case the lens is a rectilinear lens and as such preserves straight lines (even to the edges if the frame); and it succeeds well at this, which is why it's difficult to say the lens has "distortion". I hope this little tid bit of information helps the OP in composing future shots. Give priority to lines over curves around the frame edges of your composition:)

[wda]

Hi All,....Now what about 28/50, or 35/75, or 28/35/50 or even 35/50/75? ....

 

Frank

Have you ever considered the MATE (Tri-Elmar 28-35-50)? I find it a perfect walk-about travel lens despite its maximum aperture of f/4. The lens is excellent at full aperture for the 35 and 50 settings; less so for the 28. So when I anticipate a serious need for a 28, I take the excellent Elmarit, the lens which inspired this thread. Get the second version MATE if you can find one. They are much appreciated and in relatively short supply. But good dealers do get them from time to time.

[albireo_double]

I have gone through the same mental process as many here and have concluded that when a particular lens is attached to the camera, my vision temporarily needs to be exclusively on the perspective and rendering of that particular lens and I cannot contemplate too many other possibilities. Of course, some images just present themselves quite obviously and call for a particular focal length but the more successful images for me are those where I restrict myself and try to come up with a suitable composition. And the question about how wide you want to go is rarely for me how much I can cram into the image, it's rather the perspective and creative possibilities of the various lenses. Many people comment that they find it hard to compose an image with a wide angle lens, that they need to find interesting foreground and that's not easy etc. etc. I suggest to study the work of other people, e.g. in the LFI magazine or on the websites - the photographers often state which lenses they used. Seeing what other people do with wide angles has helped me a lot - I remember a reportage from a train journey through India, where the guy was shooting the M9 with the 28 Cron Asph as his only lens. Fabulous images. I believe the same applied to Anton Kusters for his fabulous Yakuza book (there it was Lux 35, I think). Or Jeanloup Sieff who seems to have shot many fashion images with a 24 mm lens. These people obviously did not "look for interesting foregrounds", they basically had their vision for the entire project set by their choice of the lens. I now shoot the 24 mm very often and like it a lot while previously I had never considered it a lens that fit my "personal style" and was looking in vain for "interesting foregrounds"....

Edited February 28, 2013 by albireo_double

[algrove]

albireo-

 

Well put. Great thread as it gets away from gear talk and into the realm of SHOOTING.

 

Another landscape photographer I follow and respect is Alain Briot.