Jeff S Posted November 22, 2013 Share #41 Posted November 22, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Thanks for teaching, but how does it help? With you, it doesn't. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 22, 2013 Posted November 22, 2013 Hi Jeff S, Take a look here Using 28mm as a 35mm ?!. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
CalArts 99 Posted November 23, 2013 Share #42 Posted November 23, 2013 One can crop the image to where the focal lengths look the same with the 28 and 35. And also using one's feet will work, too. But (depending on subject matter) there is a difference with DOF at a given aperture and also with compression from near to far objects. That's not really noticeable of course unless you compare both images at the same time. But there is a compression difference between a 28 and a 35 although clearly not as obvious as say, between a 28 and a 50. Personally I guess my issue would be with the reduction of valuable image dimension sizes (with printing.) But the degree of that only matters of course with certain final outputs and personal needs, etc.. I might also have some difficulty with using a 28 lens as a 'crop' 35 lens in respect to any sort of 'pre-visualization' kind of thing in actual use. Although the M9 does have a frame line lever so that kind of resolves those issues. One could carry around a piece of putty and 'stick' the lever open at the 35 frame line (we have a product available here called 'earthquake putty' which is a removable putty that holds things in place....) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 23, 2013 Share #43 Posted November 23, 2013 Not that fun to compose with a different FoV in mind. I would try before deciding to sell my 35 personally. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
findranger Posted November 23, 2013 Author Share #44 Posted November 23, 2013 where the focal lengths look the same with the 28 and 35. And also using one's feet will work, too. ... But (depending on subject matter) there is a difference with DOF at a given aperture and also with compression from near to far objects. That's not really noticeable of course unless you compare both images at the same time. But there is a compression difference between a 28 and a 35 although clearly not as obvious as say, between a 28 and a 50. Personally I guess my issue would be with the reduction of valuable image dimension sizes (with printing.) But the degree of that only matters of course with certain final outputs and personal needs, etc.. I might also have some difficulty with using a 28 lens as a 'crop' 35 lens in respect to any sort of 'pre-visualization' kind of thing in actual use. Although the M9 does have a frame line lever so that kind of resolves those issues. One could carry around a piece of putty and 'stick' the lever open at the 35 frame line (we have a product available here called 'earthquake putty' which is a removable putty that holds things in place....) Thank you very much. So DOF, compression & resolution are the three things to consider in this case. Especially the the first two make me think twice about the idea. I don't mind too much about the 'wrong' framelines, I think I could adapt to it pretty ok (at least from 28 to 35), and a Leica VF isn't made for super-accurate framing anyways, is it? Best. P Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 23, 2013 Share #45 Posted November 23, 2013 It is not a matter of more or less accuracy to me but of composition. Fo some people, composition is the most important thing in photography. HCB used to say that the photographs themselves were less important to him than the act of composing, go figure. Now there can be a big divide between theory and practice as you know. Only you can say if the difference is a problem actually but you will not discover it w/o testing the beast in person i'm afraid. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
findranger Posted November 23, 2013 Author Share #46 Posted November 23, 2013 Only you can say if the difference is a problem actually but you will not discover it w/o testing the beast in person i'm afraid. That's for sure. I took a quick look and the difference in DOF/Compression seems to be roughly a stop, meaning the in-focus-area is roughly the same (given same distance) if you open up 1 stop with the 28mm compared to the 35mm. If you 'use your feet' (move closer to the subject with the 28mm) to get the same info into frame you end up with pretty equal DOF to 35mm at original distance, but of course with a completely different FOV and therrfore result. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 23, 2013 Share #47 Posted November 23, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) That's what you'd experiment when using an APS camera more or less. But when you compose, your 28mm lens shows you a true "35mm" (rather 37 or 40) field of view on such cameras so it is not a problem for composing at all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
findranger Posted November 23, 2013 Author Share #48 Posted November 23, 2013 That's what you'd experiment when using an APS camera more or less. But when you compose, your 28mm lens shows you a true "35mm" (rather 37 or 40) field of view on such cameras so it is not a problem for composing at all. As I said, one would have to adapt and imagine the 35 framelines. I would also make a difference between composition and framing. The second is the main 'problem' here, but - again - Leica isn't the right tool for super exact framing - heck, even the corners are missing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 23, 2013 Share #49 Posted November 23, 2013 Super exact no but RFs like M8.2 and M240 are very close, at long to medium distance at least. But if you intend to acquire an M9 is won't be much different toyour film camera, except the round corners of the M3's framelines that is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted November 23, 2013 Share #50 Posted November 23, 2013 If you 'use your feet' (move closer to the subject with the 28mm) to get the same info into frame you end up with pretty equal DOF to 35mm at original distance, but of course with a completely different FOV More importantly, a different perspective, which changes the relationship among objects near and far, as this example from a random search. Practical enough for you, or still too professorial? Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalArts 99 Posted November 23, 2013 Share #51 Posted November 23, 2013 ... I'm not sure what the "eye roll" means (?) fwiw, yesterday I tried a scene with both the 28 and the 35 (using a DSLR where I could easily see things changing) and when 'moving my feet' and also cropping the image there wasn't a huge difference between those focal lengths. You said earlier: "Compare a 135mm image taken 100m away from the subject with a 21mm image taken in front of the subject." With those focal lengths, of course there will be a very noticeable difference. And as I had said, the difference between say, a 28 and a 50 will be more noticeable. But it wasn't really that noticeable with the 28 and the 35 unless one compared the two images side by side (which I also did.) And I also mentioned "depending on subject matter" which one needs to consider (i.e., near/far objects in the same.) Anyway, the point is that there are some differences with cropping, moving your feet, and the final area dimensions of the image itself. And also how using a lens this way might affect one's own personal method of composing/photographing. Whether those factors are going to be an issue for you is going to be entirely up to you, and you alone. Try using both focal lengths at the same time and test for yourself. I did just out of curiosity after reading this thread. And my personal conclusion was that while it can be done to a certain degree with these particular two focal lengths, ideally I'd much prefer to have both lenses (and I do; the 35 Summilux and the 28 Summicron.) I doubt I could effectively 'think' in crop mode while trying to critically compose despite the frame line lever. But then again, my brain is the size of a pea. And that's probably why I have to use a rangefinder for one method of photographing and a single lens reflex with a 100% viewfinder for other types of work. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
findranger Posted November 23, 2013 Author Share #52 Posted November 23, 2013 I'm not sure what the "eye roll" means (?) fwiw These are rolleyes? Anyway, the point is that there are some differences with cropping, moving your feet, and the final area dimensions of the image itself. And also how using a lens this way might affect one's own personal method of composing/photographing. That's exactly what I was saying (and rolling my eyes about, sorry, because it pops up again and again). This point is important: 28 and 35 or any two FL are in no way interchangable by feet (or roller blade, or ski, or stroller). Maybe if you shoot a wall or the horizon or the sea or a mountain kilometers away without having anything in the foreground. I choose my (effective) focal lengh by FOV/perspective and therefore image characteristics - and not (at least very seldom) by what I want to include into the image. So you can walk to include/exclude things but not to get the same look as a different lens. This very point is what this whole thread is/was about: Can I - technically, I know that only I can decide if I like it - stick to this approach when I use a 28 ossacionally as a 35 by cropping (reminder: cost, weight, bag clutter). Some doubts concerning DOF, resolution and VF-usage have been pointed out. Hope this make sense. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalArts 99 Posted November 23, 2013 Share #53 Posted November 23, 2013 This point is important: 28 and 35 or any two FL are in no way interchangable by feet (or roller blade, or ski, or stroller). Maybe if you shoot a wall or the horizon or the sea or a mountain kilometers away without having anything in the foreground. I choose my (effective) focal lengh by FOV/perspective and therefore image characteristics - and not (at least very seldom) by what I want to include into the image. So you can walk to include/exclude things but not to get the same look as a different lens. I think we all pretty much understand the differences of perspective with different focal lengths. And I had mentioned it already. However, (and once again, dependent on subject matter/foreground/background, etc..) there is not a dramatic difference between the 28 and the 35 when moving yourself. And as I also mentioned, yes it's apparent when comparing the two images together but not dramatically so. The image viewed by itself will have no referent. It's all up to you when making the photograph while "composing with cropping in mind." Therefore it is an 'option' (certainly not the best) in respect to using only a 28mm lens. Which I'm sure is why it was mentioned previously by others. I think those individuals also understand perspective differences. Anyway, it's all a compromise (cropping the image and composing as a crop.) Whether you can live with it is up to you. But everyone will have an opinion which should be respected, if at the very least for their efforts to voice that opinion. You probably need to rent a 28mm and try it for a few days and see if you can live with it yourself. Hopefully it works out okay for you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pieterpronk Posted November 23, 2013 Share #54 Posted November 23, 2013 If you think that a 28mm and a 35mm are practically interchangeable, why don't you just step back enough with your 35mm to get the "same" picture as you would with a 28mm. Using your reasoning your 35mm can practically serve as a 28mm anyway. That way you have 28mm summicron for the price of a 35mm summicron! Or just stitch in photoshop? Then even your 50 can be a 28mm... From this thread I think you should accept that everybody seems to agree that while theoretically it is (almost) possible to use a 28mm as a 35mm, nobody seems to think it is a valid plan in practice. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
findranger Posted November 24, 2013 Author Share #55 Posted November 24, 2013 there is not a dramatic difference between the 28 and the 35 when moving yourself For me thats not true. And I think Winogrand and alike changed to 28 and below for a reason. If you think that a 28mm and a 35mm are practically interchangeable I claimed the exact opposite!!! Did you read my post? why don't you just step back enough with your 35mm to get the "same" picture as you would with a 28mm. Impossible! Did you read my post? Or just stitch in photoshop? Then even your 50 can be a 28mm... Phew... Anybody who doesn't (want) to understand what I'm trying to discuss: Did you ever wonder why threre are all focal lengh framelines within a never changing 28mm VF on a Leica...? Good night. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
findranger Posted November 24, 2013 Author Share #56 Posted November 24, 2013 But everyone will have an opinion which should be respected, if at the very least for their efforts to voice that opinion. "Oppinions" usually lead to a discussion, don't they? You probably need to rent a 28mm and try it for a few days and see if you can live with it yourself. True. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 24, 2013 Share #57 Posted November 24, 2013 ...Did you ever wonder why threre are all focal lengh framelines within a never changing 28mm VF on a Leica...?. Curious question. You asked "By getting a good 28 like the 28mm Cron ASPH would't I get 2 for the price of 1". Most replies you've got here are negative, somewhat unsurprisingly, but you don't have to follow others' advice do you. There is no match to win or to lose against you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pieterpronk Posted November 24, 2013 Share #58 Posted November 24, 2013 Anybody who doesn't (want) to understand what I'm trying to discuss: Did you ever wonder why threre are all focal lengh framelines within a never changing 28mm VF on a Leica...? Exactly, and the points you have been making against my previous post (about a 35 not being a 28 at all) are just as valid in a discussion about wanting to use a 28 as a 35. Using a 28mm as a 35mm on a full frame camera is just as stupid as using a 35mm as a 28mm. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalArts 99 Posted November 24, 2013 Share #59 Posted November 24, 2013 For me thats not true. And I think Winogrand and alike changed to 28 and below for a reason. Well if you feel the perspective/compression differences of any given scene with either lens are enough to give you problems when moving yourself to compose, then no doubt you'll have those same concerns when you crop the image, too (those differences will still be there, you're just cropping the dimensions.) Use either a 28 and a 35 for the appropriate scene you want to convey and be done with it. (fwiw, Winogrand used the 28 for personal reasons and anything wider he said made the 'lens itself too apparent' and distracted from the content of the image; the 28 was as wide as he was willing to accept. And it was also not to also crop it as a 35. And he used his feet to compose full frame.) Anyway, you seem to have had all your answers in your mind before you even started this thread. Just do what works for you. Good luck. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 24, 2013 Share #60 Posted November 24, 2013 Just for the record: Perspective is not determined by the focal length of the lens but by the geometrical relationship of the elements in the image. i.e. if you stay in the same position your perspective will never change, irrespective of the lens you use. Obviously the crop i.e. angle of view will change. Field of view can only be defined at a given distance. Thus, if you (and your subject matter) stay in the same position you can create a “35 mm image” from a “28 mm image” simply by cropping. Winogrand used a 28 to be able to get closer to the subject, changing the perspective and emphasizing the subject in relationship to the background. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.