Would you buy both 28mm f1.4 and 35mm f1.4

[Einst_Stein]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sometimes it's hard to choose 35mm or 28mm. Yes, I understand, 28mm is more for landscape while 35mm is more for general purpose. But 35mm is just a tiny too narrow compared to 28mm. 

 

[Advertisement]

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

[Dazzajl]

I would almost certainly never carry both at the same time and might go for very different lenses and renderings, so I get as much ground covered as possible. 
 

My ideal split would probably be a 35mm 1.4 and the 28mm 5.6, not everyone’s cup of cha but I’m having a bit of a love affair with the 28mm f5.6 and how it makes you shoot. 

[hansvons]

1 hour ago, Einst_Stein said:

But 35mm is just a tiny too narrow compared to 28mm.

The 28mm is too wide compared with the 35mm, which perfectly mimics the human field of view. 

 

1 hour ago, Dazzajl said:

I would almost certainly never carry both at the same time and might go for very different lenses and renderings, so I get as much ground covered as possible. 

 

I shoot 98% of my stuff on 35mm. Why? Because lens swaps kill the decisive moment and I don’t have time for that.

—-

It’s all quite personal. Do what ever you feel because there’s no right or wrong in doing what ever you believe will bring you joy and the results you are after.
 

One thing, however, I feel is essential to M lenses for me and worth mentioning: their small size, little weight, and focusing ergonomics. That’s why I would never buy a 28mm Summilux, nor any other M mount lens exceeding the size of a 50mm Summicron.

[Smudgerer]

4 minutes ago, hansvons said:

One thing, however, I feel is essential to M lenses for me and worth mentioning: their small size, little weight, and focusing ergonomics. That’s why I would never buy a 28mm Summilux, nor any other M mount lens exceeding the size of a 50mm Summicron.

** My "rule" too...........I dislike and avoid viewfinder blockage.

[hansvons]

13 minutes ago, _tc said:

citation needed

Glad you asked 😉. No lens mimics the human vision perfectly. 50mm shows roughly the same size differences and distances of objects but is too narrow in the field of view. 35mm, on the other hand, is relatively close to our vision in terms of field of view, but stretches the distances of objects a tad more than we see them. 

Printed and sticked to a wall, 50mm-lensed images tend too look more focused than we sees things (with the exception of close-ups), while 35mm-shot images look more natural/normal to us. That's why I prefer 35mm but still own a fifty. YMMV.

Edited January 17 by hansvons

[lct]

21+35 yes, 28+50 yes but 28+35 never happened to me. The way i use them 28 & 35 are never complementary. They tell a story in a different way but it is the same story. I am a generation when 35mm lenses were wides though. YMMV.

[Elliot Harper]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As much as I love summicron 28mm, I hate the 28mm frame line in view finder 

[pippy]

I'd never consider buying a 28mm f1.4 unless it could be made as small - or thereabouts - as the 1960-'95 35mm Summilux.

Philip.

[84bravo]

My working kit is 28/35/50 Summilux and 90 APO. I prefer fast lenses and often shoot wide open with an M11 and M10-R.

For personal work, though, it's a 35 Summicron on an M8.

[FrozenInTime]

The 28mm Summilux has nice smooth rendering and good differentiation between in focus close distances and distant background. At night there is still residual coma on lights and like all summilux lenses is not clinically sharp all the way to the corners. The Summicron is technically better and a lot smaller if you want discreteness for on the street..

The 28 Summilux pairs well with a 50mm ASPH Summilux ( or Voigtländer 40/1.2 ). A two camera, two lens setup is ideal, as they are front heavy expensive lenses to be changing over frequently.

With one body, a smaller 35mm Summilux is a lot more casual. I don't recall ever carrying just the 28mm or a just a 28+35 combination.

If I had to replace all my lenses, starting again from zero, I would want to end up with the modern 28,35, and 50 ASPH summilxes plus a classic non aspherical  35 and 50mm Summilux pair; I would not feel the need to add anything else ... I keep thinking I should clean out the shelves and go for just that.

[jpark114]

If money is no objection, why not?

Realistically, 28mm Summilux is bit too large, and 28mm is difficult to use anyway since I'm wearing glasses.  Because of difficulty using viewfinder, I don't really enjoy using 28mm often and I only have 28mm summaron for occasional close street shots or travel.  If I go travel, I like to take my 28mm Summaron and 50mm (as two lenses & one body) OR 35mm Summilux as only lens / body combo).  I don't see myself taking 28 & 35 together that many times.  

Edited January 18 by jpark114

[Olaf_ZG]

I just bought the 28mm nokton for usage on a m8, so basically, my answer is yes.

[3D-Kraft.com]

If you have a sensor with >24 MP, then there is enough crop reserve and I would go for the wider flexibility of the 28mm. It also means you can just frame without caring for frame lines. I decided for the 28mm f/1.4 Thypoch Simera. Best bokeh of all 28mm lenses I have seen so far, no need for the overpriced Summilux anymore.

Edited January 18 by 3D-Kraft.com

[M11 for me]

I imagine that I would not buy Summiluxes any more if I would start from scratch. For me today lenses for the M11 camera have to be light and be small. Further, when using the lens in daylight or even in the twilight then f/2.0 is fine to me. I do not mind the reduced shallow depth of field as I rarely shoot wide open anyway. 

For its versatility the 28mm is my favourite together with the M11 and its 60Mpix sensor. In many cases I can zoom by walking further or nearer to the subject or else I can crop in post.

As a consequence I use my 35 Summilux quite rarely. I think here of landscape or travel or architecture.

In case of event inside I prefer to take another camera anyway. I am not the type shooting a wedding with the M.

So to go back the OP's question: My favourite is the 28 Summicron or as an alternative the 28 Summaron or the 28 Elmar but not the Summilux nor the 35mm

 

[RexGig0]

On 1/17/2025 at 1:45 PM, Einst_Stein said:

Sometimes it's hard to choose 35mm or 28mm. Yes, I understand, 28mm is more for landscape while 35mm is more for general purpose. But 35mm is just a tiny too narrow compared to 28mm. 

 

My first thought is that if 35mm is “a tiny too narrow,” for you, then 28mm may well be well-suited. Plenty of shooters use 28mm for general photography. It is also possible that 24mm may work well for you. Alan Schaller is well-known for using a Summilux-M 24mm lens, so, his work is easily found in searches. Then, there is another option, 25mm, offered by Zeiss, though with an f/2.8 maximum aperture.

I have both 28/1.4 and 35/1.4 lenses, but, the 28mm is not a Summilux, and is not M-mount, but a Nikon Nikkor AF-S 28mm f/1.4E. My Summilux-M 35mm is a Re-Edition Steel Rim, plus, I have the Zeiss Distagon 35mm f/1,4 ZM. I also have 35mm f/1.4 lenses for both the Canon EF and Nikon F-mount systems, so, obviously, find value in “fast” 35mm lenses. My 28mm Leica lenses are Elmarits, the Elmarit-M Version III, and a first version of the Elmarit-R. Elmarit lenses have f/2.8 apertures. I would probably enjoy using a Summilux-M 28mm lens, occasionally, but the cost of acquisition is quite high, for a lens that would be used only occasionally. For budgetary reasons, if I felt that I needed a “fast” 28mm lens, I would probably opt for the Voigtlander 28mm f/1.5 VM.

Plenty of shooters use 28mm lenses for “general purpose” photography. I tend to use a 28mm lens when I plan to shoot stopped-down, focusing with the distance and Depth-of-Field scales, rather than the rangefinder. A 28mm lens has more-forgiving DOF than longer focal lengths, which is helpful for such tasks as getting images of fast-moving small children, when I “shoot from the hip,” at their level, rather than frame the image with the viewfinder. Notably, I shoot while wearing eyeglasses, so, cannot see an M camera’s 28mm frame lines.

I rarely carry both a 28mm and 35mm lens, at the same time. I can enjoy using either focal length, as my only available choice, for a day of walking-about. 

I tend to “see” landscapes at 35mm, rather than 28mm. This was true before I started using the Leica M system, so, is not due to being unable to see 28mm frame lines in a Leica M viewfinder. To be clear, my “seeing” landscapes at 35mm does not mean that I am a “landscape photographer.” 😉

I am not any kind of expert. My formal photography training was in evidentiary/forensic/crime scene photography, which does require dedication and skill, but is done “by the numbers,” rather with creativity.

[charlesphoto99]

My landscape lenses are 135, 90, and 75, in that order from most to least used. For general purpose I like 28 or 50. For special close in applications, or for something epic, I use 18 or 24. 35 I've always found somewhat bland, but can be a great all arounder. Now, if I shoot a landscape with a 28 or wider, it seems to come off looking too much like an iPhone pic (funny how we become culturally adjusted/attuned to things like that). Of course YMMV. 

[charlesphoto99]

For the most part Summiluxes and Noktons are holdover from the film days (or if still shooting film now), when one would have 400 iso film in camera and then be presented with a low light situation. For the extra expense that one of them costs, if shooting M10 or M11, I would go for a Summicron or even Elmarit equivalent, and use the extra money to buy two lenses of different focal lengths. 

[IkarusJohn]

On 1/18/2025 at 8:45 AM, Einst_Stein said:

Sometimes it's hard to choose 35mm or 28mm. Yes, I understand, 28mm is more for landscape while 35mm is more for general purpose. But 35mm is just a tiny too narrow compared to 28mm. 

 

As with the replies above, there are many competing factors which can make lens choice difficult.  Leaving aside size, cost and legacy character, the question is simply focal length.

I’m not sure I agree that “28mm is more for landscape”, as it depends on the landscape.  For most of my landscape photography, I want something telecentric, on an M camera starting at 50mm, and more usually resulting in 75mm.

The question of focal length comes down to the subject and how you wish to frame it.  You could just say, use a 28 and crop.  The problem for me with this is that you then haven’t framed for the 28.  I tend to the view that wides lend themselves well to closer subjects, so you can fill the frame with more drama.  So, I guess it rather depends what you’re going to photograph.

For me, with the same subject, the 28 provides a more interesting result, because you’ve changed your point of view.  That makes the 35 seem a bit boring by comparison.  However, for one lens where I don’t really know what I’m going to photograph, the 35 is a useful general purpose lens - I just have to work harder to make the results interesting.

EDIT - as to fast or slow lens, the question is framed in terms of Summiluxes (Summilucis?)

There’s no questioin, to my mind, that faster lenses provide more options for depth of field.  However, not all Summiluxes are created equal.  The out of focus treatment of the 28 Summilux wide open is far more pleasing than the current 35 Summillux, in my view, to the point where I chose the APO Summicron over that lens.  The 35 Summilux FLE has busy, nervous boken to my eye.

But that wasn’t your question.

Edited January 19 by IkarusJohn

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jgeenen]

I personally would not hesitate to have both the 1.4/28 and the 1.4/35. I would rarely carry both of them at the same time, but there are occasions (and shooting moods) where the 28 or the 35 are shining - at least for me. However, the 1.4/28 Summilux is beyond my sweet spot:

• it is too bulky - both in weight and dimensions (bad for my back)
• it is heavily blocking the view finder (bad for composition)
• it is optically not better than recent alternatives (Leica should think about renewing their early 2000 lineup of lenses)
• it has a huge price tag

therefore I went for alternatives that are not as bulky and expensive but still look very nice on my black paint MP…

[Einst_Stein]

I personally do not know how to use f1.4 on 50mm or longer. Low light? High ISO.  For gradual out of focus, I prefer f2.0 on 50mm or f2.8 on 90mm. I feel F1,4 on these focal length makes DOF too shallow for half size or above shoulder portraits, for example.  Getting f1.4 on these focal length is only to hope better lens performance when step down.

F1.4 on 28mm and 35mm feels different. At least, the DOF is usable, to me. 

Cropping 28mm for 35mm makes it easy to choose 28mm over 35mm, if ignoring the difference besides the angle of view.