Having both a 35 and 28mm? Lens dilemma

[microview]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Do you find the 75 a useful focal length? I was toying with adding the Summicron to my 50APO/Zeiss 35 1.4/28 Summicro (new version) and 90 Macro Elmar.

[Mute-on]

Thank you. Have you tried using one body for the two lens when traveling?

 

Like you I prefer not to change lenses whilst out, so no I haven't tried one body for the two lenses.

 

However, if I was limited to one body (which I am not, as a film Leica user), I would probably keep one lens on all day, and change lenses the next day, depending on what I felt like shooting with or what I expected to see.

 

Focal length is but one of the lens's characteristics that influence the decision to use one lens over the other. Size, weight, handling, rendering, speed (aperture) all play a part in the process.

 

The choice is entirely yours to make.

 

Enjoy!

 

Cheers

 

J

[Advertisement]

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

[lct]

28 and 35 are different beasts indeed and i agree about Elmarit 28/2.8 asph + Biogon 35/2.8. It is my favorite  combo besides Summicron 28/2 v2 + Summicron 35/2 asph but the latter + Elmarit 28/2.8 asph work fine as well. 35/2 asph v1 and 28/2.8 asph v1 share the same hood BTW.

[stephengv]

Like you I prefer not to change lenses whilst out, so no I haven't tried one body for the two lenses.

 

However, if I was limited to one body (which I am not, as a film Leica user), I would probably keep one lens on all day, and change lenses the next day, depending on what I felt like shooting with or what I expected to see.

 

Focal length is but one of the lens's characteristics that influence the decision to use one lens over the other. Size, weight, handling, rendering, speed (aperture) all play a part in the process.

 

The choice is entirely yours to make.

 

Enjoy!

 

Cheers

 

J

 

 

Very well said. Thank you again. 

 

I hope my theory that a 28mm will be an "All around wide angle lens", but versatile enough to be"a one lens for a day". As I said, I don't like changing lenses while traveling. I really hope it will complement my two "all around lens", the 35 and 50 cron. 

Edited July 9, 2017 by stephengv

[stephengv]

28 and 35 are different beasts indeed and i agree about Elmarit 28/2.8 asph + Biogon 35/2.8. It is my favorite  combo besides Summicron 28/2 v2 + Summicron 35/2 asph but the latter + Elmarit 28/2.8 asph work fine as well. 35/2 asph v1 and 28/2.8 asph v1 share the same hood BTW.

 

Very well said thank you.

 

Yup the version 1 of the 28 2.8 and 35 2 ASPH share the same lenshood. However, I'm looking at the 28mm 2.8 ASPH II. While my 35 2 ASPH, I prefer the round lens hood. 

Edited July 9, 2017 by stephengv

[stephengv]

My local Leica store just informed me that they already have a 28 elmarit in stock. haha.

 

Do you guys think its really worth to have a 35 and a 28? Just need more info before I take the plunge. 

[Mute-on]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have the latest 28 Elmarit ASPH. I love the hood and the lens is astounding. Even my wife commented on the images

 

I shoot it along side a 35 Summaron, and very happily.

 

Just get it, and enjoy!

 

Cheers

 

J

Edited September 10, 2017 by Mute-on

[DickieT]

28 and 35 are very different and both worth having depending on what you shoot, but I am not sure if I would call my 28 'the landscape lens'. I would look for a 21/3.4, 18/3.4 or a WATE - I ended up trading my 21 for a WATE because I wanted wider and a little bit more flexibility. I did not mind losing the 1/2 stop from 3.4 to 4.0 as landscape shots are mostly made with a smaller aperture anyway. So if you want a 28, by all means do as it is a great lens. If you are going for landscape, I would go wider

[stephengv]

28 and 35 are very different and both worth having depending on what you shoot, but I am not sure if I would call my 28 'the landscape lens'. I would look for a 21/3.4, 18/3.4 or a WATE - I ended up trading my 21 for a WATE because I wanted wider and a little bit more flexibility. I did not mind losing the 1/2 stop from 3.4 to 4.0 as landscape shots are mostly made with a smaller aperture anyway. So if you want a 28, by all means do as it is a great lens. If you are going for landscape, I would go wider

 

 

I already have a 15mm heliar iii and a 21mm CV. However, the two lens are not versatile enough to be left on the body for the whole day. Thus, I was thinking of a 28mm as my "landscape and all rounder lens". 

[stephengv]

I have the latest 28 Elmarit ASPH. I love the hood and the lens is astounding. Even my wife commented on the images

 

I shoot it along side a 35 Summaron, and very happily.

 

Just get it, and enjoy!

 

Cheers

 

J

 

Thank you J! 

[DickieT]

To add a little more choice in that case - make sure to also think about the 28 Summaron 5.6 ...

[colonel]

28mm is significantly more useful in close urban environments but less useful when "across the road"

 

I find 35mm a great single lens solution when you only want to have 1 lens, however when I carry two I generally have a 28mm and a 50mm ....

[stephengv]

To add a little more choice in that case - make sure to also think about the 28 Summaron 5.6 ...

 

 

I love the build of that lens, however, I don't like the classical rendering. 

Edited September 11, 2017 by stephengv

[01af]

Indeed, there is a respectable difference between the two lens in terms of field of view.

Yes, there is. The difference is smaller than that between 50 mm and 35 mm ... but significant nonetheless.

 

Personally, I am amidst the transition from ignoring the 28 mm focal length to appreciating it. This transition was triggered by my switch from Leica M9 and M (Typ 240) to M-A and M10. in the latter models, the 28 mm framelines are easier to see, so using the 28 mm lens finally is fun.

 

 

Moreover, it can be seen that the perspective—the foreground to background distance—changes significantly.

No, it doesn't change. Just have a closer look! There is not the slightest change in the relationship between foregrund and and background. After all, the shots were taken from the same point of view.

 

In order for the foreground-to-background relation to change, you must move forwards (to emphasise apparent spatial depth) or backwards (to compress spatial depth).

[Martin B]

I recently purchased the CV 28/2 lens which I use in combination with my 35/2 Summicron 7-element lens. Especially in urban environments, both work nicely in parallel for different situations. I use the 28 mm lens for group shots with close proximity whereas the 35 mm range more for full body portraits. For architecture and indoor shots, I found the CV 28/2 a nice addition to my CV 21/1.8 lens and more suitable than the 35 mm FL. Nevertheless, the 35/2 is my most used walk-around lens. 

 

Leica 35/2 lens, Kodak Porta 400 UC film:

 

CV 28/2, Kodak Porta 400 UC film:

 

CV 28/2, Ilford XP2 film:

[stephengv]

Yes, there is. The difference is smaller than that between 50 mm and 35 mm ... but significant nonetheless.

 

Personally, I am amidst the transition from ignoring the 28 mm focal length to appreciating it. This transition was triggered by my switch from Leica M9 and M (Typ 240) to M-A and M10. in the latter models, the 28 mm framelines are easier to see, so using the 28 mm lens finally is fun.

 

 

No, it doesn't change. Just have a closer look! There is not the slightest change in the relationship between foregrund and and background. After all, the shots were taken from the same point of view.

 

In order for the foreground-to-background relation to change, you must move forwards (to emphasise apparent spatial depth) or backwards (to compress spatial depth).

 

 

Thank you, do you think its worth it? to have both? 

[01af]

... do you think it's worth it? To have both?

To me specifically—yes. In general—depends. The answer to the more stringent question (Is it required?) would be, no, definitely not.

[Martin B]

Thank you, do you think its worth it? to have both? 

 

To answer this question, I would say yes, but likely you will use the 35 mm more often (at least I do). I went alternatively with the CV 28/2 lens instead of one of the IMO very expensive Leica 28 mm versions - and the more affordable older Leica 28 mm versions are not better than the CV 28/2 version either. 

[UliWer]

I already have a 21 CV, 35 Cron ASPH, 50 Cron, 85 Zeiss, 135 Elmar. However I use the 35mm almost all the time. I like the versatility of a 35mm and I hate changing lenses while on the field. 

 ...

 

Different focal lengthes make more or less sense when you look at the opportunities to pair them.

 

Since you say that you use 35mm almost all the time the most frequent pairing partner for a 28mm would be - 35mm. This does not make much sense since they are rather close.

 

This would perhaps be different if your most used lense was 50mm. You could pair it with a smaller difference with 35 mm and with a larger gap with 28mm (same for longer lenses: 35/50/75 or 90 as a triple with smaller gaps and 28/50/90 or 135 as one with bigger gaps).

 

Starting from 35mm a 24 or 21mm makes more sense when you want to go wider.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[IkarusJohn]

Had both, sold the 35mm as I liked the 28 field of view most of the time.