View Full Version : Is something wrong with 28mm FL?
These months what I note with the general interest in some preferred wide angles that people are talking primarily on some 35mm and 21mm lenses. Very few had mentioned about 28mm FL.. Is it phasing out?
I am aware of the fact that it has never been as popular as the 35mm FL however some great photographers come to mind who were using 28mm extensively. Salgado, for example.. Garry Winogrand, Sam Abell need to be mentioned.. Bruce Gilden too..
Both Summicron asphericals, 28/2 and 35/2 are great lenses; however I tend to believe as if for each 28mm one Leica is selling ten 35mm Summicrons.
I might be wrong, however this is what I found a little weird..
You say that the 28mm lens has "never been as popular as the 35mm FL," yet you then find it "weird" that the less popular lens sells less than the more popular lens...
Personally, I find your question rather weird.
There has been a general tendency towards wider lenses in the past two or three decades (perhaps driven by wide-screen cinema and now TV formats), so that many now use 35mm as a "wide normal" - which reduced 28mm from "first strong wide in the series" to "not wide enough to warrant owning".
I more often use 35 than the 50/28 combo. And I agree that for wide use 21 or wider is more spectacular. That said, if I had a Leica or ZI with 28mm framelines and and Elmarit 28, I would be very happy. I also note that the wide lens for Fuji X1 pro is 28mm equivalent.
For me one of the pros with 28mm is that its wide but still fairly free from the natural geometric distortion of wider focal lengths.
mdarnton
05-31-2012, 07:59
I think I said this a couple of weeks ago when the topic came up, but my go-to combination 35 years ago when I was a news photographer was 28/50. At the time, Leica didn't have a 24, I don't think, just a 21, and the 21 was my "special" wide lens for unusual situations. These days it's 24/50 on Nikons, the 50 is feeling a bit long, and my 20 gets no use at all. 24/35 would make sense, but I can't bring my self to depend on 35mm as my "long" lens. I'm thinking that one of those 14/2.8 Samyang lenses would be nice to have--I had a 15mm Voigtlander until about five years ago and it got a lot of use.
In my case, it's a change in my personal space--I stand a lot closer to things than I used to. Maybe everyone is. . . . we definitely are living in more "in your face" times, I think.
Paul Luscher
05-31-2012, 08:03
I shoot with both, but for street shooting , I tend to use to 35mm. 28mm often requires getting in too close for comfort in order to fill the frame, 35mm allows you to fill the frame without becoming an annoyance. Also, just enough depth of field to compensate for any minor focusing errors,and for zone focusing, as opposed to a 50mm.
andersju
05-31-2012, 08:04
I think it's like sevo said. I know many PJs use a 24mm as their standard wide lens - or even standard lens - these days. Notice how Nikon and Canon have fancy 24/1.4 and 35/1.4 lenses but no current 28/1.4. To me 24mm feels a bit too extreme for a standard wide, often used for cheap effect. 28mm feels just right for a wide-angle, and I'm glad Ricoh is still around with their GR cameras.
Per others, 35 has become the "new 50" or normal, @ least for RF users. In the wider (no pun intended) photographic world, 24 has supplanted 28 as the most popular wide (mostly, IMHO, because so many people are shooting crop-factor dSLRs).
If Leica decides to upgrade the M8 & keep a crop-factor body in their lineup, that might boost popularity for the 28s.
You say that the 28mm lens has "never been as popular as the 35mm FL," yet you then find it "weird" that the less popular lens sells less than the more popular lens...
Personally, I find your question rather weird.
Before it was only 135 format, i.e. what FF is called today and apparently 35 was more popular than the 28.. With the new crop formats like the M8 and APS-C, the 28mm FL should mean different than what it used to do before, for it's not the coverage of 28mm anymore.. Capito?
jsrockit
05-31-2012, 08:20
On rangefinders it could be due to framelines... lack of framelines or them being to close to the edge of the VF for many people.
Bob Michaels
05-31-2012, 08:29
Then there are those who just do not care what is most popular with the rest of the world and use what works for us. That happens to be 28mm for me but I understand other people have other choices. My choice may be different in a few years, just as it was many years ago.
My SLR photojournalism lenses were 24/50/85/180. When I discovered RFs in the late '80s there weren't any reasonably priced Nikon RF lenses in the 24/25mm range, and they anyway required a separate finder. So I settled for the 28mm and slowly grew to prefer it over all the other focal lengths for its ability to let you immerse yourself into a scene without showing much distortion. So then the superwide was a 21mm Biogon. But the lens always mounted on my SP or S3 is a 28mm, with the others in a bag. I only use the 35mm for lowlight work because of its speed. If I truly must carry only one lens, I go back and forth between 50 and 35mm. I just never warmed up to 35mm.
KoNickon
05-31-2012, 09:45
You say that the 28mm lens has "never been as popular as the 35mm FL," yet you then find it "weird" that the less popular lens sells less than the more popular lens...
Personally, I find your question rather weird.
Being snarky is not helpful. The point he's making is that a lot of excellent photographers use the 28mm focal length, so why is 35mm that much more popular? And the others have contributed thoughtful responses to the OP.
David Hughes
05-31-2012, 09:45
On rangefinders it could be due to framelines... lack of framelines or them being to close to the edge of the VF for many people.
I'll second that and add that I wish I could afford a 28mm and VF for my M2. Although the 28mm, USSR made Orion is very nice and guessing works well for me.
Regards, David
michaelbialecki
05-31-2012, 09:51
I love the 28mm focal length........it used to be my primary lens......but that has changed ever since I bought the 35mm/1.2.....my 28mm lens is an Elmarit which is a little "slow" but I love it......
I use it often on my m6ttl but I do occasionally use it on my m2 and I use the whole finder as "frame lines", it works fine for me.....
cheers, michael
zwarte_kat
05-31-2012, 10:00
28mm feels just right for a wide-angle, and I'm glad Ricoh is still around with their GR cameras.
Had to make sure this camera line was mentioned. The GRD is the camera that doesn't give a F about what people not worthy of it think about 28mm FOV. Now everybody who said bad things about 28mm go wash your mouth and send a letter of apology to Ricoh.
I once cursed my GRDIII, and have been tormented by nightmares about Ricoh discontinuing the GRD ever since, in which hordes of Japanese pro photographers are chasing me, shouting that it was all my fault.
I have also been seeing (what are hopefully) hallucinations of Ricoh employed ninjas, keeping an eye on me when I walk the streets of Tokyo. With the stealth capabilities of the GRD line, I am now convinced that Ricoh is a former ninja clan evolved to a camera company.
Then again, that 21mm conversion lens for the GRD is pretty neat. If they would release a 25mm (FOV) GRD with 1,6 crop sensor, then that would rock!
I think I saw something black moving outside my window. No, ninjas don't exist, or should I call the police? If they wou
I'll second that and add that I wish I could afford a 28mm and VF for my M2. Although the 28mm, USSR made Orion is very nice and guessing works well for me.
Regards, David
I'll be third that I wish I could afford too :). Actually 28mm is my favorite angle and the only lens I had being used with my SLR during 5 years before switch to my M2+cron 35 V1.
Teuthida
05-31-2012, 10:10
I never could get on with a 28. Seemed too wide, while the 35 seems wide but normal. Of course, this preference was developed while shooting film. the 28 on my m8 is just right.
I find the 28 to be a great lens for shooting in the street - if you can get close and compose, you get a lot of stuff in, if you want to be stealthy, you just shoot from the hip. I use both the Summicron 28 and the Ultron 28/1.9 (this one for landscape), as well as GR1 for shooting on the road.
Summicron 28
http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4107/5179287109_ccb39364fa_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/5179287109/)
20105107 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/5179287109/) by mfogiel (http://www.flickr.com/people/59177039@N00/), on Flickr
Ultron 28/1.9
http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4140/4787931492_ffe62bcb86_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/4787931492/)
20102404 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/4787931492/) by mfogiel (http://www.flickr.com/people/59177039@N00/), on Flickr
Ricoh GR1
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8023/7108677877_36a023cb76_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/7108677877/)
20120509 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/7108677877/) by mfogiel (http://www.flickr.com/people/59177039@N00/), on Flickr
Interesting that you prefer the ultron for landscapes, why that?
back alley
05-31-2012, 13:20
i recently sold my 28 and do not miss it.
much prefer a 21 and have just bought today another 25 to give it a try.
i really like the 21 (on the rd1, so a cropped sensor) as it forces me to get in close and really look at what's in the frame.
I have used a 28 and a 24mm in the past. I find the 24mm to be a bit more "liberating," personally. It makes composition a bit more dynamic/sweeping and it doesn't feel as restricted as a 28mm. When I shoot the 28mm I find that I want to put more things into the frame, rather than trying to use what available space I have.
I like a 28mm lens on a RF, but not on an SLR. I'll shoot a 24mm on an RF or an SLR. Different strokes for different folks / cameras, I suppose.
I like the Ultron 28/1.9 (not the 28/2) for its low contrast/high resolution rendering, which makes it an ideal B&W lens for extended grayscale - similar to DR Summicron or the Summaron. However, when I need a 28mm for shooting in low light, the Summicron is king, as it has no coma even wide open.
I very much like the 28 on both SLR and RF. I have the Canon ltm 28 2.8 and 3.5.
Love the 28mm. Just bought a Contax biogon 28mm for my G1 in fact.
28mm was my only wide angle for over 30 years. It seems very normal to me.
The next to come was a 24mm, which does feel wide.
So far, the only 35mm I've had have been in P&S so it always felt like a snapshot length to me.
So I like 28mm ... a lot
I've just spent three years getting used to the 35mm focal length after being fairly locked into 50mm.
I don't think I have enough years left in me to get used to 28mm! :p
Love the 28mm. Just bought a Contax biogon 28mm for my G1 in fact.
:) Ah, for my Contax Biogon 28mm I bought a G1, based on Bob Michael's recommendation. It's an excellent lens, as sharp as my Leica 35 lenses; but sharper than the Distagon 28/2.8, sharper than the 28/2.0 Nikkor..
I was out early this morning with my M6 + 28 Summicron taking autumn photos with Velvia 100 and 28FL felt the perfect fit. Never bonded with 35 at all and 28/50 seems to be me.
Sharper than "your" 28 f2.8 Nikkor, or sharper than "the" 28 f2.8 Nikkor? Not all lenses are equal. Non AI, AI, AIS ? Is it new? Do you test and service the lens regurally? You may be correct.. just asking?
"... sharper than the 28/2.0 Nikkor.." I said..
My 28/2.0 Nikkor is AI, actually all 28/2.0 lenses non-AI, AI and AI-S share the same formula, coatings differ.
In case you need to see actual test results, just PM me..
Richard G
05-31-2012, 19:16
Interesting thread. I went from 35 down to 25 and I am also now using a 21 a lot. I did take a holiday where I used only a 25. I suppose I was too mean to widen only to 28, knowing I would soon go wider anyway. And there is some opportunity cost photographically in investing in a new focal length and learning its ways. I may just never get to a 28 now.
My minimal M lens setup (speaking of 135 film standard FoV) is 28/50, starting always with the 28 mounted, if I don't know where the next snap situation will come up. Same if I carry my standard lens setup (15/28/50/90): I mostly start with the 28mm lens.
As already mentioned here, I like the 28mm FoV alot because:
- in a hurry, I don't have to frame properly, can crop later
- widest frame lines on my M body
- wide, but still no distortion
- I feel it very similar to my own (focussed) FoV
Just curious, but where is your data coming from?
Why do you believe for each 28 they are selling ten 35s?
Is this just from reading the internets that you think 28mm is phasing out?
These months what I note with the general interest in some preferred wide angles that people are talking primarily on some 35mm and 21mm lenses. Very few had mentioned about 28mm FL.. Is it phasing out?
I am aware of the fact that it has never been as popular as the 35mm FL however some great photographers come to mind who were using 28mm extensively. Salgado, for example.. Garry Winogrand, Sam Abell need to be mentioned.. Bruce Gilden too..
Both Summicron asphericals, 28/2 and 35/2 are great lenses; however I tend to believe as if for each 28mm one Leica is selling ten 35mm Summicrons.
I might be wrong, however this is what I found a little weird..
Gary Sandhu
05-31-2012, 21:10
28 requires intimacy. 21 is for impersonal scenics. 35 people are used to from their point and shoots. Maybe.
35mm is easier, as I see in 35mm. 50mm forces me to pick, 28mm to include more.
If I feel creative I use 50/28, if I carry a single lens or just want to get it done, I use a 35
seakayaker1
05-31-2012, 23:15
Nothing is wrong with the 28 FL, when I use it I love it.
There are times I love the 50mm, sometimes it is the 75mm, the 24mm is fantastic when I do take it out, I can walk around with the 35mm for a couple of weeks at a time. I am not going to like it when I have to narrow down my kit but that day is coming.
The 28mm I use is the Voigtlander Ultron Asph 28/1.9 and just love it as a couple of others have mentioned above. I had the opportunity to use a Leica 28 Cron for a few hours at a Leica event and loved that as well. I just do not think I can love it seven times as much at the Ultron. The output from the 28/1.9 has been fantastic and along with the Voigtlander Nokton Asph 50/1.5 are two VC lenses I do not think I will ever part with.
I know, never say never . . . . .
Maximilian
06-01-2012, 04:02
28 is my favorite focal length. Particularly on indoor people shots or if I'm the part of a group. Wide but doesn't distort very much, so I can get a nice portrait and still show the background which I like in in my photographs, like windows, doors, whole rooms etc. Just a single person can often be it bit boring to me.
But when I do want just a person, the 50 or sometimes a 35 is the better choice.
I usually go out with a 28 and a 50 and on rare occasions the 21 gets to come along too. :)
I changed my RF kit from 50-35-25 to 50-35-28-21 once I found a good, affordable 28. Sold the 25 and bought the wider 21. Now my RF focal lengths match my SLR lenses.
So far, the only 35mm I've had have been in P&S so it always felt like a snapshot length to me.
So I like 28mm ... a lot
So I do. I have 35mm FL only in compact film cameras and some SLR zooms. I still use film compacts with 35mm lens - because of overall experience not because I really like focal length - but it certainly helps to excersize.
Check out the work of Jeanloup Sieff for a good look at what a 28 can do. He also used a 21 a lot.
http://www.jeanloupsieff.com/sieff.html
28 requires intimacy. 21 is for impersonal scenics. 35 people are used to from their point and shoots. Maybe.
Not necessarily. It's quite the opposite for me. the 20 is for for up-close and personal, and the 28 is for taking in the scene or "painting" a tableau.
Aristophanes
06-01-2012, 05:15
Just curious, but where is your data coming from?
Why do you believe for each 28 they are selling ten 35s?
Is this just from reading the internets that you think 28mm is phasing out?
Looking to fill out my Minolta SLR collection, I found 28's a dime a dozen, second only to anything 50mm, but 35mm's very hard to come by.
Probably different for RF's.
I'm in the camp of those who like 28mm. However, I did come from a 20/50/80-200 background in SLR.
I agree with those who've attributed the popularity of 21's to changing aesthetic sensibilities. What attracted me to ultrawides was the easy extra drama thrown in for free in every frame. However, I'm getting over it (only took 12 years!).
Ironically what moved me toward the 28 was using a 35 on my first RF. 35 seems to dominate in the RF world because so many viewfinders are designed to really give good space for that frameline --not too big, not too small. It's also a "natural" focal length that matches well with the transparent nature of RF photography. I resisted the 35 at first (especially because I did not get along with my Ultron 1.7) but it taught me a different way to see --less aggressive than the 20mm... and that was the lesson that allowed me to ratched back from ultrawides to 28mm and be comfortable with it.
At least, that's what I keep telling myself every time the urge to spring for a 21 Biogon comes up!
Vincent.G
06-01-2012, 05:29
My choice of 35mm lens is because I can see the 35 frame lines comfortably with spectacles using 0.72 VF. 28mm leaves too much guess work on what I cannot see in the viewfinder.
I use a Nikkor 28mm f/2.8 Ai-S lens on my F3/T and love it to bits.
35mm is easier, as I see in 35mm. 50mm forces me to pick, 28mm to include more.
If I feel creative I use 50/28, if I carry a single lens or just want to get it done, I use a 35
Yes, I think 35mm is rather a "Goldilocks" focal length. I think one reason for this is that the width of horizontal coverage is the same as your distance from camera to subject plane. That makes it easy to know intuitively where to stand for the shot you want, before even needing to look through the finder.
That said, I use all the various wide-angle focal lengths. A 28mm opens up space more so than a 35mm lens. And I find 24mm or 25mm to be the tipping point at which the area covered is often as wide as I can go without the picture screaming, "wide angle!"
But I think 35mm facilitates easy, casual shooting. If it remains the most popular, perhaps that is why.
Maximilian
06-01-2012, 10:27
The work of the late Jeanloup Sieff (http://www.jeanloupsieff.com/sieff.html) shows what a 28mm can do. (He also used a 21 a lot.)
Thank you for introducing me to Jeanloup Sieff! Very much in my taste!
Looking to fill out my Minolta SLR collection, I found 28's a dime a dozen, second only to anything 50mm, but 35mm's very hard to come by.
Sure but that's because 28-50-85/135 is the classical Japanese SLR kit. There are a LOT more 28's out there for most Japanese SLR systems.
I have no idea, but I really want a 28mm now. Thanks a lot! :)
cosmonaut
06-01-2012, 11:28
I think the biggest part of photographers are to shy to get close enough to make a 28mm work. I am sure the pros that use them really like the DOF and being able to prefocus.
Maximilian
06-01-2012, 11:45
I think the biggest part of photographers are to shy to get close enough to make a 28mm work. I am sure the pros that use them really like the DOF and being able to prefocus.
Only if you're shooting strangers in the street. There's usually lot's of good pictures to be taken of people you know! After all, the rest of us don't know them..
buzzardkid
06-01-2012, 12:21
Very recently sold off a perfectly sharp Color-Skopar 50/2.5 and it was my only modern 50mm.
Currently I shoot the Super-Angulon 21/3.4 and the Summilux 35/1.4 pre-asph, as well as a Jupiter-9 85/2.0 with Zeiss cell.
If I want 50 it's either gonna be a prewar uncoated Elmar 50/3.5 or a Rolleiflex 80mm Planar shot. I'm fine with that. :)
"If the pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough" — you know who.
I've shot a lot of street with the 28 on my late, lamented GR-1. More recently I've been shooting street with a 21 Biogon on an M6. Just got the 18mm (28mmEFL) Fuji for my Xpro and that is a fantastic lens -- fast, compact, draws absolutely gorgeously, and I can't wait to get that one out on the street.
http://semilog.smugmug.com/Street/Streetphotos/20101031-scan756/1072633518_DB82n-L.jpg (http://semilog.smugmug.com/Street/Streetphotos/4684443_WJ5V82#!i=1072633518&k=DB82n&lb=1&s=A)
ricoh gr-1 (28mm), 2tmy, xtol 1+1.
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5464/7058897461_ca2faa8b7c_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/semilog/7058897461/)
Untitled (http://www.flickr.com/photos/semilog/7058897461/) by Semilog (http://www.flickr.com/people/semilog/), on Flickr
m6, 21/2.8, 2tmy, xtol 1+1
In the beginning (right after light was created) . . . . I started out at 50mm "normal" because that's what the guy told me was normal , and then I also got a 28mm for "wideangle" shooting.
Eventually I came to see that 35mm was my personal "normal", and so, 24mm became my wideangle, and the 28mm got lost in the shuffle.
Archiver
06-02-2012, 21:05
My first serious camera had a 35mm equivalent lens. My second had a 28mm eq. lens and I loved it, moreso than the first. Since then I've always tried to get cameras with 28mm or wider lenses, and I tend to see in 28mm.
I did, however, become a 50mm convert after I got a Summicron. It's probably my favourite lens on the M9, which has lead me to the usual 28/50 walkaround combo. I use the 28/50 combo with the Ricoh GXR, the Ricoh GRD III and Sigma DP2 (28 and 41), and the Pentax ME (28/2.8 SMC and 50/1.4 SMC). I only really use 35mm if it is fast, like a f1.4 or f1.2.
Contarama
06-02-2012, 21:26
I have a nice cheap array of Nikkors...28,50,105,135...the one I use most...the 28. I really like it on my digital crop camera.
I have a few Nikkor and Rokkor 28/2s and have no problem with this FL. Like any length, if you won't or can't get close enough, don't bother shooting. 35mm in general is a great length but 28mm just has a bit more edge/width before one gets all wide angle with 24mm.
Joakim Målare
06-03-2012, 13:18
I bought an Ultron 28/2, thinking I should have a wide-angle in the bag. But it doesn't really work for me, wearing glasses. And I have two cameras with lenses mounted that works with eyeglasses on; M3+90 and a ZI+50. The 28 is great if I bother to switch lenses (which is a bit of a handful) and don't mind the slight blur with glasses flipped up. I just never got used to the wider angle since I rarely use it. So that's another aspect on why it might not be quite as popular...
It's a mighty fine lens though - I like the fact it's distortion free. Black, mint, for sale if anyone's interested ;)
Another way of looking at it is that if you force yourself to learn and see with it then you can begin to take advantage of it's benefits. Truth is anything between 24 and 90 or so are all going to have different advantages and perspectives in different situations.
28 has probably been a less popular length due to manufacturers more than anything.
wides are simply harder to use composition wise.
the narrower you get, the more automatic clutter removal you have built into your lens.
wides are simply harder to use composition wise.
the narrower you get, the more automatic clutter removal you have built into your lens.
And also the less environment you pull in. Wides are great for immersive "being there" type of shots.
50mm is like pulling shards from a large scape. 20-24mm is being in it.
sure, but you have to think more.
browse any Canon/Nikon forum and you have oodles of 200mm f2.8 or 85mm f1.4 shots of peoples faces in front of brown/green/whatever goo :)
I like 28mm. Set it for hyperfocal and shoot away. Crop the print in the darkroom.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.