28, 50, 135. Should I buy a 28mm, GAS or useful?

...following on from what David has just said methinks a lot of it is to do with fashion. Fashion in terms of 'gear' and fashion in terms of what people think makes a good picture.

In the old days, which I dimly remember, a second lens would be a 90 to complement a 50 and a 135 was seen as something desirable (I'm thinking Leica here but others will fit the bill).

Now 50 is seen as 'long' by many and the conversation moves to wider and wider lengths.

So...what does the OP want his pictures to look like? What sort of 'style' appeals? What does he want to achieve?

These need answers first.

I'll go and make the tea.
 
Lots of good suggestions F_r.

Over the years my ‘classic’ lens combo changed…

With the Minolta CLE it was 28-40-90mm (obviously); with my SLRs it was 28-50-135mm (though I did have a mad period with the 43-86mm zoom - both versions); M4-P and M6TTL, 35-50-90mm; currently with my X-Pro3 it’s 24-35-50mm (equivalent).

Looking back at my files, the most popular focal lengths I use are pretty much split evenly by 35 and 50mm.
 
Forest_rain said:
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.
Click to expand...

Can't say I ever heard of 28-50-135 being a "classic combo." A lens set that used to be considered proper for a photojournalist is 35-50-90. These days, a wider lens seems to be preferred for the PJ, in order to get a more "you are there" immediacy. A example is the Nikon 20-35mm f/2.8. If you don't like a 35 or 40mm (which to me is a normal lens), I don't know that you will like a 28.

Often the value of a wide angle lens is that it lets you work closer to the subject; and not so much that it lets you "get everything in." Compared to a 35mm or a 50, the 28mm has a way of opening up foreground space.

But since you seem curious about the 28mm, why not just get any decent 28mm prime and see what it does for you.
 
Forest_rain said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm not familiar with Praktica but if you can use M42 lenses, the Pentax 28mm f/3.5 M42 screw mount lenses are very good. I have the Super Multi Coated version and like it a lot. They are fairly common and you should be able to get one in minty condition for less than $100. I bought mine earlier this year from a seller on Pentax Forums for about $75 shipped with the hood (which can go for around $25 on its own). Mine has a few scuffs on the lens barrel but the glass is pristine.

Personally I like 28mm and 35mm about equally. I prefer the 35mm if I'm only bringing one lens (easier than 28mm to shoot portraits without obvious facial distortion), but a 28mm if I'm pairing a wide lens with a 50mm or longer lens.
 
David Hughes said:
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.
Click to expand...


This! You're asking a question that the opinions of others won't help answering for you. Of course if you haven't used a 28, you might have to try one to know more. But you probably have, in your phone.
Anyway, because trying to articulate ones feelings about focal lengths is fun: I love a 28. For me it's the widest FL that I can often avoid very obvious "distortion" (actually just perspective that seems exaggerated) with. And it lends itself to compositions that emphasize the foreground without losing the background. A 50 or longer is the opposite for me, a 35 no mans land in that it emphasizes foreground and background about equally, which makes it harder to handle well, I can't neglect either, but this balance can be valuable. That's all very subjective and dependent on my composition habits and the environments I take photos in, and irrelevant for more two-dimensional compositions.
 
Leica's version of minimum cost...

Leica's version of minimum cost...

I mentioned this in my post above (No 20) and then wondered - as you do at my age - if I'd remembered it correctly. Luckily I had; here's the R4 SLR brochure in front of me and it recommends the R4, the 35mm f/2.8 and the 90mm f/2.8 for "Maximum usefulness at minimum cost... If you want a versatile outfit for landscape, sports and portraiture... and ignore the 50mm focal length."

That would still be a decent outfit today and - I think - Leica will still service them, for a price. Of course the main reason for the R4 imo is the versatile exposure system.

BTW, the 35mm f/3.5 lens I was thinking of was for the M series and is, of course, the Summaron.

Regards, David

PS (Edit) but a two lens system based on the under rated OM-2 versions would be even nicer and there's also the Pentax M series which won't shock you so much when you look at the price of a portraiture lens. I've forgotten what the exposure systems are and am too lazy in this heat to be bothered today: sorry...

But I'll add this:- https://casualphotophile.com/2015/03/22/olympus-om2-om2n-camera-review/
 
Last edited:
Forest_rain said:
"... I currently have a 50mm and 135mm prime for my current camera."

"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."
Click to expand...

When I shoot with my 50mm normal lens and 135mm telephoto lens on my 35mm cameras, I use a 24mm or a 28mm when I need something wider. The 28 is usually lower in price than a comparable 24. The 28 is my preference for landscapes. The 24mm is my preference for everything else.
 
Forest_rain said:
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.
Click to expand...

I received a Tamron 28-200mm lens as a gift from a photographer who was abandoning his film camera for digital. This lens is good for the times when I am shooting in good light and do not want to carry my more expensive and faster 28, 50, and 135mm lenses.
 
Forest_rain said:
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.
Click to expand...

Back in the old days, the 28/50/135 was a very popular lens combination for 35mm SLR and 35mm rangefinder cameras. With these three lenses, I could capture all the images I needed on routine newspaper assignments.


Pentax Spotmatics by Narsuitus, on Flickr
 
David Hughes said:
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
Click to expand...

Ah. Someone with common sense. Rare, and refreshing...

I especially enjoyed the comment about disinfectant drinkers. Down under where I hang out, it's the toilet paper hoarders. Same same.

Seriously, I most heartily agree with everything David wrote.
 
Thanks, I worried about the DD joke as this is the internet and there's millions out there who will take it seriously and start a cult...

But I worried more about other forums stirring up discontent about gear and taking all the fun out of hobbies. So I try and spread the message because people forget that practice makes perfect.

Thanks again, David
 
Deardorff38 said:
FR, I'd buy the 28mm. Definitely not the zoom. Definitely not the zoom. (is there an echo here?).
Click to expand...

I have a couple of 28 primes, but also have a couple of 28 zooms...28-70, and 28-105 (both are Nikkor AF.) They are cheap and quite good performers. Since I don't need speed in a 28, the f/3.5 at 28mm works just fine. Hardly ever shoot them wide open anyway. On some occasions where I don't want to swap lenses, I'll carry these zooms. They aren't as good as primes from a technical perspective, but not every photo junket should be bound for technical perfection; if it were, I'd be shooting medium format. :)

Depending on what system you're shooting you might try one of these zooms or something similar, to see if you like the focal length. One of these was free, came with a body; the other was about $50.

Scrambler said:
The "true" normal lens for a 35mm camera is a 45mm (actually, 43mm, but who ever made one of those?)
Click to expand...

That would be Pentax. 43/1.9
 
Buy the lens you think you like, take a load of pictures and if you don't love them, sell it. If you do sell it then you won't lose a lot and might even make some money in todays market.

Film gear seems to be going up and up in price at the moment, the more you buy the more money you may have in the future. (this statement may be completely false but is what I tell myself when I buy gear)
 
Interesting. What lenses you use is kinda an individual preference so you gotta make your own decision. Everyone will express their opinions but none of us know what you actually might benefit from using.

Concerning the super-duper, do everything, all in one megazooms. We all know they are inferior to shorter zooms and primes but that doesn't mean they can't be used for extraordinary photographs. The last I saw, legendary Jay Maisel was still using the Nikon 28-300mm megazoom as his only lens. He makes pretty good use of it.

My personal opinion (worth exactly what you are paying me for it)? I hate 28mm lenses. I've never liked the focal length. It's a "tween" lens to me--in between a useful 35mm focal length and a perfect wide focal length 24mm. So my suggestion would be to forget the 28mm and jump to a 24mm and be done with it. You'll then have a useful, practical wide angle lens, not a tweener.

That's my opinion on the subject. But...really, I dunno.
 
Interesting that no one has mentioned the 30mm Lydith, that I remember as a very good lens. And they are cheap in the Praktica M42 mount and the PK to M42 adapter is also cheap...


Regards, David
 
Dogman said:
...
My personal opinion (worth exactly what you are paying me for it)? I hate 28mm lenses. I've never liked the focal length. It's a "tween" lens to me--in between a useful 35mm focal length and a perfect wide focal length 24mm. So my suggestion would be to forget the 28mm and jump to a 24mm and be done with it. You'll then have a useful, practical wide angle lens, not a tweener. ...
Click to expand...

I'm just the opposite. I see 35mm and 24mm as useless "'tweens," while 28mm and 21mm are the "good" wides. :cool:

- Murray
 
David Hughes said:
Interesting that no one has mentioned the 30mm Lydith, that I remember as a very good lens. And they are cheap in the Praktica M42 mount and the PK to M42 adapter is also cheap...


Regards, David
Click to expand...


Good point. Pentax also made a 30mm f/2.8 K-mount lens that is reportedly very good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top