Using 28mm as a 35mm ?!

[findranger]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I wonder why this does't come up more often:

 

I'm a happy user of the 35mm Summicron ASPH but more and more I get the feeling that 28mm might suit me better and might be the better partner in crime for my 50mm Cron. Not sure yet. I would't go higher than 50 (don't like the style) or lower than 28 (VF).

 

Anyways, here's the plan. Despite loosing just some resolution, could't I use the 28 as a 35 by cropping? Well, I know the answer is YES but are there any complaints about that I don't see?

The two focal lenghs and even the (not exact at all) framelines in the VF are so near to each other and super exact framing isn't the strengh of Ms anyways.

 

I could even get rid of some of the corner weaknesses (of the let's say Cron 28 ASPH) by doing this.

And no, I could't afford both the 28 (Cron) AND 35 (Cron ASPH) and also would't like to carry both and interchange and think hard which to use in a certain situation.

 

I currently use film Leica and think of upgrading to M9 with 18MP which should provide enough resolution for this small amount of cropping.

 

So basically it boils down to this question: By getting a good 28 like the 28mm Cron ASPH would't I get 2 for the price of 1 - basically? And no, I don't think that cropping is forbidden, esp. if it saves $$$ and time changing lenses and reduces bag weight.

 

Thank you very much!

P

[acordes]

you can do but the 28 and the 35 do have a different 'offset in depth' (Tiefenstaffelung) - and using the 28 as a 35 would result in 28 offset in depth but the frame of 35.

Also f1.4 or f2,0 would have different DOF...

[Peter H]

Nothing wrong with cropping in my opinion.

 

But given that you can crop a 35 down to a 50, and a 50 to a 75 for example, a significant difference is always there in the range of possibilities each lens offers, so I suggest you should still think carefully about which lens best suits your style.

 

Having said that, many people including me find a good 28, particularly the Summicron ASPH, a perfect partner for a 50.

[rirakuma]

Well besides the focal length the biggest difference will be DOF and focusing distance. You'll have to get a lot closer with a 28mm which I'm not particularly comfortable with. In terms of cropping its like saying you can use a 35mm to crop for a 50mm, would you be comfortable in doing so? I guess I'm just echoing the previous comments, best of luck!

[findranger]

@acordes:

- both Crons, so no difference in f-stop

- the 'offset in depth" thing is new to me, but I doubt it would bother me too much

 

@Peter H:

- I completely agree with thinking hard which lens suits one best, the plan would be: using small setup of 28 and 50 and use the 28 as 35 if needed.

 

@rirakuma:

- I really doubt that I would have to get closer to the subject when using a 28 as a 35. I think that's not the case if you follow physics. The Leica VF itsself is "cropping" a 28ish image to a 50/75/135 by showing framelines corresponding to your mounted lens.

 

The main question is if there's a critical difference in the visual characteristics of the final output (besides little loss of resolution). If so, the M8 would never have worked out, cause thats what crop sensors do, they crop the lenses (physical) image. Am I wrong?

 

Do you think you could spot a cropped 28Cron-Image in a set of non-copped 35Cron-Images if they're matched in color/tonality etc.?

[01af]

I currently use film Leica and think of upgrading to M9 with 18 MP which should provide enough resolution for this small amount of cropping.

First of all, don't think of switching to an M9 as 'upgrading'! It rather is some sort of side-stepping. Digital has its advantages and disadvantages, and so has film. Neither is 'better' (except with regard to specific criteria); they're different media.

 

Apart from that, when cropping a 24 × 36 mm 18 MP capture taken with a 28 mm lens to the field-of-view of a 35 mm lens then you will end up with an effective format of 19.2 × 28.8 mm and 11.5 MP. So yes, this will be still good enough for most intents and purposes.

 

 

I'm a happy user of the Summicron-M 35 mm Asph but more and more I get the feeling that 28 mm might suit me better and might be the better partner in crime for my Summicron-M 50 mm.

If you feel that your 35 mm's view is too narrow—even only occasionally so—then I'd say it's time to switch to a 28 mm lens. 35+50 is a good combo but then, so is 28+50. In fact, many prefer the latter. So don't waste to much time bothering how to substitute a 35 mm lens with a 28 mm. If you have 28 and 50 then you won't need 35 anymore ... or if you do, at times, then you can always crop a little.

[earleygallery]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I wonder why this does't come up more often:

 

I think this is also your answer!

 

Your theory won't work so well in practice. Give it a try by all means but I think you'll just revert to 'thinking' 28mm when you use that lens.

 

Also you've chosen to use Leica gear, which is all about quality, and then you're throwing away some of that quality - yes I do crop but it's often because I notice things at the PP stage, rather than setting out to crop from the start.

 

Two other thoughts. You can use your feet to get closer to the subject & if money is an issue there are superb Zeiss and Voigtlander options to consider.

[acordes]

I wanted to say that eg f1.4 will come out different on a 35 then on a 28, and as the other one said, to get the same DOF you need to get closer, so this will become a complete different image. If you are a wide open guy then it does make a big difference, if you are most at f8, then not.

[findranger]

Thank you all so far

 

First of all, don't think of switching to an M9 as 'upgrading'! It rather is some sort of side-stepping. Digital has its advantages and disadvantages, and so has film. Neither is 'better' (except with regard to specific criteria); they're different media.

 

Completely off topic, sorry.

 

when cropping a 24 × 36 mm 18 MP capture taken with a 28 mm lens to the field-of-view of a 35 mm lens then you will end up with an effective format of 19.2 × 28.8 mm and 11.5 MP.

 

That should be enough even for posters (?)

 

Also you've chosen to use Leica gear, which is all about quality

 

Don't think so, I chose Leica for feel and simplicity. The market is full of quality.

 

You can use your feet to get closer to the subject

 

Sorry but this is just plain WRONG and i read this so often in forums. Moving won't give the same image as using a different focal lengh. Compare a 135mm image taken 100m away from the subject with a 21mm image taken in front of the subject. Same image? Don't think so.

[findranger]

I wanted to say that eg f1.4 will come out different on a 35 then on a 28, and as the other one said, to get the same DOF you need to get closer, so this will become a complete different image. If you are a wide open guy then it does make a big difference, if you are most at f8, then not.

 

Interesting. Could you explain further? How exactly is the DOF different (besides the lens specific touch)? Because: The OOF-areas appear blurrier if I crop which is basically a little zoom into the image.

 

 

- Has anybody taken the same image with a 28 and a 35 and could provide a comparison of the original 35 and the cropped 28?

 

- Is there a difference between cropping a 28 to a 35 in post (from time to time) to what an M8 crop sensor does to a 28 lens?

 

 

Thank you very much in advanvce.

[rirakuma]

Well if you're cropping obviously no but then again whats the point of getting a 28mm if you're planning to consistently crop to a 35mm? That suggestion was assuming you're composing for a 28mm.

 

@acordes:

- both Crons, so no difference in f-stop

- the 'offset in depth" thing is new to me, but I doubt it would bother me too much

 

@Peter H:

- I completely agree with thinking hard which lens suits one best, the plan would be: using small setup of 28 and 50 and use the 28 as 35 if needed.

 

@rirakuma:

- I really doubt that I would have to get closer to the subject when using a 28 as a 35. I think that's not the case if you follow physics. The Leica VF itsself is "cropping" a 28ish image to a 50/75/135 by showing framelines corresponding to your mounted lens.

 

The main question is if there's a critical difference in the visual characteristics of the final output (besides little loss of resolution). If so, the M8 would never have worked out, cause thats what crop sensors do, they crop the lenses (physical) image. Am I wrong?

 

Do you think you could spot a cropped 28Cron-Image in a set of non-copped 35Cron-Images if they're matched in color/tonality etc.?

[acordes]

You may have a look here:

Online Depth of Field Calculator

at 28 mm the DOF is much wider then, to be more dramatic on a 200mm, and that expands if you wide open.

[findranger]

Well if you're cropping obviously no but then again whats the point of getting a 28mm if you're planning to consistently crop to a 35mm?

 

Mh, I wrote "from time to time", so please read carefully or this might lead to nowhere. Of course I won't buy a 28 to use it as a 35 consistantly, that would be pretty stupid. I'm talking about 10% of the images taken with the 28. So the point is, as I already wrote: Less $$$ for 2 lens setup and less weight and clutter in the bag.

 

I just think (and want to know if I'm missing something here!!!) that it's a huge advantage of a 28 (over a 35) that it CAN, FROM TIME TO TIME, IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS, be used as a 35 if needed. The other way around is impossible.

 

You may have a look here:

Online Depth of Field Calculator

at 28 mm the DOF is much wider then, to be more dramatic on a 200mm, and that expands if you wide open.

 

THAT makes sense. Thank you.

[earleygallery]

 

 

Don't think so, I chose Leica for feel and simplicity. The market is full of quality.

 

 

 

Sorry but this is just plain WRONG and i read this so often in forums. Moving won't give the same image as using a different focal lengh. Compare a 135mm image taken 100m away from the subject with a 21mm image taken in front of the subject. Same image? Don't think so.

 

Point 1 - then sell your Leica lens and you can buy several Voigtlander lenses which are IMHO excellent quality anyway and solve your problem!

 

Point 2 - Instead of cropping a 28mm image, I'm saying you could just try getting a bit nearer to your subject. It's not wrong, it's an alternative solution to your 'problem'.

 

Thank you for being so receptive to my suggestions!

[01af]

... they're different media.

Completely off topic, sorry.

It's your topic. If you bring it up then you'll have to deal with the reply.

 

 

The OOF areas appear blurrier if I crop which is basically a little zoom into the image.

That's right—but in the uncropped image taken with the longer focal length, the out-of-focus areas would be even blurrier (at the same f-stop).

 

But then, for a crop factor of 1.25, the difference in depth-of-field will be so small it might safely be considered academical. So it's just another point not to waste too much thought on ... just like this whole topic altogether. If a 28 mm lens is what you have then you'll use it as a 28 mm lens.

[findranger]

Point 1 - then sell your Leica lens and you can buy several Voigtlander lenses which are IMHO excellent quality anyway and solve your problem!

 

Point 2 - Instead of cropping a 28mm image, I'm saying you could just try getting a bit nearer to your subject. It's not wrong, it's an alternative solution to your 'problem'.

 

Thank you for being so receptive to my suggestions!

 

1. Ehm, no. It also does't solve the weight and clutter problem. I think "use voigtländer" doesn't solve my problem (topic) at all!

 

2. Sorry, but you are not right. The result is completely different. The point is: moving doesn't equal zooming. Different result and therefore no "alternative". I've heard to often "use your feet to get a XYZ lens", and i think it's important to unterstand that this does't work

 

 

I honestly appreciate your suggestions. Thank you very much. Just trying to discuss this right and straight.

[findranger]

It's your topic. If you bring it up then you'll have to deal with the reply.

 

 

 

That's right—but in the uncropped image taken with the longer focal length, the out-of-focus areas would be even blurrier (at the same f-stop).

 

But then, for a crop factor of 1.25, the difference in depth-of-field will be so small it might safely be considered academical. So it's just another point not to waste too much thought on ... just like this whole topic altogether. If a 28 mm lens is what you have then you'll use it as a 28 mm lens.

 

I did't ask for a film vs. digital discussion, so your comment is off topic. Let's stick to the subject.

 

I think it's right what you say concerning OOF dimensions of the 28 vs. the 35 - makes sense.

 

about 2000$ and about 350g of weight IS a point in may opinion. As i said I want to keep my setup nice and small and would like to make use of the added described benfit of the 28mm. What's so hard to understand? If you really have a point against this idea besides "this is stupid imho", so please tell me because THAT is what I was asking for.

 

Thank you very much.

[Peter H]

……….

 

Do you think you could spot a cropped 28Cron-Image in a set of non-copped 35Cron-Images if they're matched in color/tonality etc.?

 

Honestly, I doubt it, although there are some very real differences in rendering between the two lenses, but that's a slightly different matter.

 

But I do think you'd end up with a different set of photos if you were consistently using a 28 instead of a 35. I have both and use them quite differently, with different results.

[findranger]

Honestly, I doubt it, although there are some very real differences in rendering between the two lenses, but that's a slightly different matter.

 

That's what I was thinking, so the possibility is there.

 

But I do think you'd end up with a different set of photos if you were consistently using a 28 instead of a 35. I have both and use them quite differently, with different results.

 

Yes, and it wouldn't make sense if I would do it all the time. But I just like the idea of having a virtual 35 with me - just in case. As described my plan is to switch to 28 completely, or at least for the majority of my shots.

 

I have both and use them quite differently, with different results.

 

Interesting, because they are so close to each other. Could you describe your decision in certain situations?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Peter H]

I find I use the 28 more loosely and quickly, often with zone focussing though certainly not always. I tend to use it when I have a 50 with me, so when I use the 28 it's because I consciously want a wider outlook in contrast with the more intimate view of the 50. I tend to use the 35 when I'm only taking one lens, and then of course it has to cover every eventuality and its narrower but still fairly broad view is better suited for that. And, as you identify, i can crop down so that I'm virtually where a 50 would be with a minimal loss of anything.

 

So despite their similarities of field of view, the way I end up using them turns out to be quite different.

 

Also it would be wrong to overlook the difference in the way the 28 Summicron renders. Much has been written about this so I'll simply refer to the fact that it has so many vehement admirers for this quality alone. It certainly can be a most beautiful lens capable of yielding images in a uniquely subtle yet detailed way, and in my opinion comfortably surpasses the 35 Summicron in this respect. The 35 Summilux, on the other hand, is possibly the best all-purpose single lens I have ever used, but is not cheap, obviously!