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

Although I have lenses down to 24mm focal length, I don't like them that wide for 35mm film. They work with digital in 16:9 aspect ratio but on 3:2 (meaning 35mm film) they show an unnatural amount of sky and ground. The usual response is for people to point them upwards to avoid the floor/mud/grass but that introduces perspective distortion.

My version of the human eyes' view is that it is very wide horizontally but very narrow vertically. And we walk and stand upright which is the equivalent of the camera set up on a tripod with a spirit level to get the film vertical.

So here's my version of how we see things:-

The%20Roaches%20pano%203.jpg


It might be slightly exaggerated but a 24 or 28mm lens on 35mm film would have to be cropped a lot more.

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 don't hate the 28mm focal length, but I agree it's in-between. I wouldn't be happy with a 28 as my widest focal length. But I could live with a 24mm, if that had to be my widest. 24mm and 35mm are essential focal lengths for me.
 
David Hughes said:
Although I have lenses down to 24mm focal length, I don't like them that wide for 35mm film. They work with digital in 16:9 aspect ratio but on 3:2 (meaning 35mm film) they show an unnatural amount of sky and ground. The usual response is for people to point them upwards to avoid the floor/mud/grass but that introduces perspective distortion.

My version of the human eyes' view is that it is very wide horizontally but very narrow vertically. And we walk and stand upright which is the equivalent of the camera set up on a tripod with a spirit level to get the film vertical.

So here's my version of how we see things:-

The%20Roaches%20pano%203.jpg


It might be slightly exaggerated but a 24 or 28mm lens on 35mm film would have to be cropped a lot more.

Regards, David
Click to expand...

Nice shot, David. But I feel that most extreme wide aspect ratio shots suffer from a lack of foreground. I felt that way a lot when I had an XPAN.
 
Rob-F said:
Nice shot, David. But I feel that most extreme wide aspect ratio shots suffer from a lack of foreground. I felt that way a lot when I had an XPAN.
Click to expand...

Thanks, most of my other shots have a little more foreground but we were looking down a valley there with the road cut into the side of the hill.

Shots like that are the best thing about digital, imo. It's a composite of two and both were handheld.

Regards, David
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top