28 f1.8 or 35 f1.8 for street photography?

<p>I'd like to buy a lens for street photography, either the 28 or 35, is one more advantageous over the other? In the past I've borrowed a 50 f1.8D and often wished it were a little bit wider. I know the 28 is wide, is it to wide? How wide is the 35 compared to the 50? TIA for your comments.</p>

<p>Look here, scroll down the page and there are example comparative photographs to help you decide; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_of_view</p>

<p>I think we might need to know whether you're DX or FX? </p>

<p>The FOV difference is HUGE at the 'wide end' of things.</p>

<p>Which format?<br /> Anyway, How much wide is the 35 compared to the 50? Check the 50 frame, and add a 40% (aprox.) more horizontally and vertically. For the 28, add a 75% (aprox.) to what you see using a 50mm lens. (Hope not to be wrong!).<br /> Personally, either the 28 or 35 will work (on full format). Usually, 35mm lenses seem more interesting to me, they use to be faster and/or smaller, and why not, cheaper. It`s up to your taste, the 28 will let you to get closer and into smaller spaces, the 35 will provide a more "natural" look, a bit more flattering, maybe with less linear perspective issues. The 50 certainly could be a bit long for street shooting, though.</p>

<p>The more (or less!!) helpful answer is borrow a 24-70mm zoom and have an actual look.</p>

<p>35mm (on FX) will let you get personal from just that bit further away.</p>

<p>I'd go get a Sigma 35mm 1.4 A and be done with asking....:-)</p>

<p>I like both on FX, and have a hard time deciding which lens to take with me, but I only take one.</p>

<p>Probably the 28mm length is more versatile. If using a good lens (the 1.8 is good) and a high MP body, then the 28 can be cropped to the 35mm FOV with little loss of quality.</p>

<p>You could find a cheap zoom to experiment with the lengths. I sold a 28-85 on the bay for less than $50 recently.</p>

<p>I do agree with Mike, the Sigma 35/1.4 A I have is a very good lens</p>

<p>I prefer the 35mm FOV equivalent on any camera for candid snaps. That's my default setting on my P&S digicams with zooms - when they turn on they default to the 35mm equivalent setting. For quick candid snaps I just bullseye the composition and it usually works out well. With 28mm settings or primes I usually need to crop out extraneous stuff.</p>

<p>I'd have been more interested in the Coolpix A or Ricoh GR if they'd been fitted with f/2 or faster 35mm equivalent lenses rather than the 28mm equivalent (approx. 18mm actual).</p>

<p>I'm still hoping Nikon will make a 14mm f/2 or faster for the 1 System, for a 35mm equivalent. The 18.5mm f/1.8 is a great value, but a bit too long for my preferences for candid snaps. Although I do like the 50mm "normal" lens for more deliberately composed photography.</p>

<p>Depends on whether your camera if DX or FX and how close you like to be to the subject. The first wide angle lens I owned was a 28. It preferred it to a 35 since it was wide enough to get a little bit of "wide angle effect" when I wanted to (putting a subject close to the camera to be prominent in front of a building, etc.) but not so wide that it screamed "wide angle" otherwise. I eventually also had a 35 and found it good for when I simply needed a wide field of view but without the "wide angle look."</p>

<p>If I recall well, you have a D800, so assuming you talk full frame....<br>

It's mostly a matter of personal preference. I never "connected" much with 28mm - it's too wide to look normal, but not wide enough to look wide. A lot of people disagree. For me, a 35mm is pretty much a must-have (as is a 50mm - I do not see these two as mutually exclusive, again a lot of people disagree). But trying with a zoom will probably give you better the answer valid for you.<br>

As for the 35mm f/1.8, first bits and pieces of review look really good, but it's a quite expensive lens still; the Sigma all praise is a bit too close in price in my view. I'd go for the Sigma (if I'd be interested in a AF 35mm lens with this type of rendering).</p>

<p>The nominal focal lengths of a zoom as indicated on the barrel are rarely a match for fixed focal length lenses of those focal lengths so I don't see how using a zoom could help answer this question. Zooms tend to change focal length when focused close, but also at infinity the markings probably are not very accurate.</p>

<p>For FX I like both 28mm and 35mm; if you have a 50mm, I would pick the 28mm to go with it; 28/50/85 is a very nice set, whereas 35mm pairs well with 85mm for a two-lens set. Most of the time I use 35mm + 85mm myself when I shoot with primes; occasionally 24mm + 58mm when shooting indoors, or when combining the primes with the 70-200mm.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>so I don't see how using a zoom could help answer this question</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>The OP is into street photography, not that a lens barrel marking for 28mm might actually be 29.1mm at 2m and, shock horror, 26.4mm at infinity. Simply 28mm or 35mm? It's not copystand framing of perfect rectangles, it's the street they're shooting..:-)</p>

<p>The markings on primes are not exactly guaranteed either!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I know the 28 is wide, is it to wide? How wide is the 35 compared to the 50?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The wider it is, the closer you have to be with your subjects. If you are shy, go with a longer lens … :)</p>

<p>When I shot 35mm film my standard lens was 24 or 28mm. I found those to be the most versatile for general use. For portraits I would use my 105mm. The 50 didn't get as much use once I got the other two. These days I would prefer a good zoom! Unless you really want the backgrounds really soft, I don't think you need a super large aperture for most uses. Modern digital cameras can shoot comfortably at 3200 iso in low light. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>if you have a 50mm, I would pick the 28mm to go with it; 28/50/85 is a very nice set, whereas 35mm pairs well with 85mm for a two-lens set.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>yup. i almost never use the 50 anymore since i got the sigma 35/1.4. but in general, splitting the focal length between two (or three) primes is an effective method.</p>

<p>back to the original question, there's no real advantage of 28 or 35. depends on preference. 35 is perhaps a bit more of an all-arounder as a focal length, but many people like 28 too. obviously, the wider you go, the more care you have to apply in composing. but cropping 28 to 35 is easy-peezy, especially on a d800.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"28 f1.8 or 35 f1.8 for street photography?"<br>

"... 28 or 35, is one more advantageous over the other?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Either works on an FX body for street photography. Which is more advantageous depends on your shooting style and your personal preferrence.<br>

<br />On a full-frame (35mm equivalent) body, I have used 24, 35, 40, 45, and 50mm lenses for street photography. However, the 35mm is my personal favorite.<br>

<br /> </div>