28mm vs 35mm for streets--your preference?

Mind sharing when/why you decide to use a 28 over a 35 or vice versa

for streets?

 

I'm considering going a little wider to 28mm on my M4P. How's the VC

28/1.9 doing and costing these days? Good choice you think?

 

thanks.;0

i got a 28 because the first lens i got was a 50, and i really didn't think there was enough difference between the 35 and the 50 for that to by my next lens. that said i am happy with my 28 'cron. it does everything the 35 can do plus more...i.e. wider angle, but not so wide that distortion is an everpresent effect. travis, given your usual subject material (street shooting) i'm not sure if you will notice a significant difference between the 35 and 28 unless you are planning on shooting more interiors or really tight shots.

What do you mean "for streets"? If you mean the whole pretending-to-be-HCB foolishness, I can't answer except theoretically...that the increased DOF of a 35 and moreso a 28 would be less technique-sensitive than the 50 HCB used.

 

For my use "for streets" which is street scenes, I use a 28 and even sometimes a 21 (but that's very tricky) especially in europe where the streets are often extremely narrow and physically backing up is not an option.

 

The C/V 28 is I'm sure as good as it ever was. My only 28 nowadays is the Tri-Elmar. I sold my Elmarit when I discovered that the extra stop wasn't important.

Personally for me the 28mm is the street lens. You can got more

in the negative, as well as being close to action. I would say that the choice should be between 35 or 50 mm.

Travis, thanks for ruining the nearly eight hours with no new threads... : )

 

I have had the CV 28 Ultron for over a year. I've used it and the 35 Leica 'cron ASPH a lot. I much prefer the 35, not simply for quality of image but for perspective. I have learned over the years that my main lens is the 50. I suppose that's how I see the world most clearly. But I love the 35 because it expands and draws me nearer to the subject. I used to have a 28 Elmarit R that I used with my R5. That moved me closer to subjects, but always left me too far away. Maybe the move to Leica Ms allows more freedom in proximity to subjects. But I tend to like 35 for familiar and 50 for neighbors.

 

If you want to borrow my 28 Ultron, I will send it to you--you pay shipping. But mine is chrome. Might look like Al's CL with a 50 Elmar on it.

I would recommend the 35 over the 28 for a few reasons.

 

First I find it's perspective to be more natural, which can become an issue if you are

shooting people close up (perhaps sitting at a dinner table).

 

People have a certain perimeter, which they consider their personal space.

 

A 50 seems to be just right outside of it, for a good composition. The 35 is just past the

border or just right in a crowded space. With anything wider you definitely are in their

personal space, unless you are on the opposite sides of lets say an elevator. Winogrand

shot with a 28 and judging by some of his shots he must have nearly climbed in to some

of his subjects front pocket. Not sure how the hell he did it, but then again he shot in New

York, back when the world was a very different place.

 

Feli

Hard to pass up that offer Travis...

 

35 will always be my standard, but the 28 is cool, starts giving more of an exaggerated wide angle perspective, background objects get smaller, more depth. I like to experiment with it but so far in general for people on the street it pushes things too far away for me. There are always exceptions to that though.

 

I've actually given some thought to getting rid of all my Leica stuff in favor of just using the Hexar AF- love that camera, has its limitations, but can get the job done for sure.

I prefer 35. It keeps lines straight, there's a lot less distortion, and in my M bodies, with 0.72 magnification the 28mm angle is difficult to control.

 

Besides, I read somewhere that Winogrand shot with a 35mm lens. I may be wrong, but that idea got me into this kind of wide-angle.

 

And 50mm sometimes is waaaay too long a focal lenght.

try 21

i'll spare you the usual and all too predictable "advice" from jay and argue for the 35 -- it's close up but not too far away. hcb for example used a 50mm almost exclusively for his cliches, so the lens length thing is really a personal choice. i use my girfriend's 50 cron on occaision for my aping of his style, but it's not my favorite. you could stand about 3 feet farther away with the 50, which may work for your subject, and certainly you'll get a lot more surreptitous snaps that way on the typical north american urban area, which evidently in the eyes of some floridian gearheads is just a waste of time.<br />

i feel the lens that works the best will give you enough room to frame but enough length so that the details aren't too hard too see in the print is the 35mm. i stand about 8 feet away -- in complete avowal of that stale old style-- and at f8 i get way more than enough DOF as well. true, you could get a lot more DOF if you switch to the 28 at the same distance, perhaps getting you the same at f5.6 with more shutter speed, but i'm not into standing even closer than 8 feet with zone focus. maybe you are. <br />

your m4p's frame lines are pretty much against the window if they're the same as my m6, which if it works for you, great. for me, the 35 frame with the .72 mag is really great, i can imagine the frame brackets framing just by looking at a subject.<br />

finally, i'm not familiar with the vc opton, but i'm sure it's a fine lens. of course you know you should just give up trying to find a better working system RIGHT NOW, you'll never excel over hcb or david douglas duncan or elliot erwitt or ralph gibson or garry winnograd or josef koudelka or andre kertez or brassai or weegee or pretty much any of those stupid street photographers. take pictures of flowers and monuments, they don't move.

<br /><br />

all the best,

<br />

Kenny

I like 35, and would like to try 28 myself. I have a 21mm but its fairly extreme, I just need to use it more. But what I've been using lately is a 24mm on a old FE2 and for some reason, I really like that angle of view. Its very much resonates to the Orange County beach scene I sometimes like to shoot, looks nice sharp and clean, but the perspectives are all a bit warped if you want. I just feel comfy with that and the 35 and 50.

Hey Travis,

 

Get the 28 and get close - from what I've seen of your photos, you'll love it.

I agree with Allen. A 28/50 combo fits your sensibility better. With a 35, I suspect

you'd find yourself wishing for a narrower or wider view! Got the 50 already, now it's

time for the 28. I'm exactly the same.

I have 28, 35 and 50mm lenses. I like the 35 because while being a wide angle lens, pictures look normal. I.e. their wide angle aspect doesn't appear immediately yet you've got that proximity with the subject.

 

In some cases 28mm works really well, but as a single lens to carry around all day, I feel I have more freedom with the 35 as I feel the 28 forces me to do some effort if I don't want my pictures to appear like cheap special effects... Shooting is more natural and "true" with the 35 (to me).

 

And I do want to carry only one lens with me when I go out shooting, that way my mind/eye adapts to the lens and can concentrate on the pictures (if I have more options, my mind spends some cycles on the "which lens to use now?" question ;-)

 

- matt

Heya all.

 

Being in Europe, I'll second Jay's opinion that for photography in a city, the 28mm is adapted.

 

Of course, I prefer the 24mm since the 21mm is rather tricky and I'm not good photog to master it.

 

I've discovered the 35mm to be useful as a all purpose lens, better than the 50mm (for the photography in cities).

 

As for the VC, I guess it is rather good value for money and love the "retro" style it shows.

According to some people the view angles of the 35mm and 50mm should be to close to each other. I don't agree with that opinion because 35mm covers twice the area of a 50mm lens and the 28mm covers three times the area of the 50mm.<BR><BR>

 

It is a matter of personal taste and depends on how much lenses you are willing to buy in the near future. If you want only two lenses buy the 28mm Summicron or Elmarit, the 28-50mm is the classic combo. <BR><BR>

 

If you like WIDE and have plans to buy a 21 or 24mm later, buy the 35mm Summicron or Summilux.<BR><BR>

 

<TD><IMG alt="" border=0 src="http://www.Informare.nl/Images/28-50mm lensset.jpg"></TD>

<TD><IMG alt="" border=0 src="http://www.Informare.nl/Images/35-50mm lensset.jpg"></TD><BR><BR>

 

lens specs. <BR>

<u>focal length     

hor. view angle  

vert. view angle     

% area </u><BR>

       

28 mm         -         

65.5         -         

46.4         -         319% <BR>

       

35 mm         -         

54.4         -         

37.9         -         204% <BR>

       

50 mm         -         

39.6         -         

27.0         -         100%<BR><BR>

I prefer a 35 as my standard lens - it seems to capture the whole scene, while

still feeling natural. I bought a VC 25mm most for for buildings, tight streets or

landscapes, but I was amazed how well it works for people when you get in

really close, and I've started taking it out now and then as my only lens.

Compositionally it looks fantastic, thought I don't like the look of the lens

anything like as much as, say, the 40 Summicron C, don't know whether it's

that 3-D thing (!) or merely the fact that the extreme depth of field which you

invariably get isn't always what I want. The 28/1.9 would be better in this

respect, as it's rangefinder coupled, and actually being able to get that really

shallow depth of field, with a slightly distorted perspective, could be a great

look. But I think you might find the difference vs the 35 is less dramatic than

you'd expect.

The techical guys here must be hot. They've worked out how to render this

thread in wide angle...

I guess I'm going the opposite direction. Sometimes I shoot with a 50, but more often I find myself using the 90 for those "up close and personal" shots. I like featuring the more intimate details of our lives. OTOH, I could start using my 28 again tomorrow! Just my dos centavos.

why is this thread in 21mm view? and wide opened?

This thread looks like a fax that got ****ed!

 

I really dislike the term "street" photography but I know what you mean. I like a 50mm and a 35mm, each mounted on its own dedicated camera. That's pretty much my normal walking around outfit. If I'm crowded and don't have room to move around much, I like a 21mm. That's my preference these days. When I covered people-events for a newspaper, my standard lens was a 24mm.

 

It's whatever works for you. You seem to be doing well with your current outfit.

The 28mm will give you a slightly more 'intimate' look. An experienced street

shooter will do well with a 28mm. If you haven't tried it you should. I believe

you'll really enjoy the 'look'.

 

BTW, (not to start the great debate) but....my memory is that Winogrand shot

the 28mm. Most of the later street stuff has that 'wide-feel' to it. Very intimate

and in your face. You feel like you're on the street with him. Look at some

early William Klein stuff. His street stuff is amazing. He seemed to shoot with

either a 21mm or a 500 mirror. His 'city' books are incredible if you ever get a

chance to see one. I found "Tokyo" buried in the Travel section of a used

bookstore in San Francisco one time. Ten bucks or so. (Probably costs more

now.)

I hate 50mm... theyre just a focal lenght that has never worked for me and Ive tried - I

have a CV Nokton thats been doing nothing for a couple of years now.

 

I use to think my "normal" lens was a 28mm until last year I bought a 35 Asph Lux and fell

in love with it - I find it perfect for most shots. As a complement, I tossed up between the

75 Lux and the 90 SAA and eventually bought the 90 SAA as I decided that, given the

range from the subject at which I normally shoot, the difference in coveage beween a

35mm and a 75mm is very easily covered in a few steps forward or backwards, whereas

the 90 gives a touch more reach.

 

I also have the CV 28 f/3.5 and 21 and, although there are exceptions, I most frequently

use these lenses on a Bessa T without a viewfinder attached as a shoot from the hip or

boot camera when Im trying to be *very* close to a subject yet un-noticed.

 

regards

Craig / Beijing<div></div>

<<mr. kenny , jul 22, 2004; 01:11 a.m.

i'll spare you the usual and all too predictable "advice" from jay >>

 

What a coincidence, my wife's hairdresser calls himself "Mr. Kenny" too, and he also pouts and mouths off like a spoiled 12 yr old girl if someone challenges his fantasies of being a "grande artiste".

Hey careful with the casual put-downs of hairdressers. These days they seem

to make more money than dentists or publishing types. You wouldn't let your

wife attend a sub-standard establishment, would you?