Using 28mm as a 35mm ?!

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

Using a 28mm as a 35mm on a full frame camera is just as stupid as using a 35mm as a 28mm.

That is incorrect because the former is possible and the latter not.

[findranger]

Most replies you've got here are negative

 

Which is totally fine. Does it mean they are the absolute truth? Is it the end of the discussion?

 

Using a 28mm as a 35mm on a full frame camera is just as stupid as using a 35mm as a 28mm.

 

This my friend is rude AND totally wrong at the same time. Bravo! How exactly do you squeeze a 28mm frame into a 35mm frame. And I'm waiting for the first crop sensor camera with a crop factor of 0,75 or something.

 

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.

 

So you've read some books. I said Winogrand and alike, William Kein for example who also changed from standard focal lenghs to wides like 21mm or "as wide as possible" (have also read some books:p).

 

And he used his feet to compose full frame.

 

Did I say anything against 'walking to compose'?

I questioned 'walking to imitate a different focal lengh.'

 

 

But okay. Let's not question anything. Let's not discuss anything. Let's not try anything. Let's not gain some new perspectives. Let's walk walk walk to get the focal lengh we want. All same I guess. Happy shooting!

[jaapv]

Let’s not have the personal interaction degrading the technical discussion, please

[findranger]

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.

 

At least someone here understands what I'm talking about.

 

Question to the members of the use-your-feet-party: Would Winogrands work be the same or even possible with a 35 or 50? Answer: No!

[ferdinand]

I deleted the last two writings from Steve and peertheer. There were personal insults from both

[Jeff S]

At least someone here understands what I'm talking about.

 

Posts #32 and #50 said the same, and you dismissed them, presumably because you didn't understand how the principles I stated translated to your question. And then you wrongly assumed my point of view, so to speak, on the matter.

 

I use the 28 and 35 on an M8 and an M, sometimes one and sometimes both, without confusion about the differing effects. You should get out there and start shooting, and stop arguing. The principles are easily verified.

 

Jeff

[findranger]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I refered this sentence:

 

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.

 

A lot of comments here clearly prove that this is not as "basic" as you claim it to be. And "each on his own" does't help either, does it? So if we are trying to find out something, some kind of discussion is inevitable don't you think? Nothing to cry about in my opinion. I learnt a lot during this discussion.

[pieterpronk]

Question to the members of the use-your-feet-party: Would Winogrands work be the same or even possible with a 35 or 50? Answer: No!

 

First of all, let me apologize for the use of the word "stupid". While not personally directed at you, it was not nice to use.

 

I of course understand that perspective changes with 28mm or 35mm, when using one as the other. I had the idea that you didn't mind so much these details which would be hard to see for most people. But yes, technically the 28mm would make a better multi-perspective lens.

But since you brought up Winogrand, let me try to shed some light on my own view on your 28/35mm dilemma. I dont't think Winogrand could have made his 28mm work with a 24mm either. While technically doable, using a focal length to it's full potential is hard enough as it is. Composing a certain focal length and really seeing that focal length is a life's work for most of us. So I would say when you buy a 28mm you have your hands full of learning and understanding that focal length, you would actually kinda unlearn your 35mm habits.

So while technically and theoretically possible, I would advise against trying to use a focal as another for practical reasons.

 

Then again, I'm sure many of us do it. We see something in the distance and we know our lens is actually too wide for it. If the environment or the window of opportunity dictate that we either get a shot wrongly composed with too wide a view or we don't get a shot at all many of us will take one anyway, hoping the image will still work as a crop. I shoot my 50mm as a 73mm, 87mm or 94mm if circumstances dictate, but I always feel it's abig compromise, and would never set out to use my lens that way from the start.

 

So my advice would be to respect the focal length of your lens, and the framing and compositional possibilities AND limits that are inherent to that focal length. As such: if you get a 28mm instead of a 35mm, then set your mind to 28mm and forget 35mm. (At least until you put on a 35mm lens again).

[CalArts 99]

So if we are trying to find out something, some kind of discussion is inevitable don't you think? Nothing to cry about in my opinion. I learnt a lot during this discussion.

 

People came here to voice opinions and help answer some of your questions in a congenial manner. Unfortunately it seems you might have misinterpreted the content and the nature of their responses. I think they were all trying to be helpful. But the problem here is that when you misunderstood or disagreed, you responded in an aggressive nature. (e.g., I mentioned something about Winogrand and you reply, "So you've read some books." fwiw, I knew Winogrand from UT-Austin; you don't know anyone's background here.)

 

There's really no reason to respond in that tone. This isn't a battle. It was a discussion with respondents voicing a variety of comments, just like in any civil discussion. Unfortunately internet forums degrade because some people decide it's a war of wits or knowledge and not a place for polite discussion (as you would normally have if you were face-to-face with someone.) It seems as though they are preferring a debate over a discussion.

 

Next time, when people respond and you might disagree, then maybe just say so in a civil manner. I think the discussion would have then progressed in a positive way. And if people respond with something you feel is irrelevant to you, then try saying it politely. It appears that you got people angry from the very beginning. There's no need for that, we're all adults and can have mature discussions without denigrating each other.

 

In the meantime, this exact question of yours was posted a few years ago on this forum: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/film-forum/118017-28mm-versus-35mm.html Hopefully some of that discussion will be helpful.

[Nick De Marco]

I have too many lenses and too many cameras, and can't stop collecting...

So deciding which lenses to use, or take with me on a trip, is always a big deal.

I think recent trips have refined things though. For the a 28 cron ASPH and a 50 cron are the ideal 2 lenses to have - cover just about everything you ever need and both spectacular lenses.

 

The 35mm cron asph, which I also have and love, gets used very little if I take the 28 and 50, but if I could only take one lens, it would be the 35. So 35 on its own, or 28 and 50 if you like to use 2. That's my general feeling.

 

Nick

[findranger]

In the meantime, this exact question of yours was posted a few years ago on this forum: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/film-forum/118017-28mm-versus-35mm.html Hopefully some of that discussion will be helpful.

 

Thanks for the link.

 

But I would kindly ask you to speak for yourself and not "the people" if you think it's necassary to make that kind of speeches within the thread in the first place. I don't agree with your opinions at all but am not willing to annoy others further with personal differences.

[findranger]

I have too many lenses and too many cameras, and can't stop collecting...

So deciding which lenses to use, or take with me on a trip, is always a big deal.

I think recent trips have refined things though. For the a 28 cron ASPH and a 50 cron are the ideal 2 lenses to have - cover just about everything you ever need and both spectacular lenses.

 

The 35mm cron asph, which I also have and love, gets used very little if I take the 28 and 50, but if I could only take one lens, it would be the 35. So 35 on its own, or 28 and 50 if you like to use 2. That's my general feeling.

 

Nick

 

That's what I hear a lot. 28 AND 50 or 35 as a one lens setup. I think I already decided to not sell the 35 and save some money for adding a used 28. It might serve pretty well as a "virtual" 35 from time to time.

[Manolo Laguillo]

Considering the 40 mm as being in between the 35 mm and the 50 mm,

 

a very nice combination, which I like a lot, is this one:

 

40 mm + 28 mm

[Jeff S]

A lot of comments here clearly prove that this is not as "basic" as you claim it to be.

 

A lot of people don't understand basic principles. Some comments here were accurate, some not. I gave you the principles at play so that you could separate one from the other. But instead you dismissed them as no help.

 

Cropping a 28 field of view to a 35 field of view is roughly what the M8 sensor does compared to the M9, assuming one stands in the same place. One can shoot with any lens and crop a pic taken from the same position to get an equivalent, but narrower, field of view. The objects appear the same in both (forgetting about resolution, etc.)

 

The point I made to you, repeatedly, is that if you change position (move your feet), the perspective changes, i.e., objects near and far change relationship. It's no longer the same as a cropped photo. That's as basic as it gets.

 

The comment "each on his own" (sic) didn't come from me. I favor discussion; you're the one who chastised others, including me, for making points along the way. Pot calling the kettle....

 

Jeff

[findranger]

Considering the 40 mm as being in between the 35 mm and the 50 mm,

 

a very nice combination, which I like a lot, is this one:

 

40 mm + 28 mm

 

I used to use it a lot on my Oly35RD.

Was my entry in the RF world.

Sigh...

[findranger]

The point I made to you, repeatedly, is that if you change position (move your feet), the perspective changes, i.e., objects near and far change relationship. It's no longer the same as a cropped photo. That's as basic as it gets.

 

That was already repeated several times (amongst others by me) and is correct. There was no need to repeat it again in different words, especially when spiced like this(!):

 

seemingly serious question

 

it's clear you're not clear.

 

Basic stuff.

 

That's how you entered the thread, speaking of tone...

 

Back to topic? Please?

[Jeff S]

That was already repeated several times (amongst others by me) and is correct. There was no need to repeat it again in different words...

 

...That's how you entered the thread, speaking of tone...

 

 

No, please stick to the facts. You and others made no mention of the principle of perspective or the relationship between near and far objects. And I entered the discussion after someone said "a 28 is a 28 is a 28" and you remarkably asked "Even on an M8?" That question showed you had no clue. Because a 28 ALWAYS is a 28. Still.

 

As far as tone, I suggest you read your own comments from the start, which turned off many others, as their replies made clear.

 

Now back to topic....whatever that might be.

 

Jeff

[findranger]

I entered the discussion after someone said "a 28 is a 28 is a 28" and you remarkably asked "Even on an M8?" That question showed you had no clue. Because a 28 ALWAYS is a 28. Still.Jeff

 

The - in my opinion a little autocratic - message "a 28 is a 28 is a 28", besides completely ignoring what I wanted to discuss, is pretty self evident and of course true. I know that the yellow 28 on the barrel of the lens doesn't magically turn into a yellow 35 when I put it on an M8 or have cropping in mind.

So - of course, c'mon - my reply "Even on an M8?" means the effect of using the 28 on an M8 or for later cropped images; from the very beginning this was what this is all about.

 

I said before you entered that moving is no replacement for switching a lens, because someone suggested that. Your explenation was a long version of the same message. And, say what you want, it included some very snobbish undertone (which, by the way, wouln't be a problem at all for me if you wouldn't play the role of the forums advocate here now).

One shouldn't throw stones in his own glass house and stretch this annoying side discussion, that's my opinion and I can't believe the way this develops. Really.

 

This thread - as it progesseses - is the paradigm of a photo forum cliché. Sad.

 

Have fun.

Bye

[Jeff S]

Your explenation was a long version of the same message.

 

No, again. My comments were very short and to the point, unlike your long and imprecise ramblings.

 

Does anyone even know at this point what question remains in your mind when you say "back to the topic"?

 

Jeff

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Jaybob]

I use a NEX 6 to make my 28 into a 42...I usually take a half a step backward from what ever I frame and waaaa-laaaaah.