What is a 28mm lens good for?

After using 4 GR iterations, the 28 is now my favourite next is the 40.....

_R000546-2-Edit-L.jpg


_R000509-2-Edit-L.jpg
 
I like Winogrand's pictures with 28mm lens. To me he was one of the best for how to use it. He wasn't into cropping and I admire his street, candid, landscape work with 28mm as well balanced through entire frame.

But no plans for getting 28mm for RF. I want to keep M4-2 and I don't like external VFs. I have tried external VF several times and it just doesn't feel OK for me.

With 35mm I'm still cutting something from the frame and if getting close it is more difficult to keep the action within the 35mm frame.

With 25 I was getting into opposite, very wide to my two eyes, it was taking extra time to check if everything in the frame is "coordinated". 25mm is like "plowing" instead of "picking".

28 allows me to get close, have what I want in the frame, but without been too wide as 25.
In general to me 28mm feels like 35, but just little bit wider, without huge difference as 25 is.

I like to use 28 end on my 28-75 DSLR lens. Instead of zooming in to 75, I walk close to the object and it gives more environmental picture of the object in focus, while at 75 it is good to completely separate object from reality.
I also have 28mm lens in Konica Off-Road for boat, beach, rain or if I feel lazy to deal with MF and manual exposure of M4-2.
 
Old thread but the best advice is see Winogrand, Gary and Moriyama, Daido.

28 is a difficult lens to use well if you are used to longer focal lengths. I used to shoot one all the time (the CV 28/3.5) and when I was on my game it worked really well. If you are not on your game, you will find yourself with a lot of unused picture space.

I find you really need to fill the frame and mind the corners. If you find yourself always placing thing in the center of the frame, learning to use a 28 will make your photos more complex and interesting. I started using one when I found my compositions with a 35 too static feeling.

2006-51-27-hula_hoop.jpg


2006-56-20-stepping_up.jpg
 
Good for indoors, travel and street. In the case of the latter, you need to be willing to get in closer to people than you think you have to and be ready to handle a lot more going on in the frame I think. I only recently got my first ever 28mm, the venerable Nikkor 28mm f2 Ais which I shoot on an FE2 or FM3A. Love this lens and I love the results. Don't have a 28mm for my M2 as I don't wish to use an external finder. Was told that the very outside metal edge of the viewfinder window on an M2 will sort of work in a pinch for framing a 28 but I have yet to try it.

From the Nikkor on Tri X:

1452049528010


1452049527473


000021Bangkok+Thailand+Street+Photography+Nikon+fm3a+fe2+nikkor+28mm+f2+ais+tri+x+400+Chromacoma+Photography.jpg


1452264713851
 
Most of the posts here sum up my feelings, but there is something else to it as well.

I recently (few months ago) got my first 28, and while I'm not sure that the photos I take with it are my best, it is likely I will own one from here forward. Among the other reasons stated in this thread, I find it a really great "social" lens. You can more easily get indoor shots, two or three people sitting across a table from you, the group of people you are standing and talking with, all without having to noticeably reposition yourself and break the flow of interaction or get too much wide-angle look. I take it out at times when I am not going to be deliberate about taking photos, but because I am trying to always wear a camera. I find it very low-pressure for socializing and other non-photographer activities.
 
Agreed, you can shoot a meal and get everyone in, all around the table without being too obvious or moving back. Socially a very good FL in closer quarters.
 
A Pentax K-3 has an APS sensor and a 28 has an angle of view comparable to 43mm on a 35mm full frame camera. A 35mm 28 mm equivalent on a K-3 would be more or less 18mm.
 
The 28mm Lens

The 28mm Lens

Anthony Harvey said:
When I go out I prefer to use only one body and one fixed lens. I used to use a 28mm and nothing else for some ten years (except for the very occasional 50mm head and shoulders or face-only portrait). Later, with an M4-P I just used the 35mm. At the moment, returning to rangefinders and black and white film from what seems a lifetime with digital bodies and zooms , I'm finding it difficult to decide between the 35 and the 28. One minute it's one, and the next it's the other. But little by little I'm coming to the conclusion that, for me, the 35 is neither one thing nor the other - it's not a 50 or close to it, and it's often not quite wide enough as a wide.

I therefore used the 40mm and found that, for me, it did the job better than the 35 of being a bit wider than a 50; and in addition it came very close to the perspective of the 50 that I wanted for horizontal upper-body portraits. Of course it wasn't wide but I convinced myself that it was wide enough for what I wanted. I used the 40 for a bit but then I tried the Zeiss f2.8 28 and re-discovered all the good things about the 28 that I'd forgotten. So it's back to the 28.

As Memphis says, the secret to the 28 is getting in close, and if you've got a good lens you don't get horrible distortion. His first example proves the point - in a way it doesn't look wide angle at all. Just perfect. To my eyes it could have almost been taken with a 50 from a distance.

So for the time being at least, I just take the ZI and the 28. I must say that so far I feel much happier and am not continuously fretting that perhaps I should have taken the 35 or 50. It puts me back in the happy days when I only had the humble f3.5 28 screw Super-Takumar and a Pentax K1000. That Pentax lens was perfect too cos it gave me no real distortion and allowed me to take the sort of photos exemplified by Memphis's first photo.

(I sometimes think that what I really want is the optically-perfect short zoom, 28-50. But then I remember that I've still got to decide what zoom setting I should use!)

Anthony
Click to expand...
Personally I love and use the 40mm & 28mm focal lengths along with an 85mm. All are F2 lenses. Gotta have that speed........
 
I read here some years ago what I think is not a bad approximation. The 28mm field of view is close to what the world looks like when using both eyes. A 50mm field of view is what the world looks like when using one eye.
 
Jamie Pillers said:
The 28mm field of view is close to what the world looks like when using both eyes.
A 50mm field of view is what the world looks like when using one eye.
Click to expand...


Funny, that is precisely what I have said - only about the 35mm focal length.
Like others I have a tough time making interesting images with a 28mm lens.

Chris
 
Great as part of a three lens kit; others are 50 and 90. Last weekend used a 28 Summicron on an M8 to shoot a library book sale. Not a lens I shoot a lot, but one I would not be without.
 
The 28 is the focal length to which I came last. And now I use it most of the time. It's great for digital as the sky contribution shortens the exposure and ensures you don't blow the highlights. This is with the Monochrom with which at base ISO of 320 you can bring up the shadows remarkably. And this was also shot from chest height so the camera was level, not so easy with a 50 or even a 35 to get everything in. And I like not to cut off feet at the ankles. My travel kit would now be a 50 and a 28 and currently I have two 28s for Leica M and would think of adding one more....

med_U28906I1544316800.SEQ.2.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top