28 mm Lens Article

[sanyasi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I purchased the Leica M Elmarit 28 mm 2.8 lens a week ago. Today I stumbled across this article about shooting with a 28mm lens. I thought it was very good. In addition, the magazine in which it appears looks like it is also worthwhile and very inexpensive.

 

INSPIRED EYE | 10 beginner tips to the 28mm focal length

[philipus]

It's a nice piece. Most of the articles Duong writes are good (personally, however, I dislike the occasional use of very colloquial language, but it doesn't happen as often lately). His pieces are a bit like Thein's but more accessible. Points also for trying himself to apply photographic theory of composition etc.

 

If one likes this piece I would recommend subscribe for the IE's weekly (Saturday) newsletter which includes links to their own article (2-3 of them, sometimes less), usually a link to an interesting Youtube or other photo-related documentary, and 5-6 links to photo-related articles, stories or blog posts elsewhere. I've followed it for a year or so and find it to be as welcome in my inbox on Saturdays as The Economist in my mailbox.

 

Philip

[Advertisement]

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

[CalArts 99]

It's a nice piece. Most of the articles Duong writes are good (personally, however, I dislike the occasional use of very colloquial language, but it doesn't happen as often lately). His pieces are a bit like Thein's but more accessible. Points also for trying himself to apply photographic theory of composition etc.

 

If one likes this piece I would recommend subscribe for the IE's weekly (Saturday) newsletter which includes links to their own article (2-3 of them, sometimes less), usually a link to an interesting Youtube or other photo-related documentary, and 5-6 links to photo-related articles, stories or blog posts elsewhere. I've followed it for a year or so and find it to be as welcome in my inbox on Saturdays as The Economist in my mailbox.

 

Philip

 

I never heard of it before until this thread, but what they said (a podcast on that website) about Barthes' Camera Lucida was pretty bad and off the mark of the original thesis (and they didn't pronounce the title correctly either), which is unfortunate as it will likely be repeated somewhere. I'm sure their technical stuff might be helpful but they probably need to stay away from the 'intellectual side' of the equation (and this is why there are such things as peer reviewed journals; the interwebs has no such oversight and of course anything can be posted on a website with little consequence. )

 

btw, if anyone is interested in the gist of Barthes' inquiry, here's a much more accurate synopsis written by a student at the UC's Chicago School of Media Theory: http://csmt.uchicago.edu/annotations/barthescamera.htm) Also Michael Fried's article, Barthes's Punctum in the journal Critical Inquiry (University of Chicago Press), is probably one of the better interpretations among the numerous inquiries into what Barthes actually meant with his 'studium' and 'punctum.' Vol. 31, No. 3, Spring 2005 (pp. 539-574.) Spring 2005 - Volume 31 Issue 3 – Critical Inquiry This article is also repeated as a chapter in Fried's book, Why Photography Matters as Art as Never Before (Yale University Press 2008.) And although I'm not a real fan of Fried nor of his agenda, his interpretation does have some merit (and which is also discussed here by Arni Haraldsson: Fillip / Fried’s Turn (Arni Haraldsson))

[sanyasi]

Thanks. I ordered the original Barhes book from Amazon. At $10 US it seemed like a small investment. At least give them credit for putting it out there for people like me who were unfamiliar with the original. I will also take a look at your links.

 

Thanks again.

[Herr Barnack]

@sanyasi - That's a great article on the 28mm lens - thanks for posting it!

 

I have always liked the 28mm focal length. The 28 Summicron ASPH was my first and only wide angle M lens for 10+ years. It is blasphemy to some M shooters, but I never felt the need for a 35mm lens because I had the 28 'cron.

 

I have found that the 28 'cron is ideal for street photography. As I recall, Garry Winogrand had an affinity for the 28.

 

JMHO, but I can't see how a person could go wrong with a 28. Now I have a 21/3.4 ASPH to back up my 28 'cron so I am set in terms of wide lenses.

Edited December 2, 2014 by Carlos Danger

[sanyasi]

Thanks Carlos. I used my new lens over Thanksgiving. I'd post the photograph that I got with it, but I was a guest at another family's dinner and I feel uncomfortable posting a photo of their kids. Let's just say the early teen son and daughter got into a play fight at the dinner table and I was standing right behind them, so they are close and large in the frame, with the other family members sitting at the table in the background. Great photo. I had been using the 21mm, but found it a little to wide for people. The 21 is great, but you gotta get close to fill the frame with the subject.

[CalArts 99]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

At least give them credit for putting it out there for people like me who were unfamiliar with the original.

 

Yes, I agree that is a good thing.

 

btw, I highly recommend reading Barthes' Image-Music-Text before reading Camera Lucida. (Image-Music-Text - Roland Barthes - Google Books) It will root him as the semiotician/post-structuralist he was so well-known for being, and why Camera Lucida is considered such a radical departure for him.

 

While a lot of this may seem pretty dated (hence the $10 price tag on most of the books ), and although we may tend to understand it intuitively, it's still very relevant and worth bearing in mind when constructing images.

[philipus]

I'm sure their technical stuff might be helpful but they probably need to stay away from the 'intellectual side' of the equation (and this is why there are such things as peer reviewed journals; the interwebs has no such oversight and of course anything can be posted on a website with little consequence. )

 

 

Or perhaps they need constructive feedback from someone who knows the topic better? Just a wild thought.

[CalArts 99]

Or perhaps they need constructive feedback from someone who knows the topic better? Just a wild thought.

 

I guess I just don't feel like it's my position to take the time and effort to try to correct someone's interpretation of a pretty complex subject in a self-published website/blog. I think it's really their responsibility to take the time, effort, and research if they want to discuss something as multi-layered as this material is (and people make careers out of interpreting this sort of material )

 

I'm no optical engineer (nor anything close to understanding optics beyond what I can read here and there), and I would personally struggle to write anything coherent about lens design. But if I did choose to make an attempt at it, I would certainly spend a lot of time studying or at the very least use copious footnotes and references. And to be sure there really is no oversight on the internet. So there would be no real consequence if I got it wrong.

 

Anyway, I felt compelled to point out that they were off the mark in case someone was truly interested in the subject. I posted some references for anybody here who may want to take it further and also read the source material itself. They happened to be references and links I had already at my fingertips (fwiw, I deal with this material all the time; it's part of my day job.)