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

Photography General Interest Neat Photo stuff NOT particularly about Rangefinders.

View Poll Results: 28mm or 35mm?
28mm 147 43.75%
35mm 189 56.25%
Voters: 336. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 03-19-2013   #81
j j
Registered User
 
j j is offline
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 792
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amblyopia

Unfortunately they don't have a page for smart arse.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-19-2013   #82
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by j j View Post
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amblyopia

Unfortunately they don't have a page for smart arse.
Fair enough. Actually, a couple of very close and very dear friends suffer from this, so I am familiar with the rational definition. It was the implicit irrational definition that threw me.

I should have said, "what the hell is a 'lazy eye' in this context?"

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-19-2013   #83
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 20,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Bonanno View Post
Of course you do... because you have a lazy eye.
No need for a personal attack. Please keep it civilized.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-19-2013   #84
Livesteamer
Registered User
 
Livesteamer is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Winston Salem North Carolina
Posts: 1,431
It depends. On a Nikon F it's 28 and 55 for me. On Leica M it would be an old 35 Summilux and a 50 Summilux even tho I have a 28 Summicron that is a wonderful lens. In Leica screwmount it's a 50 and an old Canon 28. Whatever works. Joe
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-19-2013   #85
upceci
-
 
upceci is offline
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 75
I never thought saying 35mm gets you more keepers will generate so many :rolls eye: smilies. Perhaps :rolling eyes: is a good exercise for the 'lazy eye'..... someone needs to tell fuji to stop producing the X100s... and i wonder why the Leica 35mm/1.4 costs much, it makes me :roll my eyes:.... And Alex Webb is not very good :rollseye:...
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-19-2013   #86
j j
Registered User
 
j j is offline
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
Fair enough. Actually, a couple of very close and very dear friends suffer from this, so I am familiar with the rational definition. It was the implicit irrational definition that threw me.

I should have said, "what the hell is a 'lazy eye' in this context?"

Cheers,

R.
I think it was just meant as a slur (hence my facetious post; which was in no way aimed in your direction BTW).

If "lazy eye" has any real meaning in photography I am yet to encounter it. If it does mean something I have misjudged the author and I apologise. I tend to have a knee-jerk reaction when folks use medical terms as insults.

I should make some attempt to answer the OP. It matters little to me whether I use a 28, 35, 45 or 50; I enjoy taking pictures with any and all of them.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-19-2013   #87
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 20,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by upceci View Post
I never thought saying 35mm gets you more keepers will generate so many :rolls eye: smilies. Perhaps :rolling eyes: is a good exercise for the 'lazy eye'..... someone needs to tell fuji to stop producing the X100s... and i wonder why the Leica 35mm/1.4 costs much, it makes me :roll my eyes:.... And Alex Webb is not very good :rollseye:...
I think the point is that focal lengths are subjective and it totally depends on what type of photography one does. There is no one size fits all approach to photography.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-19-2013   #88
Jerevan
Recycled User
 
Jerevan's Avatar
 
Jerevan is offline
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,120
Well, I thought "lazy eye" in this context was more of a description of someone who does not care much for the edges of the frame when composing in the viewfinder (because you can always crop a 35 view to a 50 view, when you are printing).

As for 28 or 35 - I prefer the 28 viewpoint, near-far compositions. But I don't think I could use it on an RF, I need to see what I am doing. I am wrestling the 35 on an RF at the moment and I am not so sure about it... Maybe I am just a boring 50's guy.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-19-2013   #89
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by j j View Post
I think it was just meant as a slur (hence my facetious post; which was in no way aimed in your direction BTW).

If "lazy eye" has any real meaning in photography I am yet to encounter it. If it does mean something I have misjudged the author and I apologise. I tend to have a knee-jerk reaction when folks use medical terms as insults.

I should make some attempt to answer the OP. It matters little to me whether I use a 28, 35, 45 or 50; I enjoy taking pictures with any and all of them.
Highlight 1: Same here. No offence whatsoever taken at your fair and reasonable reply.

Highlight 2: Same here!

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-19-2013   #90
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 31,557
Who can give me a solid definition on "lazy eye" and on "trained eye"?
How would you separate a lazy eye photographer with a 35mm lens from a lazy eye photographer with a 28mm or 50mm lens?
Is there any hope for a lazy eye photographer with a 35mm lens to ever "upgrade" and become a trained eye photographer with a 35mm lens or has it been already shown online that such a move is impossible?

These are such important questions on existence and life that RFF must address them here and now.

The other question is whether a photographer using a 100mm lens is a "super trained eye photographer" or whether any focal length above 50mm throws you back into the slums of lazy eye photographers?

I am so happy that I favor using 50mm lenses over 35mm lenses because now I finally know that I am an elite photographer with one trained eye ... I think.
__________________
- Raid
________________

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

Old 03-19-2013   #91
FrankS
Registered User
 
FrankS's Avatar
 
FrankS is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Canada, eh.
Age: 62
Posts: 19,389
Google is your friend:

https://www.google.ca/search?q=lazy+...w=1024&bih=672
__________________
my little website: http://frankfoto.jimdo.com/

photography makes me happy
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-19-2013   #92
ferider
Registered User
 
ferider's Avatar
 
ferider is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 11,249
I'm confused: as I prefer 28mm and possibly suffer the lazy eye syndrome (LES, also called the YMC / YouMayCrop syndrome), should I use a 24 instead ?

  Reply With Quote

Old 03-19-2013   #93
MikeL
Go Fish
 
MikeL's Avatar
 
MikeL is offline
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,208
Quote:
Originally Posted by ferider View Post
I'm confused: as I prefer 28mm and possibly suffer the lazy eye syndrome...
Huh, when we are at the bar, I always assumed one eye was checking out the waitress. Good to know!
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-19-2013   #94
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 31,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeL View Post
Huh, when we are at the bar, I always assumed one eye was checking out the waitress. Good to know!
It's the other eye that counts, Mike!
__________________
- Raid
________________

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

Old 03-19-2013   #95
upceci
-
 
upceci is offline
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
I think the point is that focal lengths are subjective and it totally depends on what type of photography one does. There is no one size fits all approach to photography.
Interestingly that way I see it focal length is the only objective aspect of photography.

The restrictions of a focal length and learning to work in that requires the same approach from everyone.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-19-2013   #96
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 20,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by upceci View Post
Interestingly that way I see it focal length is the only objective aspect of photography.

The restrictions of a focal length and learning to work in that requires the same approach from everyone.
Are you saying that everyone will use a 50mm lens the same exact way? How can that even be possible?
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-19-2013   #97
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
Are you saying that everyone will use a 50mm lens the same exact way? How can that even be possible?
Superb counterargument!

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-20-2013   #98
oftheherd
Registered User
 
oftheherd's Avatar
 
oftheherd is offline
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 7,937
Poor, poor Raid,

Quote:
Originally Posted by raid View Post
Who can give me a solid definition on "lazy eye" and on "trained eye"?

According to the latest medical studies, the lazy eye loafs along the confines of the viewfinder, hoping to nudge parts of the scene into other areas, but without any real concept of what composition or color correction is. The trained eye however, darts from object to object, slicing across artificial boundries without mercy, only registering things that stand out in its own mind's eye. The trained eye suffers no lazy eye interference, but strives to outdo the other eye at the front of the camera.

How would you separate a lazy eye photographer with a 35mm lens from a lazy eye photographer with a 28mm or 50mm lens?

Oh my, didn't your teachers cover this in grade and middle school? Ask your daughters as I am sure they have already passed all tests on this. They will tell you that actually you don't separate them, you combine them for one all seeing eye. I thought you were a mathematician and understood such things. You have no idea how disappointed I am.

Is there any hope for a lazy eye photographer with a 35mm lens to ever "upgrade" and become a trained eye photographer with a 35mm lens or has it been already shown online that such a move is impossible?

Since per above, they are to be combined rather than a silly 'upgrade,' the question is meaningless. I'm surprised at you and others who think like you, and try to confuse the truely religiously viewfinder gifted. Have you no shame sir?!

These are such important questions on existence and life that RFF must address them here and now.

That at least is true!!!!

The other question is whether a photographer using a 100mm lens is a "super trained eye photographer" or whether any focal length above 50mm throws you back into the slums of lazy eye photographers?

There have been doctors who claimed to have conducted studies to prove what you have just said. However, beware! as most conventional medical wisdom believes them charlatans, and holds to the ancient empirical belief that the phenominum only occurs at 135mm and (to infinity and) beyond.

I am so happy that I favor using 50mm lenses over 35mm lenses because now I finally know that I am an elite photographer with one trained eye ... I think.

Ah, only those who have undergone rigorous testing with 50mm, and conquered themselves first, are comfortable with the 50mm. All others struggle with 35mm and 85mm lenses. After all, you are to be congratulated sir!
__________________
My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-20-2013   #99
benlees
Registered User
 
benlees is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Edmonton, AB
Age: 48
Posts: 1,631
Only on RFF could a thread like this end up like this! To all those involved: get a zoom!
__________________
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2013   #100
user237428934
User deletion pending
 
user237428934 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by benlees View Post
Only on RFF could a thread like this end up like this! To all those involved: get a zoom!
Zoom is the right choice for the trained eye with the lazy foot. But only if the zoom contains 35mm.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2013   #101
skahde
V for Victory!
 
skahde's Avatar
 
skahde is offline
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 75
It took me very long to realize that 35mm for me is neither fish nor fowl. To short to pick details or people, to narrow to work in tight environments, not wide enough to work with a little dramatic perspective. With 28/50mm I can do all of this and more.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-05-2013   #102
Dacnard
Life witness
 
Dacnard's Avatar
 
Dacnard is offline
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 52
35mm for me as it feels wide enough in my 0.85 camera. To use an external viewfinder I would like to go wider than 28, maybe a 21.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-06-2013   #103
gho
Registered User
 
gho's Avatar
 
gho is offline
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Berlin
Age: 47
Posts: 794
I voted 28 mm because I also like 50. It is a nicely separated combo between stepped back and close in.
__________________
Georg
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-06-2013   #104
lxmike
Barnack fan
 
lxmike's Avatar
 
lxmike is offline
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Co Durham NE England
Age: 54
Posts: 3,332
My first wide lens back in 1983 was a Sigma, (PK fit), 28mm 2.8 miniwide, and thus I tended, from then on, to always lean towards 28mm for my SLR, however for compact I relied on a XA with 35mm lens, I still like the angle given from a 28mm, I think though I am probably wrong its about 74 degrees of view
__________________
Currently loaded: Leica MDa, IIIg, R5 and Bronica ERTS.

Digital in use: Fuji X Pro 1, XE 1, X100

Glass currently in regular use: Voigtlander 15mm 4.5 Helliar, Summaron 35mm 3.5, Canon 50mm 1.5 LTM, Vario-Elmar 35-70mm 3.5, Fuji 18mm 2, Fuji 35/1.4

Soon to arrive: Leica R Motor Drive and Grip.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-07-2013   #105
nikkor-watching
Registered User
 
nikkor-watching is offline
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 98
Surprised to see so many votes for the 35mm. A digital forum would go for the 28mm, no question. 35mm is all very well for an integrated rangefinder lens, but this fella has an interchangeable 50mm as well... I'd go for a 24mm as well. In fact, I did.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-07-2013   #106
Mcary
Registered User
 
Mcary is offline
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Virginia USA
Age: 58
Posts: 1,789
When I re bought the M8 I decided to go with/try 28mm rather then going with a 35mm which is what I what used last time around as well as what I'd used with the M6. I'm still getting use to the difference so can't really say whither I'll stick with it or go back to the 35mm.
__________________
M. Cary
Trying to see something new whither I'm visiting someplace new or a place that I've visited many a time before.


  Reply With Quote

Old 04-07-2013   #107
Ron (Netherlands)
Registered User
 
Ron (Netherlands)'s Avatar
 
Ron (Netherlands) is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 1,920
Rather like the combo 25mm 35mm and 50mm
__________________
__________________
When day is done......

Leica: IIa synch conversion, IIIb, M6 TTL Millenium, 2x Rolleicord Vb, 2x Rolleiflex 3.5F white face, Rolleiflex 2.8A, 5x ICA Tropica

My Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-10-2013   #108
kingqueenknave
Registered User
 
kingqueenknave is offline
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 285
I voted 35mm, but really it's both. I primarily use 35mm for color and 28mm for B&W.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-10-2013   #109
noisycheese
Normal(ish) Human
 
noisycheese is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,290
28mm for me. not that there's anything wrong with a 35mm lens, though.

I must respectfully disagree with the claim that a 28 is not a street photography lens. My 28 works just fine for street photography.
Winogrand seemed to think the 28 worked for street shooting, too.
__________________
The Leica M passion: From the inside it's hard to explain; from the outside it's hard to understand.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-11-2013   #110
Dirk
Privatier
 
Dirk's Avatar
 
Dirk is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,704
I use the 28/50 combo for about 90% of my photography, which is mostly street. Somehow, 35 doesn't do it for me on SLRs. Rangefinders is another issue. And as many others have already pointed out, 35/50 is too close. The 28 gives me a wideangle effect that's good for street photography, but not wide enough to look wide-anglish.
__________________
Ricoh 500G, Canon 5D, Nikon N70, Canon Elan 7e.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-11-2013   #111
Monochrom
Registered User
 
Monochrom's Avatar
 
Monochrom is offline
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,055
Hi, canīt say for sure....

But i use the 28 a lot during my city walks, also y carry the 50mm lens...

When traveling light out of the city itīs better a 35mm lens...

that makes me think why VC doesnīt have a tri-elmar or so...it would be very nice to combine 28-35-50 but withut the price tag of the tri elmar...
__________________
M9 Vc 28/3.5 Ltm 5/3.5
Leica IIIF Black Paint
Fuji Gf670
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-11-2013   #112
huddy
Registered User
 
huddy is offline
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monochrom View Post
Hi, canīt say for sure....

But i use the 28 a lot during my city walks, also y carry the 50mm lens...

When traveling light out of the city itīs better a 35mm lens...

that makes me think why VC doesnīt have a tri-elmar or so...it would be very nice to combine 28-35-50 but withut the price tag of the tri elmar...
A voigtlander version of the tri-elmar would be a very intriguing lens.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-11-2013   #113
thirtyfivefifty
Noctilust survivor
 
thirtyfivefifty is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: 대한민국
Posts: 278
I'm a 35/50 guy, 35 is definitely the one I pick up if I want to carry only one lens. I prefer 28mm for landscape and that's pretty much it. 50 is my artistic, editorial lens.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-11-2013   #114
andrewteee
Registered User
 
andrewteee is offline
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 135
I prefer 28 and 50. I also prefer fixed lens compact cameras. For 28mm there is the Ricoh GRD or GXR/A12, the Nikon A and the Sigma DP1M. I have the two Ricohs and the Nikon. But as far as 50mm goes, the only fixed lens camera is the GXR A12. There are no other options. For such a classic focal length I have to wonder why there are not any other fixed lens 50mm cameras.

Nonetheless, I could probably live with just a 28mm camera.
__________________
Obsessed with photography . Blog . Flickr . Zenfolio
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-12-2013   #115
Landshark
Registered User
 
Landshark is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Montgomery, Il
Posts: 547
20, 24, 28 & 50 & the 50 is my least used. Get the feeling I tend to see wide?
IMO the 35 is not a dramatic enough difference in a print. If you want environmental portraits It will allow more background. Think something like shoe maker, flea market, small shop etc.
Until you get pretty close(<4-5ft) there's not much distortion either.
__________________
Heavily sedated for your protection!
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-10-2013   #116
music_healing
Registered User
 
music_healing is offline
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,247
I myself really enjoy 28 - 50 - 75 mm

some my fave shots are all in those 3 FL esp 28 mm

I really really try to learn in 35
but so far its not really working yet.. dunno why
maybe because I start from Ricoh GR

Sincerely
William
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-11-2013   #117
sojournerphoto
Registered User
 
sojournerphoto is offline
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by redisburning View Post
I think 35mm is my ideal wide angle. Any wider without going into UWA and I don't like it. I realize 50 and 35 are close, but since I like this focal range the best the additional fine grain that I can distinguish helps.

Unfortunately I have not found an SLR 35mm I really like. The stinkin distagon is HUGE.

I'm about to sell my 2/35 distagon as I don't have an slr now, but it never felt that big on a 1Ds3 and it's a really great lens.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-11-2013   #118
sojournerphoto
Registered User
 
sojournerphoto is offline
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,639
To the OP

28/50 is nice, though I tend to go out with just a 50 or just a 35...
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-11-2013   #119
nemo2
Registered User
 
nemo2 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 60
28 is great on APS-C...
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-11-2013   #120
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by skahde View Post
It took me very long to realize that 35mm for me is neither fish nor fowl. To short to pick details or people, to narrow to work in tight environments, not wide enough to work with a little dramatic perspective. With 28/50mm I can do all of this and more.
Whereas I realized quite quickly that a 28mm is neither fish nor fowl: neither a 'wide standard' like a 35mm, nor a true wide angle like a 21mm.

Cheers,

R.
  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 00:07.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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.