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

[Einst_Stein]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

28+50+90 - my perfect combination of focal lengths for about thirty years with my M3.

 

Admit it, you need a zoom.

[Advertisement]

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

[Einst_Stein]

Hey, I'll jump in. When I'm walking about I see like a 28. When something catches my eye, I see like a 50. When it is a good looking girl bending over, I see like a 90. That's just how my eye/brain works.

 

Still, 90% of my photos are taken with a 35. I guess I'm lazy.

 

You need a zoom too.

[smkoush]

Each person is different. I personally never got along with 35mm, not because of the angle coverage but because I found I can be much faster with a 28mm while walking around due to the larger depth of field (my chance of guessing more or less the right distance is higher with 28mm than 35mm). Generally I take photographs without taking time to focus (i.e., keep walking) and so guessing the right distance is important to me.

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!

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello Again Einst,

 

Some people prefer single focal length lenses to a zoom because you are doing something different when you choose one instead of the other.

 

With a zoom you are moving to where the scene you want to capture is optimal & then creating the frame in a manner which best presents the view you have in mind.

 

With a fixed focal length lens or set of lenses you have pre-determined the framing & angle of coverage before you bring the camera to you eye to capture the scene. You then adjust your position to optimize the scene you want recorded within your pre-determined frame & angle of coverage.

 

2 different approaches to recording a subject. Sometimes different enough to make the same subject into 2 different subjects.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

[Einst_Stein]

Hello Again Einst,

 

Some people prefer single focal length lenses to a zoom because you are doing something different when you choose one instead of the other.

 

With a zoom you are moving to where the scene you want to capture is optimal & then creating the frame in a manner which best presents the view you have in mind.

 

With a fixed focal length lens or set of lenses you have pre-determined the framing & angle of coverage before you bring the camera to you eye to capture the scene. You then adjust your position to optimize the scene you want recorded within your pre-determined frame & angle of coverage.

 

2 different approaches to recording a subject. Sometimes different enough to make the same subject into 2 different subjects.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

 

Agree.

 

I see there are two types (at least, may be more) of photographer.

 

The first type carries a lot of lens or a zoom lens. when he wants to take a picture, he will evaluate which focal lens is the best to choose, then either change the lens or turn the zoom ring.

 

The second type carries one or many lens, when he wants to take a picture, he will evaluate which shooting position/distance to take before he evaluate the focal length.

 

I personally tend to be the first type, but I found the second type usually produces better picture.

 

The extreme of the second type carries only one lens, sticks with, and often produces pictures with very good taste.

[semi-ambivalent]

However, even after several years' use of these lenses, I still wrestle with proper alignment of horizontal lines.

 

Then don't (specifically the first image):

 

Images Found: Garry Winogrand

 

s-a

[CaptZoom]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Winogrand's sports photos are captivating:)

http://fansinaflashbulb.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/winogrand_garry_117_1981_j.jpg?w=640&h=431

[jbl]

Then don't (specifically the first image):

 

Images Found: Garry Winogrand

 

s-a

 

Good point :-). I'm trying to use a 28 more just to keep things interesting. 35 is so close to normal and the 28 starts to get actually wide.

[semi-ambivalent]

Winogrand's sports photos are captivating:)

http://fansinaflashbulb.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/winogrand_garry_117_1981_j.jpg?w=640&h=431

 

I recently read a transcript of a Q&A with Winogrand when he was teaching. In response to some (with today's knowledge) inane question from a student he replied "I do know what I'm doing". Man, did he ever.

 

s-a

[CaptZoom]

I recently read a transcript of a Q&A with Winogrand when he was teaching. In response to some (with today's knowledge) inane question from a student he replied "I do know what I'm doing". Man, did he ever.

 

s-a

 

[semi-ambivalent]

Good point :-). I'm trying to use a 28 more just to keep things interesting. 35 is so close to normal and the 28 starts to get actually wide.

 

For me the real strength of the 28 is not the wide but the depth, the relationship between foreground objects and the field. 28s have a good bit of that without having so much that it's difficult to see the image the lens would see. 24s? I never got the hang of them, but I'm comfortable with a 20. Go figure...

 

The very first 'artistic' photograph I ever saw that really moved me was by William Albert Allard. It was a shot of, I think, a Peruvian boy whose flock of sheep had been hit by a car and wiped out. It was in Nat. Geo. and when they ran the story there was a huge response from the readership; raising something like $8,000. That family's sheep were replaced and more. It was my first inkling of the power of the visual image to do good and not just to report. I still think it is one of his best works. It's very much a wide, likely more than 28.

 

s-a

[wattsy]

The very first 'artistic' photograph I ever saw that really moved me was by William Albert Allard. It was a shot of, I think, a Peruvian boy whose flock of sheep had been hit by a car and wiped out.

 

I hadn't previously heard of William Albert Allard (should he be known as WAA?) but his work looks interesting and his use of colour (like most Nat Geo photographers) is impressive. The photograph you reference is in this gallery.

[paulsydaus]

Hey, I'll jump in. When I'm walking about I see like a 28. When something catches my eye, I see like a 50. When it is a good looking girl bending over, I see like a 90. That's just how my eye/brain works.

 

Still, 90% of my photos are taken with a 35. I guess I'm lazy.

 

What's the difference between taking a look and being a perv? About 200mm! LOL

[semi-ambivalent]

I hadn't previously heard of William Albert Allard (should he be known as WAA?) but his work looks interesting and his use of colour (like most Nat Geo photographers) is impressive. The photograph you reference is in this gallery.

 

I read he was unusual at the time because the entirety of his professional output was in color. He apparently shot often at the limit of handholdability. And. It. Works.

 

s-a

[viramati]

Personally I have never been a great 35mm fan and I just love the 28 cron asph. Basically I use 2 lenses 90% of the time with the 50 lux asph on one M9 and the 28 cron asph on my 2nd M9.

For street work I use the 28 as I find the 35 just to tight and I like to get close.

[exile]

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.

Wilson

 

This may not be a true reflection of the value of that intermediate 35mm focal length - most SLR users seems to spend the majority of their time at either end of their standard zoom range.

 

For me, 35mm is better than 28mm because 40mm is perfect ;0)

I also find that having some space around the frame lines in the viewfinder really does improve my compositional abilities.

I agree with the above comments about it being easier with a 35 to accommodate empty foreground space, isolate subjects with a shallower depth of field and take portraits without enlarging the nose too much. 35 cron's, summarons, and now summarits are also abundantly available per-owned, because it is a focal length that has been around for a very long time so that may also account for some of their popularity.

[HeinzX]

I think, that many people start with an M Leica an only one lens. In this case a 35 mm is a very good choice for many purposes. If two lenses are used, again a 35 mm and a 75 mm or a 90 mm (which was a classic combination in analog times too), is a very good choice. If three lenses are used, I would take a 28 mm, a 50 mm and a 90 mm or a 35 mm a 90 mm and a 18 mm. At the time being I personally use no 35 mm, because I own a 50 mm and 35 mm seems to be too much nearby. And of course it depends which lenses are obtainable, when starting with with a M Leica.

[Einst_Stein]

I think, that many people start with an M Leica an only one lens. In this case a 35 mm is a very good choice for many purposes. If two lenses are used, again a 35 mm and a 75 mm or a 90 mm (which was a classic combination in analog times too), is a very good choice. If three lenses are used, I would take a 28 mm, a 50 mm and a 90 mm or a 35 mm a 90 mm and a 18 mm. At the time being I personally use no 35 mm, because I own a 50 mm and 35 mm seems to be too much nearby. And of course it depends which lenses are obtainable, when starting with with a M Leica.

 

I share your observation that 35mm for majority should be the best choice if only one lens is considered. In this scenario 28mm is definitely too wide unless the photographer had already developed a special taste and style that favors towards wide angle. I've seen a photographer uses only 90mm due to the similar reason, only that he had developed a special taste towards slightly tele end.

 

Again on this single lens observation, it's interesting that while the 35mm is THE standard lens in RF world, it's 50mm in SLR, ... and for non-interchangable, it could be 40mm or equivalent. ( I'm thinking the old 6x9 folding camera, such as Zeiss Super Ikonta, Kodak Ektar Medalist II, etc.)

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[hepcat]

What a fascinating thread and the responses are amazing. Each photographer "sees" the world differently, and the different fields of view help him interpret what he sees so that others can see what he sees too.

 

I have a 28 and it seldom comes out of the bag unless I'm doing an interior, or a group shot in a tight space where a lens with a more narrow field of view just won't work. My vision is obviously different from many who have posted in this thread. Unless I'm doing architecture or landscapes, for me, photography is the ability to communicate a thought, emotion, or and idea in as simple of terms as possible. I seldom see street work I can relate to. In almost every case, there's too much in it, the angles are disconcerting, it's too busy, has too much space, and whatever the photographer was trying to communicate to me is lost in the chaos. Most of it, after I've looked at it a while, I can figure it out and find much stronger compositions and statements with tighter cropping. It almost always causes me to wonder why the photographer didn't frame tighter to begin with and eliminate the extraneous clutter that detracts from his statement.

 

I confess that as revered as he is, I'm not a fan of Winogrand's work for those reasons, I often wonder if his work isn't just about chaos. The interviews I've read with him tend to make me lean toward that view, but obviously others think his work shows genius.

 

I tend to use lenses with the FOV of the 50mm and longer, and I really have come to appreciate the 75mm for it's accommodating but narrower FOV, it's ability to selectively focus, and to isolate subjects in the frame.

[MarkP]

You're right about how we see differently and our lens use.

 

I used 35mm as a standard lens for years on film (Nikkor AIS 1.4/35, and especially the Contax T3 with its gorgeous 2.8/35 Zeiss Sonnar - I really regret selling it). So of course I bought a 1.4/35 Summilux ASPH (FLE) as be my primary lens when I changed over to Leica with the M9 almost three years ago. Now I mainly use 50 & 28mm, and then 21mm. 35mm mainly gets used if I'm taking a single lens for more casual use.

 

Many of my favorite photos have been taken with the 2.0/28 Summicron ASPH. I like 28mm because it is expansive and inclusive but maintains reasonably normal perspective, can still be used for 'environmental portraits', is a wonderful landscape lens, has the most remarkable IQ and micro-contrast, can be used without an external EVF, and for me it perfectly accompanies 50mm for a general use two lens kit.

 

Please indulge my also posting way too many examples

 

M9, 2.0/28 ASPH (except for Pont Neuf shot with 2.8/28 ASPH)

 

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!