Have 28mm, consider add 35mm

[Einst_Stein]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have Zeiss 25mm f2.8 and 35mm f2.8. Rarely use 25mm, and have given 35mm to my son. I use 28mm much more. 
I used to use X 113 when I want 35mm equivalent, but in a recently long walk trip, I left it at home and use cropped 28mm just to reduce weight. I find its image good enough to replace X 113. 

Since  I am more and more prefer the 35mm angle of view, I wonder if I should get a 35mm f1.4 again.  I already have the candidate in my ind, so this is not asking which 35mm f1.4, but if adding it makes sense. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Advertisement]

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

[lct]

It makes sense if you like composing your photos with your camera more so than with your computer.

[Einst_Stein]

23 minutes ago, lct said:

It makes sense if you like composing your photos with your camera more so than with your computer.

I assume the difference is more than that.

The image from a 35mm equivalent lens on FF  should be different from a 35mm equivalent on a APS-C. The question is how much, and whether it worth to carry two lenses and the trouble of switching. 

[lct]

You have to move to get the same FoV with 35mm and 28mm lenses and when you move the perspective changes but in practice, the difference between 28mm and 35mm is not huge and for having carried 3 or 4 lenses for many years it don't feel it as a trouble, and there is still the solution of the MATE which does 28+35+50. AFAIC i prefer 21+35+50+75(90), or 35+75 when i travel light, but it is a matter of taste.

[Einst_Stein]

Are you sure?

To get the same FOV, the postion of shooting 35mm on FF should be exact the same as shooting 28mm but crop to match the FOV. The DOF, bokeh, etc. shoiuld be different, though.

 

 

[lct]

7 minutes ago, Einst_Stein said:

Are you sure?

Yes but other colleagues here will give you a different PoV eventually.

[250swb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think a lot of people take in a bag setups like 21/28/50/ or 28/50/90/ or 24/35/75 etc. jumping a focal length and replace the missing lens by moving their legs. And I think people end up with these possible combinations because their vision of the world and comfort zone changes gradually. When I left college 35mm was my standard lens, twenty years later it became a 50mm, another twenty years later and it was a 28mm. If you feel the 35mm is drawing you I'd get one, it's far from perfect to go with a 28mm or a 50mm in a carry around kit, but it may break the chain and open up the logic of a 24mm (or recommission your 25mm) or a 75mm.

Edited July 13 by 250swb

[costa43]

I can only speak for myself but I find my taste, or if you like mood, changes as time goes on, especially as my environment tends to change relatively often also. For this reason, I will always retain a set of M primes in the standard focal lengths of 28/35/50. So I would definitely buy the 35mm. 

Edited July 13 by costa43

[Einst_Stein]

9 hours ago, costa43 said:

I can only speak for myself but I find my taste, or if you like mood, changes as time goes on, especially as my environment tends to change relatively often also. For this reason, I will always retain a set of M primes in the standard focal lengths of 28/35/50. So I would definitely buy the 35mm. 

My preference are changing.  My first M lens is 50mm f2. I got it because I heard people’s suggestion, and it is still  my go to lens when I feel zoom is not good enough.  I then got 28-35-50 MATE. I found 50mm and 28mm are the most frequently used FL. I then got 90mm when a camera shop recommended, but I rarely used. After that I got Zeiss 25mm, used as the main travel lens, but got tired of it because it is tricky to manage the perspective. Now Thypoch 28mm f1.4 is becoming my favorite walk around lens except I found I often cropped it to about 35mm FOV, probably about  25%  or slightly more of the time. 

 

[Einst_Stein]

13 hours ago, lct said:

Yes but other colleagues here will give you a different PoV eventually.

I guess you are very likely to agree with them. 

[Mute-on]

I was predominantly a 28 user, but would comfortably add a second body with a 35 for a very different experience (back when I was shooting film exclusively and carrying two bodies). Both focal lengths offer a unique photography experience for my usage.
 

Furthermore, with worsening eyesight and now wearing glasses, the 28mm on a 0.72 body is no longer as practical, however a 35 is far more comfortable in addition to being a slightly easier focal length to work with in relation to composition for my purposes. In future, I expect to be using 35 more regularly and reserving my 28mm for a 0.58 body. 

[Einst_Stein]

I have to face the reality that no web discussions yet are convincing to help my decision.  I went to a NY super camera shop to pick one that can help my decision.

I had a candidate in my mind, based on all web readings. But when I saw the real lenses, I found myself really really like the Leica 35mm Summilux. Not much impressed by Zeiss, mostly due to my bad experiences with ZM 25mm and 35mm f2.8. They developed backlash on the focusing ring. The build does not feel solid enough. 

Due to Leica's price, I decided to get the cheapy choice for now. If I am not happy, I will then go back to Leica. The possible money waste should be ignorable compare to leica's price. 

Voigtlander wins in size. In such a short time, it's very hard to tell the image difference between Voigtlander, Astra Lab, and Thypoch. Thypoch does have its own special image redering. It is larger. It's a hard choice among the three. In the end I decided to pick Thypoch, mainly to pair with my Thypoch 28mm f1.4. I asked my wife if I can get both Thypoch and Leica and return the one that I am willing to live without. The answer is a simple No.

She know I will end with Leica!

 

Edited July 14 by Einst_Stein

[LocalHero1953]

On 7/13/2025 at 5:03 AM, Einst_Stein said:

Are you sure?

To get the same FOV, the postion of shooting 35mm on FF should be exact the same as shooting 28mm but crop to match the FOV. The DOF, bokeh, etc. shoiuld be different, though.

 

 

Your statement is correct, though it is the 28mm you crop to get the same FoV, not the 35mm.

Personally I find shooting with the intention to crop to be an uncomfortable compromise. I do it with the Q all the time, but I do it for the other benefits a Q brings, not because it's my preferred way of working. And I find 28mm and 35mm distinctly different to my eye, though my preference for one or the other has changed with the years. 1980-2010: 35mm. 2010-2022: 28mm. Now I prefer 35mm again.🤷‍♂️