28mm vs 35mm?

[jaggedhorizon]

I was out in Lille yesterday and took photos with a 15/4.5, a 40/2.8 and an 85/1.8. (album here: http://www.zenfolio.com/cedricpopa/e/p5445815260 )

The experience of the 40 made me wonder whether I should really aim to use a 35, as I was previously intending, or a 28 so I could get closer. I do have 42 mp to crop from, which would help.

Does anyone prefer 28 over 35 for SP?

 

[fad]

I was out in Lille yesterday and took photos with a 15/4.5, a 40/2.8 and an 85/1.8. (album here: http://www.zenfolio.com/cedricpopa/e/p5445815260 )

The experience of the 40 made me wonder whether I should really aim to use a 35, as I was previously intending, or a 28 so I could get closer. I do have 42 mp to crop from, which would help.

Does anyone prefer 28 over 35 for SP?

 

[KCook]

Not me. My SP prime actually works out to 38mm (FF effective). Which often needs strong cropping. For cityscapes I would want a 24.

Kelly

 

[Daedalus2000]

I was out in Lille yesterday and took photos with a 15/4.5, a 40/2.8 and an 85/1.8. (album here: http://www.zenfolio.com/cedricpopa/e/p5445815260 )

The experience of the 40 made me wonder whether I should really aim to use a 35, as I was previously intending, or a 28 so I could get closer. I do have 42 mp to crop from, which would help.

Does anyone prefer 28 over 35 for SP?

 

[Paulmorgan]

I was out in Lille yesterday and took photos with a 15/4.5, a 40/2.8 and an 85/1.8. (album here: http://www.zenfolio.com/cedricpopa/e/p5445815260 )

The experience of the 40 made me wonder whether I should really aim to use a 35, as I was previously intending, or a 28 so I could get closer. I do have 42 mp to crop from, which would help.

Does anyone prefer 28 over 35 for SP?

--
https://1x.com/member/cedricpopp

For me 50 > 25 > 28mm. As HCB pointed out, it becomes increasingly difficult to eliminate distractions as one goes wider.

Unless you get closer

--
Frank
http://sidewalkshadows.com/blog/
Photos look better in Original Size
Shot in downtown Manhattan, mostly

 

[jaggedhorizon]

I was out in Lille yesterday and took photos with a 15/4.5, a 40/2.8 and an 85/1.8. (album here: http://www.zenfolio.com/cedricpopa/e/p5445815260 )

The experience of the 40 made me wonder whether I should really aim to use a 35, as I was previously intending, or a 28 so I could get closer. I do have 42 mp to crop from, which would help.

Does anyone prefer 28 over 35 for SP?

 

[jaggedhorizon]

Not me. My SP prime actually works out to 38mm (FF effective). Which often needs strong cropping. For cityscapes I would want a 24.

Kelly

Thanks Kelly. Perhaps I can't get away from a two-lens solution...or a larger zoom (I found that a 16-35 for all things city was great...but also large!)

 

[Easy Rider]

I'll give you my take, but bear in mind it;s very subjective.

First story comes from Pentax K-1000 experience during first month of Photography MA (never finished.)

When you have to choose one prime, I find it (or for me anyhow) goes / went like this.

I could have a 24, 35 or 50 and took them home and tried them all.

A fifty is simply too tight for many shots. Goodbye fifty.

A 24/28mm was great for close shots but man did I miss a lot of shots that were slightly too far for me to run to.

So you pop on a 35mm and realise it's the perfect compromise. You can use it wide and get those shots that the 50mm is too tight for and you can also get close, within say 3 meters without needing to be too close and get pretty much the shots you would have with a 28mm. Great DOF too and a slight crop can have you in fifty territory (without DOF compression, but not a worry for me) and a step back and you're not far off 28.

So you soon realise it is the perfect compromise between FL's.

If you can get your hands on an old film camera and a few cheap used primes (you'll get either a 50 / 30 or both as part of kit for like £200 / £250 ish or less) and you'll see what I mean. Very affordable to acquire and you can sell and get money back at small loss to the store or online after experiment.

Second finding my length came with digital. Get a MR kit lens and shoot 35mm FOV and 24 or 28mm each for at least a week and simply see how you get on.

If you don't have one and don;t want to fork out for an expensive FF one, you can put your FF camera in Crop mode and pick up a cheap 18-55mm kit lens for next to nothing, use each FL for at least a week or two, tape it there and do not change it no matter how strong the urge to get that far away shot or whatever, let go those ones.

Or if you have a PNS, you could use that.

I did this on my DSLR with the 17-50mm and found I shot about 85% 23mm (35mm FPV on APS-C) 10% 17mm (25.5mm) and then 5% at 35mm and 50mm (50mm and 75mm eqvt.)

I realised IF I could only have one it would be 35mm FOV. Can still get close, can still back off a bit and even crop if needed.

If I was given only two FL's it would be 24mm and 35mm, 28, meh, neither hither or dither. That's just me though and it's a very personal thing.

Still there are some areas of London such as Trafalgar square, very wide and spacious and open that cry out for 50mm to isolate subjects and I rarely get shots I like there at wider.

But yeah 35mm is perfect for me, wide enough to give more drama than the 'boxy' 50mm FOV (to me) and not so wide you have to always get really close or really crop.

There's more to it also, with a wider lens 24-35mm you can get close and get more people / elements in and through the frame for more dynamic compositions and different planes etc. With 50mm, you're always at a distance and more fitting for one or two people at best and maybe two planes. Good for street portraits 50mm, but for general street I'd take 35mm or 24/28 all day as second choice.

Love 35.

For travel, give me a MR zoom all day long.

 

[KCook]

Not me. My SP prime actually works out to 38mm (FF effective). Which often needs strong cropping. For cityscapes I would want a 24.

Kelly

Thanks Kelly. Perhaps I can't get away from a two-lens solution...or a larger zoom (I found that a 16-35 for all things city was great...but also large!)

Which is why I don't use a DSLR for street or travel. Check out mirrorless, the water is fine :-D

Kelly

 

[Daedalus2000]

I was out in Lille yesterday and took photos with a 15/4.5, a 40/2.8 and an 85/1.8. (album here: http://www.zenfolio.com/cedricpopa/e/p5445815260 )

The experience of the 40 made me wonder whether I should really aim to use a 35, as I was previously intending, or a 28 so I could get closer. I do have 42 mp to crop from, which would help.

Does anyone prefer 28 over 35 for SP?

--
https://1x.com/member/cedricpopp

Your zenfolio is not accessible...

Thanks, it was the wrong link. Here's the correct one: http://cedricpopa.zenfolio.com/p544581526

Thanks, I was able to see your pictures now.

There is big difference between 40mm/35mm and 28mm. Coming closer changes the perspective and you may not like the results. I always liked 50mm and 35mm and when I tried 28mm I found it very difficult. Having said that a lot of people like 28mm and now that everyone uses iPhones they get used to that focal length.

So this is what you can try. See if using your phone is good for you (my understanding is that iPhones and many other phones have 28mm equivalent field of view). Otherwise stick with whatever works for you.

I take your point. I kinda like playing with perspective.

There is an argument that 28mm on a FF 42MP sensor gives you something like 35mm on a sensor size still above APSC. But should I plan to crop or plan the shot better?

I do not get what you mean here. A 28mm on FF is still 28mm. Do you mean that because you have so many megapixels it gives you the freedom to crop all the way from 28mm to 35mm or even beyond that? I guess that may be true, and post-capture cropping I think is acceptable, but to be honest I still think the focal length you have on your camera affects how you "see" when you are out shooting. Better to become an expert on one focal length you prefer.

Phone: I use it sometimes for street photos. But I can't fall in love with it.

It probably means you do not like 28mm fov

From your portfolio, my limited feedback would be that your best images use the perspective of a longer lens, i.e. a more compressed perspective. For wide angle you need more interest in the foreground.

 

[Easy Rider]

WA means you can work angles better too and more dynamic framing.

I understand not liking phones from a UI perspective.

Get a cheap zoom like I suggested or if you have a friend with a GR or X-100, borrow one.

Or rent one. Or buy one and take it back before return period. Or by used and sell it again,they both retain their prices man

 

[Daedalus2000]

WA means you can work angles better too and more dynamic framing.

Yes, but it is also more difficult to do so, I do not think many do it successfully.. A small change on how you hold the camera and the perspective changes.

I understand not liking phones from a UI perspective.

I do not use an iphone for photography, but is it not the case that you just use the volume key to snap a picture? so it is a simple as it can be, right?

Get a cheap zoom like I suggested or if you have a friend with a GR or X-100, borrow one.

The GR is a wonderful camera... I wish they do a new version soon.

 

[Easy Rider]

WA means you can work angles better too and more dynamic framing.

Yes, but it is also more difficult to do so, I do not think many do it successfully.. A small change on how you hold the camera and the perspective changes.

It only takes a bit of practice man, like everything. You just learn your lens, like you learn anything.

Gerald does it, I do it, Steve uses a 35mm eqvt a lot, Benedictus I believe is mostly at 35mm, plenty on here using 35mm and wider to good effect.

Nothing comes straight off the bat which is why I suggest the OP sticks with whatever method he uses to test it for a good couple weeks at least.

 

[Daedalus2000]

WA means you can work angles better too and more dynamic framing.

Yes, but it is also more difficult to do so, I do not think many do it successfully.. A small change on how you hold the camera and the perspective changes.

It only takes a bit of practice man, like everything. You just learn your lens, like you learn anything.

Gerald does it, I do it, Steve uses a 35mm eqvt a lot, Benedictus I believe is mostly at 35mm, plenty on here using 35mm and wider to good effect.

Nothing comes straight off the bat which is why I suggest the OP sticks with whatever method he uses to test it for a good couple weeks at least.

OK man, I am starting working out tomorrow!

my point is more on the 28mm by the way, I think the 35mm is easier

 

[Paulmorgan]

I was out in Lille yesterday and took photos with a 15/4.5, a 40/2.8 and an 85/1.8. (album here: http://www.zenfolio.com/cedricpopa/e/p5445815260 )

The experience of the 40 made me wonder whether I should really aim to use a 35, as I was previously intending, or a 28 so I could get closer. I do have 42 mp to crop from, which would help.

Does anyone prefer 28 over 35 for SP?

 

[jaggedhorizon]

I was out in Lille yesterday and took photos with a 15/4.5, a 40/2.8 and an 85/1.8. (album here: http://www.zenfolio.com/cedricpopa/e/p5445815260 )

The experience of the 40 made me wonder whether I should really aim to use a 35, as I was previously intending, or a 28 so I could get closer. I do have 42 mp to crop from, which would help.

Does anyone prefer 28 over 35 for SP?

 

[epfler]

album here: http://www.zenfolio.com/cedricpopa/e/p5445815260

This just asks for login. So not available for me (having switched-on js for zenfolio.com ... not played around any further).

The experience of the 40 made me wonder whether I should really aim to use a 35, as I was previously intending, or a 28 so I could get closer. I do have 42 mp to crop from, which would help.

Does anyone prefer 28 over 35 for SP?

Had 28 (FF) since decennies, stayed with it out of habit (to avoid consumer speak here ... which would be: optimizing one's dreams and then buying - which is not the case in that sense of long term habits).

Afterwards, 35 mostly seems too narrow for me. In fact I fled the 50 - somehow a claustrophic experience if this should be taken as a sense of normal.

28 is challenging, somehow inconspicuously, so to be forced to compose reasonably. Needs some time to get this lesson, so one may use it as special kind of normal lens afterwards.

35 is much easier to handle in this regards. It's just one more variation of a normal length. With 28 you can approach this situation only when being careful. Or one uses it as a the moderately wide lens, which includes nice effects. Which needs to know about, to incorparate.

Or not. Not knowing about the basics, this tends to be a tool for weird expression of undecisiveness then, having a myriad of pictures with a lot being shown on them ... but no-one will know afterwards, what those pictures are about, except, maybe they are funny.

All that time over, I avoided the "normal" normal (50 and neighbours). Instead, to concentrate on a topic of a scene, I had 85 (Nikon), later-on 135 (Zeiss, catching a lot with it on the street, or 100 for macro), later-on 75 (equivalent, with Sigma DP3, macro built-in, which is nice to have for this length - especially for this one, similar thoughts apply here as for the 28 from the other way round, as one may learn to use it as a stretched normal and forget about the tele effects).

Coming very late, measured in decennies, I enjoy a bit of zooming now, 12-24 with APS-C (with Pentax), being 18-36 equiv, so the 35 is approached on one end. Why not? After some time I just don't care that much any more. Composition should get off for the ends. And that's what it does.

****

Apart from considerations with many words, let's face a simple fact regarding all everyday show with omnipresent gadgets now ...

and all world seems being trained to accept 28 (equiv) as an idea of normal field of view, when taking pictures. Who wants to invest a second thought then, except a minority?

For the disadvantage of this field of view, see above.

 

[Paulmorgan]

I was out in Lille yesterday and took photos with a 15/4.5, a 40/2.8 and an 85/1.8. (album here: http://www.zenfolio.com/cedricpopa/e/p5445815260 )

The experience of the 40 made me wonder whether I should really aim to use a 35, as I was previously intending, or a 28 so I could get closer. I do have 42 mp to crop from, which would help.

Does anyone prefer 28 over 35 for SP?

--
https://1x.com/member/cedricpopp

There simply is not right or wrong simply use what works for you.

If your unsure slip on a zoom lens that covers say 24mm to 75 or 85mm and have a play, you will quickly find the focal length that works for you.

Thanks again to everyone for the comments.

A good friend (who's now a Sony ambassador in Belgium) has lent me his 35 1.4 for a couple of weeks at least, as he's off to Korea with other lenses. It's large for a street lens but at least I'll have a chance to work more with the focal length and see if I like it. Expect more photos here.

Daedalus said above that my best images are with a longer FL. That's true. But I'm trying to evolve!

Try not to worry yourself to much about the size of that 35mm just get out and experiment with it.

--
https://1x.com/member/cedricpopp

 

[Koban]

Thanks again to everyone for the comments.

A good friend (who's now a Sony ambassador in Belgium) has lent me his 35 1.4 for a couple of weeks at least, as he's off to Korea with other lenses. It's large for a street lens but at least I'll have a chance to work more with the focal length and see if I like it. Expect more photos here.

Daedalus said above that my best images are with a longer FL. That's true. But I'm trying to evolve!

--
https://1x.com/member/cedricpopp

When you like the 35mm focal length on Sony Full Frame. Then the Zeiss Loxia 35 is an option. Its small for some a deal breaker that its MF. I really enjoy this lens when traveling.

Every one is different so our choices will differ per person ;-)

--
https://wagner.photography/ --> Workshops photography in the Netherlands and Indonesia
" The camera is an instrument that teaches me how to see without a camera "

 

[Easy Rider]

Today I was shooting just tbe streets with no people. Empty space, diagonals and leading lines that sort of thing. Light wasn't good so just focused on space and geometry like.

People say 50mm is normal but actually I feel it to be more short telephoto especially for places instead of people.

35mm is great for street and people for me but I certainly personally don't find it wide in fact to me 35mm seems more normal than 50mm.

For me wide starts at about 24mm really.

I guess the wider you start to go as your main fl the more normal the previous length seems until the last doesn't feel wide at all.