28mm to 35mm, too close in focal length?

[bherman01545]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

All;

I own a Voigtlander 28mm F/2 Ultron VII a Voigtlander 35mm  F/2 APO Lanthar and a 50mm F/2 APO Lanthar. 

The 28 is a great and compact lens, and the 35 APO is stellar, but large and a bit too sterile. I’m thinking about a Leica 35mm F2 Summicron due to its compact size and classic rendering, but was thinking that it’s a bit close to the 28. 

Thoughts?

Thanks, Brad
 

[Advertisement]

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

[jakontil]

Hi Brad,

depends though, my background is a 50mm shooter, i found that 35 is closer to 50 in terms of usability, mostly for portraits and streets while my 28 tends to be used for wider such as landscape 

[dugby]

51 minutes ago, jakontil said:

i found that 35 is closer to 50 in terms of usability, mostly for portraits and streets while my 28 tends to be used for wider such as landscape 

I used to think that the 35mm and 50mm lenses were too close,  until.....

I took two portrait 50mm adjacent shots to stitch together and then took one 35mm landscape shot of the same scene.

 

The two 50mm portrait shots (stitched) were almost 100% equivalent to the single 35mm landscape shot.

 

 

[jakontil]

14 minutes ago, dugby said:

I used to think that the 35mm and 50mm lenses were too close,  until.....

I took two portrait 50mm adjacent shots to stitch together and then took one 35mm landscape shot of the same scene.

 

The two 50mm portrait shots (stitched) were almost 100% equivalent to the single 35mm landscape shot.

 

 

Very interesting findings, may be im just biased towards 35mm closer to 50mm… thanks!

[Mikep996]

IMO the combination of 35 and 50 OR 35 and 28 are too close together.  I don't find a 35mm lens to be of much use - too wide for a normal lens and too narrow for a wide lens.  I usually go out with a 50 and a 28.  I have a 90 and a 21 but I seldom use the 90 and have almost never used the 21.  I also have a 28/35/50 Tri Elmar but don't use that either.  The concept was good but I never bonded with the lens' F4 aperture.

 

 

[newtoleica]

This is so personal. You can’t just mechanically compare focal lengths, it depends on what you use them for and how the lens helps you create your vision. 
it also includes rendering. I find the 35 Lux and 50 Lux very different. To go a bit wider I use a 24 Elmarit. I don’t use 28 as it’s not wide enough. 

[KFo]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don't understand.  You already have a 28 & 35 and want to know if they are too close together focal length wise?

[bherman01545]

9 minutes ago, KFo said:

I don't understand.  You already have a 28 & 35 and want to know if they are too close together focal length wise?

I consider the Voigtlander 35 and 50 APO lenses my best lenses (optically) and yes, I do have a Voigtlander 28 as well.

I tend to like the 35 focal length. I’m contemplating the Leica 35 due to its compact size and more classic look, but then I thought that the Voigtlander is also compact and close in focal length to the Leica 35.

All of these lenses have a different rendering, but I’m asking myself if I’m being silly to look at a second 35 when I already own a compact 28 and the Voigtlander 35 APO.

Make sense?

-Brad

[Adam Bonn]

Maybe buy the CV 35/2 (or 1.4) non-APO

See if you like it more than the APO 35, if not flip it, if yes either flip the APO or flip both and get the cron

 

FWIW 28 in the field when space is tight fits a useful amount more than 35 inside the frame

[Kiwimac]

I spent ages agonising over whether to go 28/50 or 35/50.

 

In the end I went 35/50 because I felt my work as a body of work would be less jarring to the eye. So far I have surprised myself by preferring the 35 but that might be as much a function of the photographic opportunities I have had recently as it is of the lenses.

I still hanker after the 28 Lux rendering though.

[Kiwimac]

Someone with a fairly unpleasant user name here I see.

[dpitt]

For me the main difference on the M is that the 28mm is almost completely filling the VF area. This makes it harder to use with glasses on, and it is impossible to see much outside the frame. The 35mm is much more practical in that respect and it shows enough outside the frame to give this extra I like so much in RF shooting.

For me personally the 28mm was either to wide on FF or not wide enough. I prefer 21mm when I want to go really wide and 35 for daily use. Of course I am still using the  M9 (18 MP) which limits my options for cropping compared to the M10R or M11, but the difficulty to see the frame and outside the frame remains even if you have more pixels to crop afterwards.

[Guest]

On 5/12/2023 at 5:29 PM, bherman01545 said:

All;

I own a Voigtlander 28mm F/2 Ultron VII a Voigtlander 35mm  F/2 APO Lanthar and a 50mm F/2 APO Lanthar. 

The 28 is a great and compact lens, and the 35 APO is stellar, but large and a bit too sterile. I’m thinking about a Leica 35mm F2 Summicron due to its compact size and classic rendering, but was thinking that it’s a bit close to the 28. 

Thoughts?

Thanks, Brad
 

Since you have the 28mm, and like the look of the images it produces, why don't you go through your back catalog (e.g. in Lightroom), and crop some images to 35mm equivalent? I learned this approach from Joel Meyerowitz, who made the point in the 'opposite direction' why the 50mm field of view is to narrow for him, and why he prefers the 35.

[madNbad]

I have a 28 Ultron V2 and the 35 Ultron V2. In the past I had a 35 Summicron ASPH. I like the 28 and use it often but tend to use a 35 as my normal focal length. Even though they aren’t that far apart in focal length, each provides a different way of capturing a scene. I also have a couple of different 50s that are used occasionally. Mostly on a whim, I bought a Voigtlander Nokton Classic 35 1.4 V2. It’s small, easy to focus and offers an extra stop over my Ultron. 

[Banned 103051]

It’s normal to want to get rid of the APO-Lanthar lenses because even though you’re lured by the optical perfection in the end what matters is compactness with the M body and you get sick of the size and weight eventually. It happened to me with the 50 APO-Lanthar. 

I now have the 50 Summicron. If I could have all Leica lenses I would own all Summicrons. 

If you have the money go for it. 

I never regretted changing the APO-Lanthar for the Summicron. The APO is too perfect. The Summicron has more character. It’s more gentle. It’s smaller and lighter. All that perfection from the APO is overrated for every day pictures. 

[Ko.Fe.]

On 5/13/2023 at 8:11 AM, bherman01545 said:

I consider the Voigtlander 35 and 50 APO lenses my best lenses (optically) and yes, I do have a Voigtlander 28 as well.

I tend to like the 35 focal length. I’m contemplating the Leica 35 due to its compact size and more classic look, but then I thought that the Voigtlander is also compact and close in focal length to the Leica 35.

All of these lenses have a different rendering, but I’m asking myself if I’m being silly to look at a second 35 when I already own a compact 28 and the Voigtlander 35 APO.

Make sense?

-Brad

35 APO is surprisingly not a heavy or huge lens. 304 grams and 49mm filter. Summicron ASPH is 253 grams. 39 mm filter. To me is is close indeed. 

 

Nokton 35 1.4 II is more apart with only 189 grams and 43 mm filter. And rendering at f2 is just as classic, plus Lux glow at f1.4.

 

Edited May 24, 2023 by Ko.Fe.

[bherman01545]

45 minutes ago, Chingchong said:

It’s normal to want to get rid of the APO-Lanthar lenses because even though you’re lured by the optical perfection in the end what matters is compactness with the M body and you get sick of the size and weight eventually. It happened to me with the 50 APO-Lanthar. 

I now have the 50 Summicron. If I could have all Leica lenses I would own all Summicrons. 

If you have the money go for it. 

I never regretted changing the APO-Lanthar for the Summicron. The APO is too perfect. The Summicron has more character. It’s more gentle. It’s smaller and lighter. All that perfection from the APO is overrated for every day pictures. 

It’s been said that the APO Lanthars are best suited to either Live View or Visoflex use

[Banned 103051]

35 minutes ago, bherman01545 said:

It’s been said that the APO Lanthars are best suited to either Live View or Visoflex use

I don’t use either. The APO Lanthar is very easy to focus. It’s an F2 so I hardly ever had a photo out of focus. It’s so sharp actually I liked the photos slightly out of focus to cut through the sharpness. 

The issue is size. I think it balances better on an SL than an M camera. 

It’s also way too sharp and contrasty for my taste. and too perfect from f2. It gives you nothing but the same perfect image all the way to f16. 

that’s useful for some types of photography but not for me. I need a lens that gives me more than 1 perfect note. I’d rather many slightly imperfect notes. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Greenhilltony]

They are indeed very similar. When I'm on street and shoot, I usually get close to 2-3 meters to the subjects to get a half portrait size compositions. Sometimes closer to 1.5 m because I personally don't have a clear sense of 2 m yet. I don't feel any distinct difference between 28 and 35 when I shoot like this, just 28 has more room for cropping if I want. So if you think the handling/compactness/other features of a 28/35 lens suits your preferences, go for it and leave others to the box or shops :)

[RexGig0]

I do not find 28mm and 35mm to be “too close” to each other, in focal length. I normally use them for different types of shooting. I tend to favor 28mm lenses with some vintage character, (Summaron and Elmarit M Version III) whereas I favor a modern, “sharp” 35mm lens, the Zeiss Distagon 35mm f/1.4 ZM. The differing character may well contribute my my liking both 28mm and 35mm lenses, for different types of shooting. If all of them were modern “sharp” lenses, I might find them “too close,” perhaps? Or, perhaps not; when I think back to using using 24-105mm and 24-70mm zoom SLR lenses, I remember finding 28mm and 35mm to be quite different. (I also really liked shooting at about 31mm to 32mm, and 40mm.)