Why 28mm is not as popular as 35mm on FF M?

[Einst_Stein]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If it's not because I've tried it, I'd think 28mm a better choice than 35mm. It's the widest lens the native VF can cover. But I found 35mm to be much better in terms of the perspective property, the distortion, and the "comfortable distance" between the subject and the object.

I also found, strangely, the 35mm lenses are usually "sweeter" than 28mm.

 

Of course, these are all very personal. It's a matter of taste.

But, it seems these are more than just the personal taste, if you count the popularity of 35mm over 28mm.

 

Why do YOU think the 35mm is more popular than 28mm, if you agree with this observation.

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello Einst,

 

Perhaps because it more closely sees what many people see when they look at an entire scene.

 

Its somewhat narrower angle of coverage also means it is easier to handle with less worry about exaggerating perspective or aligning horizontal & vertical lines.

 

Because of its angle of coverage & extended depth of field it is also the easiest way to convert any full frame "M" into a "point & shoot" camera.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

Edited March 3, 2013 by Michael Geschlecht

[Advertisement]

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

[kokoshawnuff]

A 35mm is also the more traditional choice because there have been 35mm framelines incorporated in the VF since the M2. Time and familiarity often has a lot to do with popularity.

[Jeff S]

And it's easier, particularly for eyeglass wearers, to see space around the 35 frame lines.

 

Jeff

[semi-ambivalent]

Because a lot of people use their Leicas as extraordinarily expensive point-and-shoots. The wider a lens the more you have to learn about using it. In the right circumstances, with the right usage, you can not tell the difference. But it takes skill and work. Every focal length has it's set of requirements for best results. The 35mm is no different; being a little bit of a lot it's a good vanilla go-to choice. Nothing magical at all, I sometimes find it a little boring. When I'm really focused on my photographing I prefer either the 50 or 28, but a 35 is good to wander around with. I own no other M mount lenses but, (if a dozen Nikkors have taught me anything) if I did, I wouldn't use them anyway.

[CaptZoom]

I usually do not go wider than 50mm, but when I do it's split evenly between 35mm and 28mm. For example I pretty much use the 35mm exclusively for photos at the beach. But when I go for walks/hikes, I tend to use the 28mm more often. And I find the 28mm more useful for street photography than the 35mm because I can include more of the environment without changing perspective. Using the 28mm in Downtown LA is a good example.

 

I should mention my 35mm of choice is a low contrast lens (thus being especially useful in high contrast situations like the beach): Voigtlander Skopar f2.5. And my choice of the 28mm yields unbelievably dense color rendition and is especially useful for bw conversions (which is well over 90% of my personal work): Leica Elmarit 28mm 2.8 ASPH. Each used on the M9.

Edited March 3, 2013 by CaptZoom

[semi-ambivalent]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I usually do not go wider than 50mm, but when I do it's split evenly between 35mm and 28mm. For example I pretty much use the 35mm exclusively for photos at the beach. But when I go for walks/hikes, I tend to use the 28mm more often. And I find the 28mm more useful for street photography than the 35mm because I can include more of the environment without changing perspective. Using the 28mm in Downtown LA is a good example.

 

I should mention my 35mm of choice is a low contrast lens (thus being especially useful in high contrast situations like the beach): Voigtlander Skopar f2.5. And my choice of the 28mm yields unbelievably dense color rendition and is especially useful for bw conversions (which is well over 90% of my personal work): Leica Elmarit 28mm 2.8 ASPH. Each used on the M9.

 

I have that Elmarit; my my my, what a nice little 28. I use it on my M3 with a Voigtlander 28mm viewfinder. That lets me see (somewhat) the near/far relationships 'through the lens'. Something I became used to with a Nikon F and haven't, so far, been able to un-need.

[martinis]

Historically it was easier to design/produce a good lightweight 35mm with a relatively fast aperture than a 28mm, and also less expensive . The faster 28mm lenses have only appeared relatively recently.

[alandash]

When I first was able to throw away my Kodak Brownie Reflex and get into Leica screwmounts, and later the M3, I thought that 35mm lenses were fisheye types that distorted the image, the same way the "funny mirrors" did at carnivals. Was I surprised when I tried one! It was God's gift to amateur teenage photography. At weddings, I was able to include more people into one pose, and the weak bulb flash still was close enough to reduce dark edges at the sides.

 

Later, I discovered the 28mm lens, and when mentioning it to mixed company, I got raised eyebrows about this fantasy lens. I did not know whether it was easily available from Leica, but then discovered on a trip to Japan that Canon made a 28mm lens in Leica screwmount that fit on my 3C and 3G. It came with a special 28mm viewfinder that fit into the accessory clip. The price of a brand new one was less than $250, including the viewfinder and fitted leather cases for each..

 

Once I mounted it on the 3G, I put the 35mm and 50mm lenses into mothballs, and traveled throughout Asia, using only the 28mm lens. I never tested that lens, but got bunches of extremely sharp crisp images onto 8x10 prints. Years later, I discovered that I could add the Leica bayonet mount converter, and also use that lens on my M3 and M9-P. That combo now has been 6-bit indexed. I now prefer it to my beautiful Summicron 35mm. For normal mundane situations where quality is paramount, the 50mm Summicron is still the Queen.

[adan]

On the viewfinder - the classic .72x Leica M viewfinder (M2 through MP) was never really designed for 28mm lenses. It had a 20-year life as a viewfinder strictly for 35-90 or 35-135 before the barely-visible 28 framelines were squeezed in in 1980, as an afterthought (and with no actual change in the finder's field of view).

 

Even with the reduction in magnification in the digital M bodies to .68x (nullfied by the deeper bodies), the 28 lines are hard to see all at once, fairly inaccurate even when they can be seen, and are cropped even further because part of what they include is the black edge of the finder window itself.

 

Additionally, the view through the internal 28 frame is not as reflective of the actual perspective effects of a 28mm lens. An external 28 finder, with its slightly more accurate wideness of view, and especially because of the perspective "minification" and slight added barrel distortion, give me a much better idea of how a final 28mm photograph will look and feel.

 

The briefly available .58x viewfinders handled 28mm lenses better in all these characteristics, more like an external viewfinder. As, of course, do SLR finders (cf. post #7).

 

On 35mm lenses "looking sweeter": I find this also, and it is my impression that this is due to 35mm pictures having less DoF for a given aperture, providing a soft glowing surround to the main subject. To the extent that any wide-angle has enough blur to be judged on "bokeh," it will be a 35 f/1.4 or f/2. Additionally, given that both 35 and 28 lenses are limited to 0.7 meter close focus, the 35's tighter framing can get "more intimate" at that fixed limit.

 

28mm shots by comparison tend to look more stand-offish, and more identically sharp over more of the image.

 

All that being said, my first lens choices are a 21 and a short tele (75/90), with "something in between" as a third choice. And I'm currently rethinking what that third choice will be: 28 or 35 (or perhaps nothing). The arguments for the 35 I've covered - but for the 28, there is the factor that 28 Elmarits are generally cheaper than 35 Summicrons, and do provide an extra bit of wideness without absolutely having to resort to an additional finder.

[Tonki-M]

personally, i just hate how i have to move my eye around the rangefinder to see exactly what i'm framing on the 28mm frameline. the 28 is great on a .58 but then it ruins 50,75,90 focal length.

[wlaidlaw]

Whenever I assess which focal length I use most when I have my MATE fitted on an M9, it is about 60% 28mm, 25% 50mm and only 15% 35mm, so I guess I must like the view at 28mm best. However on fixed length lenses, I use my 35mm Summilux ASPH a lot more than I do my 28mm Summicron ASPH. If you only have one lens with you, the 35mm along with using your feet, will cover most situations. A 28mm is frequently too wide.

 

Conclusion: The 28mm length is great but is less of a universal tool than the 35mm. It is fine on a MATE, where you can switch to longer lengths when needed. The upside for me of my black alloy body 28mm Summicron over my brass/chrome 35 Summilux, is that the Summicron is about half the weight.

 

Wilson

[philipus]

I am wondering if it also doesn't have something to do with what one photographs. For instance for street or people photography one may have to be much closer with a 28mm than a 35mm otherwise the subjects will be too small in the frame. And being so close may not be to everyone's liking.

 

Personally I use a 35 Summilux because it is good for both street and indoors photography. It effectively replaces two lenses for me.

[Paul J]

35mm has always been a very popular focal length. It's wide but closer to what they eye sees. It's a perfect balance for many applications. Sometimes a 28 is just that bit too wide to use.

[luigi bertolotti]

To answer quickly, I'd say that 28 is a wideangle , 35 is a wideangle AND a normal too.

Edited March 4, 2013 by luigi bertolotti

[philipus]

closer to what they eye sees.

 

My wholly unscientific impression is that both 28 and 35 are closer to what the eyes see, rather than what the/an eye sees.

[Guest borge]

I personally prefer the 50mm focal length for general / every day use but when the 50mm is to narrow I prefer the 35mm focal length. For my use the 28mm focal length is just a bit too wide for me.

[jaques]

this is an interesting topic. I like the 28 on the M9 because it really feels like the prime lens for the camera: the VF is full. But it is harder to work with than the 35- you do need to get in very close for street type people stuff. For landscape it is a perfect choice.

[sm23221]

but closer to what they eye sees.

 

I wish folks would stop comparing camera lenses to eyes. The human eye "sees" in a manner that is completely different. Our eyes (brain) "see" with a very large amount of peripheral vision and an extremely narrow central zone.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[CaptZoom]

I wish folks would stop comparing camera lenses to eyes. The human eye "sees" in a manner that is completely different. Our eyes (brain) "see" with a very large amount of peripheral vision and an extremely narrow central zone.

 

Not to mention all the perceptual augmentation that our brain does on the fly. Wide angle rectilinear lenses see and capture the world as it is, yet be describe the effects as distortion (something our brains automatically correct for us). But this a topic for a different thread in probably a different forum.