Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Rangefinder Forum > Optics Theory -

Optics Theory - This forum is aimed towards the TECHNICAL side of photographic OPTICS THEORY. There will be some overlap by camera/manufacturer, but this forum is for the heavy duty tech discussions. This is NOT the place to discuss a specific lens or lens line, do that in the appropriate forum. This is the forum to discuss optics or lenses in general, to learn about the tech behind the lenses and images. IF you have a question about a specific lens, post it in the forum about that type of camera, NOT HERE.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

Old 11-18-2010   #26
kossi008
Photon Counter
 
kossi008's Avatar
 
kossi008 is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Dresden, Germany
Age: 48
Posts: 722
Quote:
Originally Posted by tbarker13 View Post
I have to agree. I have both a 28 and 35. But I would never carry them both at the same time.
Exactly. I have and love both. The 35 mm is my favorite single focal length, but the 28/50 makes a great combo with a lot more versatility.

I guess it's preference and use: I probably only like the 28 mm because for decades, it was the the only wide-angle I owned.
__________________
Photon Counter
My flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/25547701@N08/
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-19-2010   #27
patrickhh
GAS free since Dec. 2007
 
patrickhh's Avatar
 
patrickhh is offline
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Posts: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matus View Post
Well - the width of the captured field of view (think of a wall at some given distance from you) is inversely proportional to the focal length. As 35/28 = 1.25 it means that 28 mm lens has 25% wider field of view than 35 mm lens.
Field of view is actually proportional to the arcustangens of d/2f, but in the range of "normal" focal lengths it's in fact almost linear. If you do the math, you will find a difference of 20% instead of 25%. I'm just nitpicking here, agree with the rest of your post.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-19-2010   #28
Arjay
Time Traveller
 
Arjay's Avatar
 
Arjay is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Munich, Germany
Age: 64
Posts: 802
Hm - this discussion sounds a little academic to me. Sure, you can compare FOV and depth of perspective, but the real beef is in practical use:

I use both focal lengths for street photography. Since I strive to capture pictures with people playing a prominent role, I tend to choose focal length depending on how close I will be to the people around me.

In normal street shooting situations such as a moderately crowded street, people in Europe have a 'comfort zone' with a diameter of 3 to 4 m (9 to 12 ft). This leads me to choose a 35mm focal length, and allows me to shoot in a fairly relaxed way since I don't have to worry too much about perspective distortion.

In tighter quarters such as on a fair or in mass gatherings, people tend to flock together more closely. Consequently, I will be much closer to them since their 'comfort zone' under these conditions will only be 2 to 3m at best (6 to 9ft). Here, the logical choice will be 28mm, if I still want to be able to work reasonably fluidly. I will, however, have to pay much more attention to keeping my camera level in order to avoid perspective distortion.
__________________
FujiFilm X100, Fuji X-Pro 1, Konica Hexar RF, Hexanon & CV glass & Nikon Coolscan V ... plus a big, bad DSLR

My RFF Gallery, My Flickr, My Ipernity, all presenting different bodies of work
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-19-2010   #29
Turtle
Registered User
 
Turtle is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,619
Very different in use. 35 is natural, whereas 28 is the first FL to really introduce 'dynamism.' 24 more so and 21 and beyond are 'extreme' in the perspective distortion and shaping of spatial relationships.

You can go out with a 35 and be screaming for a 28. I was today. Still, I made the 35 work. I opted out of regular use of my 28 for a 24, but I did not have it with me.

28 allows you to get close and make a subject prominent in the frame, while including quite large objects further back (as they are shrunk in size). with 35 you can't do that nearly so well, but you can gain a bit more 'stand off' distance.

I decided a 24mm lens on a 0.58 body was a better compliment to my anchor FL, which is 35mm (on a 0.72) but were I not to have the 24 I would certainly bother to carry a 28 with me, because there is quite a difference in use between 28 and 35 IMHO.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-19-2010   #30
ferider
Registered User
 
ferider's Avatar
 
ferider is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 10,169
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankS View Post
It may even out the size of the primary subject in the foreground, but the spacial relationship with the background will be noticeably different. In the 28mm shot, the background elements will be smaller (relative to the foreground elements) and will appear to be farther away from the camera and the foreground elements, than in the 35mm shot.

It about more than just field of view. It's about perspective.
Cropped by 20% the perspective of a 28mm shot is the same as a 35mm one.

Funny, many RFF users file their 40mm (actually 43mm) Nokton to use with 35mm framelines. At the same time 28 and 35mm lenses are considered vastly different. Both result pretty much in the same FOV/perspective difference and for one it matters and for the other it doesn't.
__________________
My Smugmug
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-19-2010   #31
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 20,519
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turtle View Post
Very different in use. 35 is natural, whereas 28 is the first FL to really introduce 'dynamism.' 24 more so and 21 and beyond are 'extreme' in the perspective distortion and shaping of spatial relationships.

You can go out with a 35 and be screaming for a 28. I was today. Still, I made the 35 work. I opted out of regular use of my 28 for a 24, but I did not have it with me.

28 allows you to get close and make a subject prominent in the frame, while including quite large objects further back (as they are shrunk in size). with 35 you can't do that nearly so well, but you can gain a bit more 'stand off' distance.

I decided a 24mm lens on a 0.58 body was a better compliment to my anchor FL, which is 35mm (on a 0.72) but were I not to have the 24 I would certainly bother to carry a 28 with me, because there is quite a difference in use between 28 and 35 IMHO.
That's one way of looking at it. Personally, insofar as I understand your point about 'dynamism' (and I think I do), the 24/25 is where I see that. To me, a 28 is neither one thing nor the other. But it's a intensely personal choice.

As for 28mm as a landscape lens (not your point -- someone else raised it earlier) I can't see it at all. Too much foreground, not enough scenery. In my book, Leica got it right with the 105/6.3 Mountain Elmar.

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Now even more free photography information on www.rogerandfrances.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-19-2010   #32
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 20,519
Quote:
Originally Posted by ferider View Post
Cropped by 20% the perspective of a 28mm shot is the same as a 35mm one.
True (assuming the same viewpoint), but without the crop, there's a lot more foreground around the edges, which is what we perceive as 'extreme' perspective.

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Now even more free photography information on www.rogerandfrances.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-19-2010   #33
Ted2001
Registered User
 
Ted2001 is offline
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 58
I've never been a fan of 35 - 55mm focal lengths - too "normal". With film SLRs I used 20/28/55macro/105/200 and never wanted a 35. With Contax G2 I bought the 16/21/28/35/45/90 lenses and rarely used the 35, 45 or 16.

I like it when my camera "sees" things that aren't apparent to my eye. Wide angle lenses (28 and wider) provide a perspective that's wider than I "see"; 90/105 isolates an element; longer gives foreshortening, while macro explores a different view altogether. These add a dramatic element that I don't find with 35-55mm focal lengths.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-19-2010   #34
Turtle
Registered User
 
Turtle is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,619
As you say it all personal. One man's 'neither one thing nor another' is another's perfect compromise.

I know you prefer longer lenses for landscape work, but the 28 (35mm) 40-50mm (645) 50/65 (6x7-6x9) and 90 (5x4) are the most hammered lenses for landscape use, from what I see online and in books. Whether one decides to go one wider and one longer (like the 75mm and 110 for 5x4) is personal once again, but the only environment I see people regularly using much longer lenses is in the mountains and in wide valleys with distant scenes. In such an environment, the 210-450 lenses in 5x4 seem to be very popular, which is about 75 to 150 in 35mm. Take Joe Cornish, Sexton, Wimberley, AA, Alan Ross etc. When not shooting mountainscapes, you can bet those 24/28/35 equivalents are accounting for the vast majority of their images. Roman Loranc is one who shoots very heavily on a longer lens - in his case a 210mm on 5x4 - so roughly the 75mm on 35mm.

By dynamism, I meant where the focal length can be seen to be having a direct visual affect in shaping the structure of the image (convergence, perspective distortion etc). With 28mm I think this is beginning to emerge, but agree if is subtle compared to even a 24. Maybe this is part of the reason for its popularity; it does not scream 'wide' right into your eyeballs. Its also the reason I went for 24 in the end, though I can shoot all day with a 28 on its own.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
That's one way of looking at it. Personally, insofar as I understand your point about 'dynamism' (and I think I do), the 24/25 is where I see that. To me, a 28 is neither one thing nor the other. But it's a intensely personal choice.

As for 28mm as a landscape lens (not your point -- someone else raised it earlier) I can't see it at all. Too much foreground, not enough scenery. In my book, Leica got it right with the 105/6.3 Mountain Elmar.

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-19-2010   #35
Tim Gray
Registered User
 
Tim Gray is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,845
Quote:
Originally Posted by ferider View Post
Funny, many RFF users file their 40mm (actually 43mm) Nokton to use with 35mm framelines. At the same time 28 and 35mm lenses are considered vastly different. Both result pretty much in the same FOV/perspective difference and for one it matters and for the other it doesn't.
The same argument could pretty much be used for the 35 and 50 difference, but plenty of people claim that they need both. Also, it seems like less people do that now that there is a 35 Nokton available.

I don't really find 28 and 35 to be THAT different. I just prefer the wider one more. It matches up with 50 better in my mind, which I prefer over 75.

I often find it easier to take a step forwards that take a step backwards. When space is tight, I really appreciate having the bit extra wideness that 28 has over 35.

As I stated earlier, using a 28 lets me interact with people from a normal distance and get shots of them interacting together and with their environment without isolating them too much. If I want some isolation, 50 is good. For my purposes, 35 is too in between for this. I'd have to move forward to get the isolation I might desire (which is sometimes prevented by the .7m limitation), and I'd have to move backwards to get all that I want in the scene, which might be enough to remove me from the situation. My thinking on this stuff came about after using predominately 35mm for a year, thinking it was 'my' focal length.

Here's a visual example. We were eating dinner together. I wanted both of them in the shot. Had I had a 35, I would have had to have gotten up out of my chair. No longer would I have been eating with them and taking a snap; no, I would have been 'taking a serious picture'.


al and mike by ezwal, on Flickr
__________________
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-19-2010   #36
photogdave
Shops local
 
photogdave's Avatar
 
photogdave is offline
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Film-filled Vancouver
Posts: 2,124
You're all wrong.
__________________
Digital - I just don't care for it.

Leica M4, M6, CL
Voigtlander lenses
Pentax Optio 43 WR
Olympus Stylus Epic
Rolleiflex TLR
Nikon F100, D70

My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-19-2010   #37
photogdave
Shops local
 
photogdave's Avatar
 
photogdave is offline
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Film-filled Vancouver
Posts: 2,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Double Negative View Post
Well don't just fart in the elevator and step off...
I'm sorry!
You're all wrong. Please excuse me.
__________________
Digital - I just don't care for it.

Leica M4, M6, CL
Voigtlander lenses
Pentax Optio 43 WR
Olympus Stylus Epic
Rolleiflex TLR
Nikon F100, D70

My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-19-2010   #38
presspass
filmshooter
 
presspass is offline
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Lancaster County, Pennsylvania
Posts: 515
It also depends on how fast a lens you need. 28s only go to 2.0 while 35s can be 1.4 or 1.2. If speed doesn't matter, pick the lens you're most comfortable with. I use a 28 in a three-lens kit (also 50 and 90), while the 35 is handy with a 75.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-19-2010   #39
rondo
Registered User
 
rondo is offline
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 99
thanks to all for the discussion...now, would i be asking too much if someone used a 35 and a 28 from the very same vantage point and provided two photographs here.
I'll do the rescaling-juxtaposing-cropping etc...
thanks again for the answers.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-19-2010   #40
FrankS
Registered User
 
FrankS is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Canada, eh.
Age: 57
Posts: 17,587
What is needed are 3 photos. 2 taken from the same position, one with the 35 and the other with the 28, then a third photo with the 28 taken closer to a main forground subject so that the foreground subject is the same size as it is in the photo taken with the 35mm lens. This last photo will demonstrate the difference between the 2 lenses.
__________________
my little website: http://frankfoto.jimdo.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-20-2010   #41
rondo
Registered User
 
rondo is offline
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 99
I understand your point. Of course under normal circumstances one would have to step in or step out to achieve the desirable composition, depending on the lens being used.

But if we want to prove the inadequacy of the russian-doll rectangles for describing different focal points, a fixed point of view will be necessary for this test.

if the purpose of the test is to show that one does't need a 35 mm, when you have a 28 available, one will have to shoot wider and crop and scale, and juxtapose the images to see the difference of the two-when shot from the same point.
Of course at the expense of resolution for the 28 mm lens as it will need to be scaled-up. (but that's another subject matter)

Basically what I am trying to say is the following: If I use my 28 mm with framelines of a 35, and I am ready to crop and lose resolution, how much of a difference will there be?

i really wish i had access to both lenses, but i don't...

Last edited by rondo : 11-20-2010 at 04:09.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-20-2010   #42
besk
Registered User
 
besk is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: South Carolina (USA)
Posts: 266
Both the 28 and 35 lenses can be very versitile - the 35 even more so.
I have both a 28/3.5 Cv and a 35/2.5 CV compact & use both.

In my use, however, I have found the 28/50 combo the most useful - for travel and otherwise. If the 28 is too wide then the 50 comes into play.

If it had to be just ONE lens to carry it would be the 35 however.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-20-2010   #43
ChrisC
Registered User
 
ChrisC is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie Pillers View Post
.... Its not just angle of view. The 'nested rectangle' analogy doesn't capture this idea of foreground/background relationship. .......... Some sort of spherical analogy might work better?
I agree. Those spacial relationships are very important to image construction, which is why 28mm images look quite different to 35mm images [aside from cramming more stuff in]. Curiously, I have been doing a lot of stitching images together from a 35mm lens on an M8, and often the image might represent a c. 140 - 180 degree angle width, and take in foreground from by-my-toes to high in the sky. These images have the spacial presence of 'standard lens [-ish]' angle of view images [which I love] rather than the spacial qualities of a super fisheye lens [which I dislike]. Strange but true.

............... Chris
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-20-2010   #44
ebino
-
 
ebino is offline
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 434
28mm is not long enough and not wide enough, 24mm is a better option. 35mm is the perfect normal lens for shooting what you 'see'. 50mm is a zoom/long lens for me.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-20-2010   #45
Rob-F
Old School
 
Rob-F's Avatar
 
Rob-F is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The Show Me state
Posts: 3,529
I think it's important to view each lens as part of a system, or series, and not in isolation. A good system can be 24/25; 35; 50; and 75. Another good system is 21, 28, 40, 75. Another idea is 24/25, 35, 50, and 90. I tend to select lenses for an outing with the idea of spacing them not too close and not too far apart. A three-lens outfit could be 28, 50, and 90.
__________________
May the light be with you.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-20-2010   #46
ferider
Registered User
 
ferider's Avatar
 
ferider is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 10,169
Rob, the classic outfit might have been: slow 28, fast 35, 50, 90/85, because 28mm didn't come faster than f2.8 50 years ago.
__________________
My Smugmug
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-21-2010   #47
rondo
Registered User
 
rondo is offline
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 99
This was supposed to be a technical discussion over the differences, and it ended up being "I like x better than y / horses for courses" kind of replies which the photo forums is full of...Too bad no one with the two lenses volunteered to do a simple test. Thanks anyway.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-21-2010   #48
Rob-F
Old School
 
Rob-F's Avatar
 
Rob-F is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The Show Me state
Posts: 3,529
I think we have addressed your question pretty well, though there is not a consensus. Some find a substantial difference and described that difference; others saw little difference. For me, the difference is substantial, with the 28 giving a greater feeling of space and openness, and the 35 being more natural and "universal."
__________________
May the light be with you.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-21-2010   #49
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 20,519
I rather like a 'doubling' set: 18, 35, 75, 135.

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Now even more free photography information on www.rogerandfrances.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-21-2010   #50
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 20,519
Quote:
Originally Posted by rondo View Post
This was supposed to be a technical discussion over the differences, and it ended up being "I like x better than y / horses for courses" kind of replies which the photo forums is full of...Too bad no one with the two lenses volunteered to do a simple test. Thanks anyway.
It's a simple test, sure enough. But it's also an hour's work, even with digital, just to satisfy someone else's curiosity. Find lenses; take not-too-dull picture; resize; post. Most of us (me included) just aren't that generous.

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Now even more free photography information on www.rogerandfrances.com
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:40.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.