Is something wrong with 28mm FL?

[wblynch]

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

[Keith]

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!

[BobYIL]

Originally Posted by gavinlg

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..

[hausen]

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.

[BobYIL]

Originally Posted by PKR

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]

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.

[dct]

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

[MikeL]

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?

Originally Posted by BobYIL

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]

28 requires intimacy. 21 is for impersonal scenics. 35 people are used to from their point and shoots. Maybe.

[kanzlr]

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]

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]

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.

[FrankS]

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.

[btgc]

Originally Posted by wblynch

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.

[dbarnes]

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

[froyd]

Originally Posted by Gary Sandhu

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]

Originally Posted by MikeL

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.

[froyd]

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]

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.

[Rob-F]

Originally Posted by kanzlr

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]

Originally Posted by dbarnes

The work of the late Jeanloup Sieff 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!

[semilog]

Originally Posted by Aristophanes

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.

[emayoh]

I have no idea, but I really want a 28mm now. Thanks a lot!

[cosmonaut]

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]

Originally Posted by cosmonaut

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..