Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Rangefinder Forum > Rangefinder Photography Discussion

Rangefinder Photography Discussion General discussions about Rangefinder Photography. This is a great place for questions and answers that are not addressed in a specific category. Take note there is also a General Photography forum.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 12-23-2015   #81
leicapixie
Registered User
 
leicapixie is offline
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Toronto.Canada
Posts: 1,604
I love the geometric perspective of a 28mm.
I think use of 35mm all the time, a lazy photographer.
50mm my main length. I do own and use 35mm.

I have had the 28mm since the 60"s on my Pentax.
A totally manual Soligor 28mm f2,8.
Low contrast, almost impossible to focus, thankfully well engraved distances.
Amazingly sharp. Later a real Pentax-Takumar 28mm f3,5.
It was way better than a friends Elmarit.
I have 28mm for my Canon A-series, Minolta X-series and of course for my old
pro kit, Nikon's Nikkor 28mm f3,5.
My digital point and shoots all start with 28mm.
I guess with the Phones it is the most lens! (in the world).
My M6 has frames for 28mm, but too hard to see.
I never use added viewfinders.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-23-2015   #82
huddy
Registered User
 
huddy is offline
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 161
I figured out I was a 28/35/50 guy myself, with an occasional sprinkling of 85/105/180 whenever I need more compression or background separation.

If I carry 2 lenses, I carry 28 and 50 as the 28 is truly a great environmental lens without the distortion that comes from wider lenses. If I carry 1 lens, it's a 35 for the reasonable balance of scene inclusion vs subject separation.

On M's, I only ever carry a 35 because I don't have the disposable income to have a 28+35+50.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-23-2015   #83
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 19,953
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Hughes View Post
And 35-50-90 doesn't because the 35 is too near the 50.
It's funny, but I never ever felt the 35mm was anywhere near close to a 50mm... or a 28mm near a 35mm. I use all three.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-23-2015   #84
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 19,953
Quote:
Originally Posted by leicapixie View Post
I think use of 35mm all the time, a lazy photographer.
Huh? How does this possibly make sense? We don't all photograph the same things or the same way.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-23-2015   #85
David Hughes
David Hughes
 
David Hughes's Avatar
 
David Hughes is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
It's funny, but I never ever felt the 35mm was anywhere near close to a 50mm... or a 28mm near a 35mm. I use all three.
Hi,

Neither do I but it seems a lot people do; it was just a comment on what I've seen.

Regards, David
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-23-2015   #86
Richard G
Registered User
 
Richard G's Avatar
 
Richard G is offline
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: 37,47 S
Posts: 5,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Hughes View Post
Hi,

It's our old friend the Weber-Frehner Law, which is about how much things have to differ before they look (in this case) different. And the line-up 28-50-90 fits it nicely. And 35-50-90 doesn't because the 35 is too near the 50. OTOH a 35 and 90 work well together and make a decent holiday kit. Ditto the 40-90 for the Leica CL.

Regards, David
David on RFF there's this sort of good sense, but the Weber-Frehner law battles for supremacy with Freud's narcissism of minimal difference. E.g. I have the very handy Elmarit ASPH 2.8 28, but I am bowled over by what I see from the Summicron including less harsh contrast. I hope I don't bother changing.

And when I went from 50 to 35 my subjects were floating free in an ocean of foreground that took me a while to tame. I still never find 50 and 35 similar.

More generally on the topic of 28, I wear glasses and struggle to see the 28 frame limes in the M6. Moving to an EVF for film just to get a 28 FOV was not worth it. For a 21 it was exciting and worth it, or less risky to try 21 without the EVF.

With digital there are two factors favouring adoption of the 28: the frame lines are slightly easier to see in the M9, and you can review the picture. I used my 25/28 external finder the first outing with the new 28 and didn't bother after that. I often don't bother with the 21 or the 18 either.
__________________
Richard
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-23-2015   #87
lukitas
second hand noob
 
lukitas's Avatar
 
lukitas is offline
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Brussels, belgium
Posts: 759
This is one reason I like the 28 :



To see the face, you're looking up, and you look down at the feet, and the claw holding the camera is an intrusion into your personal space. 'Objects may be closer than they look in the mirror'.

cheers
__________________
lukitas

Gallery

photos by lukitas
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-23-2015   #88
uhoh7
Registered User
 
uhoh7 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,810
Love that one Lukitas

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
I think it became the most popular due to the iPhone no?
Yes. But it was a good choice


L1000525 by unoh7, on Flickr


May Grocery by unoh7, on Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-23-2015   #89
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 30,776
I just placed my Rokkor 28/2.8M on my M8. Should be fun to explore.
__________________
- Raid

________________


http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-23-2015   #90
Emile de Leon
Registered User
 
Emile de Leon is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,000
I just have (1) 28mm...Nikon AIS...it was the 2nd lens I ever bought for myself..the 1st came with Nikon FM ..a 50..
Modern photography mag was my advisor..I was about 20 years old and knew nothing..
The mag said..make sure you have a 2.8 aperture..so you can bring in more light..
So here I was a few days later in some NYC camera shop..looking at the 28s..and the guy at the counter says..we got a Nikon 3.5 cheep..you will save a lot of dough over the 2.8 AIS...but something inside told me to take Modern's advice and pay the extra $35- or so...this was around 1976..
The 2.8 left with me...
I didnt know then that it was one of the best 28's ever made..ok..it does everything...focuses down to the macro range...and has incredible resolution..
Back when I was processing my own color prints at home..I just could not believe the resolution on Ektar 25 asa...
So I still use it today..and it still is in LN cond..so do I need another 28..probably not..
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-24-2015   #91
Richard G
Registered User
 
Richard G's Avatar
 
Richard G is offline
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: 37,47 S
Posts: 5,184
Just ran into a very young man in central Melbourne: Leica ME plus the 28 Summicron. Didn't like DSLRs. Very discerning fellow. He has the 50 Summicron too. And doesn't want more. Wise beyond his years. We had a nice chat and I recommended he visit here.
__________________
Richard
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-24-2015   #92
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 19,953
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard G View Post
Just ran into a very young man in central Melbourne: Leica ME plus the 28 Summicron. Didn't like DSLRs. Very discerning fellow. He has the 50 Summicron too. And does t want more. Wise beyond his years. We had a nice chat and I recommended he visit here.
He's wise beyond his years for not liking DSLRs?
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-24-2015   #93
Richard G
Registered User
 
Richard G's Avatar
 
Richard G is offline
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: 37,47 S
Posts: 5,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
He's wise beyond his years for not liking DSLRs?
No. For choosing 28 and 50 focal lengths and deciding they're enough.
__________________
Richard
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-24-2015   #94
silkyfeet
Registered User
 
silkyfeet is offline
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 61
im only a 10 months into using film and a 1 year 7 months into photography in general. i started with and still use my canon 70d (crop) i mostly have a 24mm prime on the camera which is a 38mm focal length. on 35mm film i use a 50mm on my nikon f apollo and 50,35 on my om1n. from my very short time with learning photography i have found that what ever i have infront of my camera i just adjust. i do find 50 to tight indoors. 35 is for me a all rounder. sometimes i do want more in frame when at 1.5 metres. ive never tried a 28mm. my friend let me borrow his canon 5d mkii and i used my 24mm and actually really enjoyed the experience. i may pick up a 28mm for my nikon f and c if i like it.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-09-2018   #95
Richard G
Registered User
 
Richard G's Avatar
 
Richard G is offline
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: 37,47 S
Posts: 5,184
I have stuck with the 28mm focal length more and more. The 28 2.8 ASPH was the smallest current Leica lens until the 28mm Summaron-M f5.6. That is more subtle than the faster lens and it is very compact.

With digital one advantage of the 28 is shooting from the hip or chest and checking the result. And because the sky so often influences the exposure, blown highlights are much less of a risk than with narrower FOV lenses.
__________________
Richard
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-09-2018   #96
Sumarongi
Registered Vaudevillain
 
Sumarongi's Avatar
 
Sumarongi is offline
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 570
28mm is 1.1023622047 in., or approximately 1 in. plus 13/128 in. —— don't tell me that's *not* a completely weird figure!

__________________
**Any feature is a bug unless it can be turned off.** (Daniel Bell Heuer's Law.)
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-09-2018   #97
Ko.Fe.
Kostya Fedot
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Posts: 7,406
It is individual. Here is something wrong with 50mm FL. I'm finding it useless. On RF and for street. It is nothing but static portraits FL to me.

28FL is most common FL because it is in mobile phones.

28 FL on RF is for tough cockies like GW. You have to be close and within the action.
Most of the pictures in this thread are miss. IMO, not close enough to make 28 FL shine.
I'm not talking about portrait, those are taken as selfies on 28 FL in billions .
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-09-2018   #98
squirrel$$$bandit
Registered User
 
squirrel$$$bandit is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 6,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ko.Fe. View Post
28FL is most common FL because it is in mobile phones.
This is why I like having a wider prime for my actual camera—28mm is now literally the most common (equivalent) focal length in the world. And most things I tend to shoot with a 28 on a camera—large-DOF shots in good light—look pretty much as good from an iPhone as they do from a proper camera.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-16-2018   #99
Archiver
Registered User
 
Archiver is offline
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,325
Six years after my comment in this thread, and it surfaces again. I've come to use 28mm as a general purpose focal length, due to the Ricoh GRD III, GR and GXR 28, as well as Sigma DP1, and 28mm on a rangefinder.

But I've spend a lot of time with 24-21mm, thanks to cameras like the Panasonic LX7 and LX10. 28 is fine for day to day, but I prefer 24, 25 and 21 especially for travel.

For me, I like to include a lot of context in my travel images as they are visual reminders of everything that occurred, and 21mm is great for that. 28 can be quite intimate if you're relatively close to the action.
When it was working properly, I loved using the Zeiss 25 Biogon on the M9 as a general lens. More context-grabbing than 28 but not as hard to manage as 21.
__________________
~Loving Every Image Captured Always~
Archiver on flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-16-2018   #100
thafred
silver addict
 
thafred's Avatar
 
thafred is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Vienna
Age: 42
Posts: 404
I have always loved and shot the 28mm FL. I sold all of my 28mm lenses years ago and only since buying a M9P last winter I thought I treat myself and bought into the FL again with a Biogon 28mm f2.8.

Problem is, as excellent as the lens is (one of the best lenses I ever owned, technicaly), I cannot enjoy the pictures. Something feels "off" with the 28mm Fl on the M9 and I had to think hard and long about what it is that is bugging me.

Turns out, I still love the FL on Film but on digital every picture LOOKS LIKE AN iPHONE PHOTO!

TLDR: The 28mm FL is taken over by Instagram snap shots, every cell phone uses 28mm FL and is sharp from 10cm to infinity so that is why this Focal length looses its importance. For me at least

OTOH I ordered the 28mm 7Artisans to play with DOF, maybe that is what is missing from the Biogon.
__________________
No funds but lot´s of fun

My Flickr gallery

photographer at www.seconds2real.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-17-2018   #101
Archiver
Registered User
 
Archiver is offline
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,325
Quote:
Originally Posted by thafred View Post
I have always loved and shot the 28mm FL. I sold all of my 28mm lenses years ago and only since buying a M9P last winter I thought I treat myself and bought into the FL again with a Biogon 28mm f2.8.

Problem is, as excellent as the lens is (one of the best lenses I ever owned, technicaly), I cannot enjoy the pictures. Something feels "off" with the 28mm Fl on the M9 and I had to think hard and long about what it is that is bugging me.

Turns out, I still love the FL on Film but on digital every picture LOOKS LIKE AN iPHONE PHOTO!
If your iPhone photos have the same depth of field and quality as a Zeiss 28mm on a M9P, I'm gonna switch to iPhone. Because focal length aside, there is no way that 28mm f2.8 on full frame looks anything like a smartphone pic. Some of my favourite digital images have been taken with the 28mm Biogon or 28mm Elmarit, and in no way do they remind me of smartphone images.

It's not even about the kind of images you take, because the M9P sensor gives a very rich, lush, dense image that a smartphone can't touch. Okay, maybe they look like iPhone images to you, but not to me.
__________________
~Loving Every Image Captured Always~
Archiver on flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-17-2018   #102
Richard G
Registered User
 
Richard G's Avatar
 
Richard G is offline
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: 37,47 S
Posts: 5,184
Agree. M9-P and 28 Summaron-M






L9001592.jpg
by Richard, on Flickr
__________________
Richard
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-17-2018   #103
Richard G
Registered User
 
Richard G's Avatar
 
Richard G is offline
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: 37,47 S
Posts: 5,184
Inspired by Lukitas above: with 28 you can get all of a person in. Feet are underestimated:


L2009601.jpg
by Richard, on Flickr
__________________
Richard
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
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 01:44.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.