Forest_rain
Well-known
I'm trying to stop myself from buying stuff that I don't need, I currently have a 50mm and 135mm prime for my current camera.
Usually going on forums causes me to buy more stuff, but I've been reading comments on how the trio of 28m, 50mm, and 135mm is a "classic" combo.
I have a 35mm and 40mm (equivalent) for my digital camera, and I'm actually not that fond of those lengths. I prefer the 50mm and it looks more "interesting" to me. Looking at pictures the 28mm focal length looks like it has some "character" compared to the more "normal" 35mm focal length, but of course the photographer makes a big difference.
However I want to get into doing more landscape photography, and maybe trying street photography with a challenging focal length, and I've never used 28mm or wider. I've tried a friend's 19mm and it was just TOO wide for me. 20mm and 24mm look pretty pricey, anywhere between $100-$300, so it's out of the question.
The other option would be to get a Tamron Adaptall 28-200 for cheap and be able to use it across all my cameras, but I'm not sure about the quality of this lens.
I've read of some people using 28mm - and ONLY 28mm, excluding all other lengths.
Someone please stop me, or encourage me, I'm on the fence on this choice.
Usually going on forums causes me to buy more stuff, but I've been reading comments on how the trio of 28m, 50mm, and 135mm is a "classic" combo.
I have a 35mm and 40mm (equivalent) for my digital camera, and I'm actually not that fond of those lengths. I prefer the 50mm and it looks more "interesting" to me. Looking at pictures the 28mm focal length looks like it has some "character" compared to the more "normal" 35mm focal length, but of course the photographer makes a big difference.
However I want to get into doing more landscape photography, and maybe trying street photography with a challenging focal length, and I've never used 28mm or wider. I've tried a friend's 19mm and it was just TOO wide for me. 20mm and 24mm look pretty pricey, anywhere between $100-$300, so it's out of the question.
The other option would be to get a Tamron Adaptall 28-200 for cheap and be able to use it across all my cameras, but I'm not sure about the quality of this lens.
I've read of some people using 28mm - and ONLY 28mm, excluding all other lengths.
Someone please stop me, or encourage me, I'm on the fence on this choice.
Bill Blackwell
Leica M Shooter
What system(s) are you using? Which [system] would the 28 be for? And what is your budget?
Huss
Mentor
Get the 28, don't get a cheap old 28-200. It's big and not good anywhere.
I love 28mm lenses. Some of my favorite cameras have it as the only lens - Fuji Work Project, Nikon LiteTouch 600 AF. I pretty much use my Rollei QZ35W only on the 28mm setting.
Also have no probs carrying a Leica M with only a 28mm lens - Asph Elmarit, 7A 1.4 or Orion 15.
I love 28mm lenses. Some of my favorite cameras have it as the only lens - Fuji Work Project, Nikon LiteTouch 600 AF. I pretty much use my Rollei QZ35W only on the 28mm setting.
Also have no probs carrying a Leica M with only a 28mm lens - Asph Elmarit, 7A 1.4 or Orion 15.
ktmrider
Well-known
Years ago, I never got on with the 35 as it seemed neither fish nor fowl. I used to shoot professionally with two Nikon F's with either a 24 or 85. Now it is my favorite focal length.
I never really got on with 28's but I understand it is the standard FOV in cel phones. I have more M mount lenses then I should but only carry the 35/90 combo or the 50 only. However, I have wider available if needed.
A couple years ago I walked across England (220 miles) on the C2C trail. Wanting to go as light as possible, all I took was the Fuji X70 and it has a 28 FOV fixed focal length lens. I did not feel I was handicapped at all.
You don't say which system you use or what you shoot but the Ricoh GR2/3 has a fixed 28 FOV and they are not much bigger then a 28 Summicron. Of course, the current crop of cel phones give a 28 FOV and it is already in your kit (probably).
And I had always heard the 35/50/90 was the classic kit which are the frame lines in an M2.
I never really got on with 28's but I understand it is the standard FOV in cel phones. I have more M mount lenses then I should but only carry the 35/90 combo or the 50 only. However, I have wider available if needed.
A couple years ago I walked across England (220 miles) on the C2C trail. Wanting to go as light as possible, all I took was the Fuji X70 and it has a 28 FOV fixed focal length lens. I did not feel I was handicapped at all.
You don't say which system you use or what you shoot but the Ricoh GR2/3 has a fixed 28 FOV and they are not much bigger then a 28 Summicron. Of course, the current crop of cel phones give a 28 FOV and it is already in your kit (probably).
And I had always heard the 35/50/90 was the classic kit which are the frame lines in an M2.
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
I would just point out that 28mm is not a good choice for landscape photography. Distant objects will be TOO distant. Actually, you'll probably find that a short tele, like a 135, brings distant objects close enough to make the image more like what your mind's eye wants to capture.
The 28mm focal length is excellent, but it's really best for where you need to get a lot of things in the picture -- like a building interior, or a group of people in a small space.
The 28mm focal length is excellent, but it's really best for where you need to get a lot of things in the picture -- like a building interior, or a group of people in a small space.
Ricoh
Well-known
I have the 28, 35, 50 and 90 M lenses shared between an M240 and M6.
FoV of each is sufficiently different to justify ownership. The 35 and 28 are particularly attuned to muscle memory focusing using the tab.
FoV of each is sufficiently different to justify ownership. The 35 and 28 are particularly attuned to muscle memory focusing using the tab.
Deardorff38
Mentor
FR, I'd buy the 28mm. Definitely not the zoom. Definitely not the zoom. (is there an echo here?). As BillB asked.... what system are you using? A nikon/canon/pentax 28 is an inexpensive and small lens. Some folks can get by with just a 28.... i could in a pinch, though my 1 lens choice is 35mm. YMMV of course
shimokita
白黒
Depending on the kit, I prefer 28, 50, ~100... if you find the 28 too wide, I suggest a 21mm. Give yourself some time and work with the lens, force yourself to use it in different situations, become comfortable with a wide FL... as the 50 can be more interesting that a 35, the 21 is more interesting than the 28...
Timmyjoe
Mentor
For a two lens set up (in 35mm cameras) I'm a big fan of the 28mm and 85mm.
Best,
-Tim
Best,
-Tim
CMur12
Well-known
In my most subjective opinion, a 35mm lens feels like a normal lens with more coverage. A 28mm lens is the first focal length that feels "wide." As you've undoubtedly noted, some people like the 28mm focal length and some don't. That's true with all lenses, so it depends on what works for you.
I shoot mostly landscapes and my favorite two focal lengths are 85mm (my "normal") and 28mm (my wide). I do 90% of my shooting with these two lenses, even though I have primes in all focal lengths between 28mm and 200mm.
For my purposes, a 28mm lens is wonderful. It's a common focal length and tends to go for a good price, if you stick to f2.8 or f3.5. It might be worth a try.
- Murray
I shoot mostly landscapes and my favorite two focal lengths are 85mm (my "normal") and 28mm (my wide). I do 90% of my shooting with these two lenses, even though I have primes in all focal lengths between 28mm and 200mm.
For my purposes, a 28mm lens is wonderful. It's a common focal length and tends to go for a good price, if you stick to f2.8 or f3.5. It might be worth a try.
- Murray
Forest_rain
Well-known
Wow. I came in with GAS and everyone says go with the 28mm ;p I guess I'll have to purchase it with the resounding yes...they are pretty cheap anyway.
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
Don't just get any 28mm lens though. You haven't said what system you're shooting with.
If you want to check out what can be done with a wide lens, look at the work of photographers who used them. Winogrand, and Jeanloup Seiff are the first who come to mind.
Agreed that the 28mm is too wide for landscapes. I don't think a landscape should really ever be shot with anything wider than a normal, otherwise, you get some interesting foreground, a bunch of tiny distant stuff, and a lot of sky. This can work if you're in a big city and you like vertical cityscapes. If you're in the southwest, it's not so good. Since you're in Hawaii, I'm willing to bet it's similar to the southwest, lots of sky, some mountains with trees, and the foreground. A short telephoto will really allow you to get in to the abstract light and shadow shapes you get in a mountainous area.
You could also take that money for the 28mm and spend it all on film. Buying gear will never make you a better photographer, but it can allow you a different point of view. The best thing to do with a 28mm or wider lens is to get in a person's face and shoot them in their environment.
Phil Forrest
If you want to check out what can be done with a wide lens, look at the work of photographers who used them. Winogrand, and Jeanloup Seiff are the first who come to mind.
Agreed that the 28mm is too wide for landscapes. I don't think a landscape should really ever be shot with anything wider than a normal, otherwise, you get some interesting foreground, a bunch of tiny distant stuff, and a lot of sky. This can work if you're in a big city and you like vertical cityscapes. If you're in the southwest, it's not so good. Since you're in Hawaii, I'm willing to bet it's similar to the southwest, lots of sky, some mountains with trees, and the foreground. A short telephoto will really allow you to get in to the abstract light and shadow shapes you get in a mountainous area.
You could also take that money for the 28mm and spend it all on film. Buying gear will never make you a better photographer, but it can allow you a different point of view. The best thing to do with a 28mm or wider lens is to get in a person's face and shoot them in their environment.
Phil Forrest
oftheherd
Mentor
I don't consider the 35mm lens as wide but many do and that's OK. I don't think a lens is wide (in 35mm cameras) until at least 28mm. When I first decided I needed more that the 50mm lens, I stumbled across a 28mm and 135mm kit. It didn't take long to begin to like the 28mm.
I soon realized I see wide better than long. 135mm is generally long enough for me. But I have 28mm, 24mm, and 18mm. Oh, I have a couple of 35mm lenses, but as mentioned above, they don't seem wide enough to be called wide, and so close to 50mm to almost be normal.
I would suggest getting a 28mm and see how you like it. If you find like me and some others, that you see wide more than long, look for more wides. If not, then get a short tele like a 100mm or 135mm and see where that takes you.
Good luck in your choice.
I soon realized I see wide better than long. 135mm is generally long enough for me. But I have 28mm, 24mm, and 18mm. Oh, I have a couple of 35mm lenses, but as mentioned above, they don't seem wide enough to be called wide, and so close to 50mm to almost be normal.
I would suggest getting a 28mm and see how you like it. If you find like me and some others, that you see wide more than long, look for more wides. If not, then get a short tele like a 100mm or 135mm and see where that takes you.
Good luck in your choice.
Ccoppola82
Well-known
I find 28 my most difficult focal length but I also tend to like the results the best. I'm 28/50 most times or 35mm when I don't want to carry an extra lens
Archiver
Mentor
I shoot a lot of landscapes at 28mm or 24mm, and your 50 and 135 already give you some nice compression of distance. The Tamron 28-200 would be a fun way to find out if you like the 28mm focal length without giving up 50 and 135, albeit at smaller apertures than you're probably used to. You could even resell the Tamron if you didn't like it. This article makes a good case for the Tamron:
https://digital-photography-school.com/oldie-goodie-tamron-28-200mm-lens-favorite/
28 is one of my preferred focal lengths because it enables me to capture context as well as subject. My preference for general photography is capturing what I see, so a wide lens suits me in that regard. My everyday pocket camera is the Sony RX0 with a 24mm equivalent lens, and I've carried the Ricoh GRD III and GR, and the Panasonic LX10, all with 28mm or 24mm wide ends.
Forest_rain
Well-known
I'm using a Praktica BMS, so Praktica PB mount. I was thinking of getting the Prakticar 28mm 2.8. Seems like it's pretty good, but I also have an M42 adapter, and the only other adapter I can find is a Tamron Adaptall 2 adapter.
Budget would be max $100 for a 28mm, preferably less.
Let me know if you have any other suggestions.
Budget would be max $100 for a 28mm, preferably less.
Let me know if you have any other suggestions.
Scrambler
Well-known
The "true" normal lens for a 35mm camera is a 45mm (actually, 43mm, but who ever made one of those?)
A 35mm is, IMHO, right on the border between a normal lens and a moderate wide.
At the other end, a 52 or 53mm lens is right on the border of a mild tele lens.
A 28mm or a 65mm are staking their claims in the middle of the next tier.
A 21mm and 85mm are into the more clear zone - both about equally distant from the midzone, clearly wide and clearly long.
For my Leica I have 21, 35, 50(=52 for Leica) and 85. The 21 is still wide on a crop sensor, while 28mm is normal, if swapping lenses around makes a difference for you.
On SLR systems, I have nothing wider than a 28. It just starts to get expensive. My SLR setups are cheapsters.
So what does that mean for you? Should you get a 28mm?
You know you don't like 35mm. And you know you DO like 50mm.
I'd be inclined to suggest what has aleady been said - try a 20/ 21mm (or a 24mm if that's easier to get for your system). It is enough of a move from 35mm to be something different. If a 35 is a wide 50, a 28 is just a wide 35.
A 35mm is, IMHO, right on the border between a normal lens and a moderate wide.
At the other end, a 52 or 53mm lens is right on the border of a mild tele lens.
A 28mm or a 65mm are staking their claims in the middle of the next tier.
A 21mm and 85mm are into the more clear zone - both about equally distant from the midzone, clearly wide and clearly long.
For my Leica I have 21, 35, 50(=52 for Leica) and 85. The 21 is still wide on a crop sensor, while 28mm is normal, if swapping lenses around makes a difference for you.
On SLR systems, I have nothing wider than a 28. It just starts to get expensive. My SLR setups are cheapsters.
So what does that mean for you? Should you get a 28mm?
You know you don't like 35mm. And you know you DO like 50mm.
I'd be inclined to suggest what has aleady been said - try a 20/ 21mm (or a 24mm if that's easier to get for your system). It is enough of a move from 35mm to be something different. If a 35 is a wide 50, a 28 is just a wide 35.
Scrambler
Well-known
Just read your last. Consider an Adaptall wide. You can get them at reasonable prices. The 24mm f2.5 is generally said to be ok though never pin-sharp.
santino
FSU gear head
The 28 Prakticar is ok. Allegedly those made in Romania are made to lower quality standards. In M42 you could get japanese lenses and use an adapter.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hmmmm, welll, I dunno...
I would not say "classic" but the current fashion being pushed here, there and everywhere.
And, you are asking if you should and I think that if you have to ask then you shouldn't. The time to buy one is when you realise that you need one because you keep finding your current set up is restricting you.
As for other people using 28mm and nothing else, so what. You already have and use other lenses and haven't thought you ought to throw them away or have you? And how do you do a portrait with 28mm without silly distortions coming in to it? How do you pick out a detail with 28mm or a picture for ebay; meaning close up, without all the clutter in the kitchen spoiling it by getting in the picture.
My advice is to spend your surplus cash on film, or save for a Leica M2, M4 or M6 and some lenses.
Or, look for a few books on photography and read them. There's millions of classic books on photography and you will be learning from the masters; not from forum users trying to share the guilt. That's what the "G" in "GAS" really stands for.
As for classic lens outfits, do a search and you'll find so many that you won't believe it. Some will say 35 and 90, others 21 and 35 and so on. Look in film camera catalogues and you'll find the classic set up being pushed is unwieldy, heavy and very expensive and so on. They all have an axe to grind.
There's an exception and that's from Leica who used to say that you could save money and weight by buying the f/2.8 lenses and they made excellent f/3.5 lenses for landscapes. Probably as few people do landscape photography at night. Their classic pair was the 35 and 90mm, btw. (Until the CL when it was the 40 and 90.)
Lastly, don't believe what you read on forums as the problem with the internet is that anyone can and usually does join in with their 2d worth. Ask yourself, do you really want to join the disinfectant drinkers? Use your experience of photography to guide your purchases.
Regards, David
I would not say "classic" but the current fashion being pushed here, there and everywhere.
And, you are asking if you should and I think that if you have to ask then you shouldn't. The time to buy one is when you realise that you need one because you keep finding your current set up is restricting you.
As for other people using 28mm and nothing else, so what. You already have and use other lenses and haven't thought you ought to throw them away or have you? And how do you do a portrait with 28mm without silly distortions coming in to it? How do you pick out a detail with 28mm or a picture for ebay; meaning close up, without all the clutter in the kitchen spoiling it by getting in the picture.
My advice is to spend your surplus cash on film, or save for a Leica M2, M4 or M6 and some lenses.
Or, look for a few books on photography and read them. There's millions of classic books on photography and you will be learning from the masters; not from forum users trying to share the guilt. That's what the "G" in "GAS" really stands for.
As for classic lens outfits, do a search and you'll find so many that you won't believe it. Some will say 35 and 90, others 21 and 35 and so on. Look in film camera catalogues and you'll find the classic set up being pushed is unwieldy, heavy and very expensive and so on. They all have an axe to grind.
There's an exception and that's from Leica who used to say that you could save money and weight by buying the f/2.8 lenses and they made excellent f/3.5 lenses for landscapes. Probably as few people do landscape photography at night. Their classic pair was the 35 and 90mm, btw. (Until the CL when it was the 40 and 90.)
Lastly, don't believe what you read on forums as the problem with the internet is that anyone can and usually does join in with their 2d worth. Ask yourself, do you really want to join the disinfectant drinkers? Use your experience of photography to guide your purchases.
Regards, David