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

[menos I M6]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Because shooting a 28mm effectively needs not only a wider finder, but also bigger sized cojones.

Shooting a 35mm is a piece of cake compared to a 28 - every kid can do it.

[Advertisement]

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

[billo101]

Because the focal length of 35mm is much better for street photography and for many users the 35 may also represent the only objective to use.

The 28mm no, must be near a 50.

 

b

[philipus]

Because shooting a 28mm effectively needs not only a wider finder, but also bigger sized cojones.

Shooting a 35mm is a piece of cake compared to a 28 - every kid can do it.

 

[Paul J]

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.

 

Why would I stop comparing the very thing that I use to "record" my vision? My vision is close to that of a 50mm lens but has the scope of a 35mm in it's periphery. Why is that so abrasive for you?

[Keith (M)]

I enjoy using my Elmarit-M 28mm ASPH so much that when I ordered a MP ALC I chose the 0.58 vf, which also has the added advantage of a standalone 35mm frame. Ergo - the best of both worlds, especially for a spectacle wearer.

 

A happy chappy

[CaptZoom]

Coming from a strong background in cognitive science and specializing in perception, I have a few comments about this statement. However, I do not want to come off as singling you out Paul and picking on you (I already contested a couple of your posts in another thread). So, at this point all I will say is that human visual system works radically different from how camera (sensors) and lens operate. The comparisons are not particularly useful as they relate to typical photography.

 

 

Why would I stop comparing the very thing that I use to "record" my vision? My vision is close to that of a 50mm lens but has the scope of a 35mm in it's periphery. Why is that so abrasive for you?

[Einst_Stein]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Coming from a strong background in cognitive science and specializing in perception, I have a few comments about this statement. However, I do not want to come off as singling you out Paul and picking on you (I already contested a couple of your posts in another thread). So, at this point all I will say is that human visual system works radically different from how camera (sensors) and lens operate. The comparisons are not particularly useful as they relate to typical photography.

 

I believe scientifically you must be right, but don't tell me intuitively you can't tell how closer the 50mm and 35mm are than the other focal length.

 

I remember Bertrand Russel argued, or the philosophers argued, in his book "The Outline of Western Philosophy", how do you know the sun will come up tomorrow (and concluded no one should be sure). However, in real life, who, including those philosophers, would not plan his life assuming tomorrow the sun will indeed come up? Yes, even in the cloudy days, even you may not see it directly.

 

I could borrow your tone: Please do not bring in your scientific or philosophy view into the photography classroom.

[Paul J]

My vision is mostly similar to 50mm. It has the added periphery of 28-35 around the edges but I don't notice these so much. When things are close it has the same distortion of a 50mm. My vision is certainly not longer than a 75 and not wider than 28.

 

The science does interest me but I tell it as I see it.

[algrove]

My perception of what subjects and which lenses best serve me has changed over the years and continue to change today.

[koala54]

Agreed, I shot with the 50 mm 1.4 for the longest time, thousands of frames then very suddenly the 35 mm FLE is the on camera lens, possibly will be clocking up another few thousand frames but now waiting for the APO 50 mm. And no all lenses will be keepers, for the new M.

[CaptZoom]

I believe scientifically you must be right, but don't tell me intuitively you can't tell how closer the 50mm and 35mm are than the other focal length.

I'll agree to this. However, clearly saying that a 50/42/35mm lens sees what the human eye sees is nonsensical.

 

I remember Bertrand Russel argued, or the philosophers argued, in his book "The Outline of Western Philosophy", how do you know the sun will come up tomorrow (and concluded no one should be sure). However, in real life, who, including those philosophers, would not plan his life assuming tomorrow the sun will indeed come up? Yes, even in the cloudy days, even you may not see it directly.

I'm not sure what epistemological skepticism has to do with my statement, but I'm not a philosopher.

 

I could borrow your tone: Please do not bring in your scientific or philosophy view into the photography classroom.

Good luck talking about art without also taking about philosophy and may chance equally favor your discussions regarding scientific claims that are not based on science whilst you participate in the photography classroom.

[Printmaker]

Coming from a strong background in cognitive science and specializing in perception, I have a few comments about this statement. However, I do not want to come off as singling you out Paul and picking on you (I already contested a couple of your posts in another thread). So, at this point all I will say is that human visual system works radically different from how camera (sensors) and lens operate. The comparisons are not particularly useful as they relate to typical photography.

 

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.

[CaptZoom]

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.

 

Lmao

[semi-ambivalent]

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.

 

Maybe 35% of your photos should be taken with that 90.

 

s-a

[menos I M6]

Is that 90mm silver chrome or black anodised?

 

If it is black paint, please let me know, should you decide to put it up for sale!

I prefer screw mount, so I can use an adapter or even use it with a Barnack!

[philipus]

When it is a good looking girl bending over, I see like a 90. That's just how my eye/brain works.

 

 

And if you then turn around you assume, like most of us naive common sense realists do, that she's still there (though perhaps not necessarily in the same position )

[Guest Holy Moly]

Because shooting a 28mm effectively needs not only a wider finder, but also bigger sized cojones.

Shooting a 35mm is a piece of cake compared to a 28 - every kid can do it.

 

right....

 

. von deandare06 auf Flickr

[wda]

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.

28+50+90 - my perfect combination of focal lengths for about thirty years with my M3. I could have opted for an M2 with 35mm framing. Instead I chose the M3 and added a brilliant external finder which I still use today, even on my M6 0.58 body. The spacing between those three focal lengths proved ideal for my early travel and project work with the unique viewfinder size of the M3. Of the three lenses, the 50 was most used. The 28 set the scene and added drama; the 90 came into its own for close details and portraits.

 

Although I now use a wider range of focal lengths, that ingrained discipline still influences the way I work.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[johnkunstadter]

A 28mm Summicron ASPH and a 21/3.4 Super-Angulon have served me well in confined spaces (e.g., during Orthodox church services). However, even after several years' use of these lenses, I still wrestle with proper alignment of horizontal lines. As a result, although it means sacrificing some of the context, the 35mm length (Summicron and Summaron 2.8) produces results closer to what I have in my mind's eye.

 

Although the following point is slightly OT, I'd add that, while the Summicron ASPH produces wonderfully sharp results, the rendering is too clinical for me when photographing people. Perhaps an older Elmarit 28 would render closer to the 21/3.4 and 35's.

[Keith (M)]

Street with a 28mm? Some people do not mind, others do...