28mm vs 35mm

28mm vs 35mm

  • 28mm

    Votes: 147 43.8%

  • 35mm

    Votes: 189 56.3%
  • Total voters
    336
j j said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amblyopia

Unfortunately they don't have a page for smart arse.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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
 
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:...
 
Roger Hicks said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
upceci said:
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:...
Click to expand...

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.
 
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. :)
 
j j said:
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.
Click to expand...
Highlight 1: Same here. No offence whatsoever taken at your fair and reasonable reply.

Highlight 2: Same here!

Cheers,

R.
 
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.
 
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 ?

:confused:
 
jsrockit said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
upceci said:
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.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that everyone will use a 50mm lens the same exact way? How can that even be possible?
 
Poor, poor Raid,

raid said:
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!
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top