28mm vs 35mm

Anybody shoot with both 28 and 35 mm? Is there a noticeable

difference in perspective, or are they essentially the same?

They are very different. 35mm looks almost normal to me, while 28 definitely looks wide. However, whenever I need a wide angle, 24 always seems right and 28 not quite wide enough.

I agree with Jeff. My usual gear is 90, 35, 20mm, but sometimes 28mm is really needed to close the gap.

Personally, 28mm is my favorite wideangle lens. IMHO, 35mm is not wide enough to give the effect I'm generally seeking when I choose a wideangle. IMHO, the difference between 24mm and 28mm is simply this:

 

A 28mm can be used to give a significant wide angle perspective, or a rather subtle wide view, depending on how it's used and the skill of the user. In my experience, a 24mm lens can't help but show a significant wide angle perspective.

 

My typical kit of primes always includes a 28mm, a 50mm, and a 105mm. If I need a REALLY obvious and even exaggerated wide perspective, I go to a 17mm or 20mm lens as a compliment to these.

As stated above, the difference is significant. Still, if should choose only two wide-angels, I would go for 35+24. Better still is 35+28+21 (which is what I am using) or even 28+21. My 21 sees surprisingly much use, the 35 very little, but this is very individual. The most important aspect is to see the possibilities of the lenses you have.

I do. The difference is very noticeable. 24mm is also noticeably different from 28mm.

I use both but i don't carry them together.

 

35mm is the wide limit of a 'normal view', an 'intimate' normal. It can replace a 50mm, espacially if you add a short tele (up to 105mm). Good for general use.

 

28mm is the only moderate wide focal. I mean : under that, there is an unavoidable 'wide effect' that can be fun if not over-used. With a 28mm, that effect is discrete and not distracting. Great for scenic but a 24mm is better for cityscape.

 

So, yes there is a noticable difference (as there is with 24 or 50mm) but most people won't need to carry both. Instead, they should go 2 'steps' like 24 and 35 or 28 and 50. Many go 24 and 50 but the wider the gap, bigger the risk of facing a subject that neither will cover well (3 steps is a maximum).

 

Of course, there are also zooms but nothing replace a top quality prime to discover if you like the focal or not.

On the normal to wide side, if I carry only one lens, it's a 35mm. If I carry a 50mm, I take the 28mm also. I don't carry the 35mm with the 50mm - too close.

I fully agree with Jeff. My usual kit is 24-35-85-200 (on film).

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

(please don't say "perspective". What you want is angle of view. Perspective is something different.)

<p>

Here're the angles of view for different focal lengths (horizontal, 35mm format):

<p>

<table border=1>

<tr><th>Focal length<th>Angle of view</tr>

<tr><td>35mm<td>54°</tr>

<tr><td>28mm<td>65°</tr>

<tr><td>24mm<td>74°</tr>

</table>

<p>

You see, the difference is significant.

As Michael says, the difference is in angle of view (the angle subtended at the image frame). Perspective depends on where you stand, not which lens you use. I use both 35 and 28 mm on 35mm cameras, and yes, one can tell the difference. There wouldn't be much point in making all these different lenses otherwise, would there?

Not to be a jerk, but I actually used the term "perspective" correctly. I was specifically referring to the types of perspective that could be reasonably achieved with the various lenses, and I mentioned that I liked a 28mm lens because it could achieve an obvious wide perspective OR a much more subtle one, depending on how it was used, and I contrasted it with the exaggerated ultra-wide perspective that was basically unavoidable using a much shorter focal length.

No, they are quite different. 35 mm is a MUST lens that can never be left at home. The next lens in the bag is the 50 mm, thou many poeple thinks they are too close, those two lenses cover more situations than any other couple for me. 28 mm comes as the third lens, but I wish too often that it was a 24 mm instead. I agree that the 35 mm locks "normal" and the 28 mm obvious wide, but a large (A3) print of the 28mm looks almost normal if watched at close distance. Well Douglas, perspective can be far,close,high,low,left or right but in my world, it cant be wide or superwide. Lenses can make you to choose a different perspective for certain objects, but that is another story.

Perspective is a function of both the distance the viewer is from the items in the foreground, as well as the items in the background. As such, it is unavoidably affected by BOTH the distance, AND the angle of view. When the photographer maintains his apparent proximity with respect to a foreground object (by getting closer or further away), when changing viewing angle (in other words, by changing focal lenght) then the same viewer's perspective in unavoidably altered with respect to that foreground object as it relates to other objects in the frame of view. When changing the viewing angle captured in a fixed field, one fundamentally cannot maintain the same visual perspective on different objects that are different distances from the viewer. This is basic physics. I may have used a shorthand to refer to the types of perspective that may naturally be obtained using different focal lenght (and hence, different angle of view) lenses. But what I was referring to WAS the relative perspective differences between foreground items and background items that these different angles of view thus afford. I was referring to the altered perspective that the altered angle of view dictates, NOT the simple angle of view itself.

Douglas, I am not sure what you mean by "fixed field". Lets say that you change lens from a 35mm to 28mm without to move the camera, then everything you capture with the 35mm angle of view will look the same with the 28mm lens, but at a smaller scale. The combined effects of adding information (like more foreground) and smaller scale (enlarging all pictures to the same final size without cropping) gives the impression of a different perspective, but as I know it is not in a qualitative way. There are quite a lot of missunderstanding about how lenses effect perspective, and thats why me and others reacts when we hear something like "lenses have perspective". I am convinced that you know how matters are related to each other.

I meant by fixed field, if you adjust your position such that the MAIN subject takes up the same amount of the fixed 35mm frame, than the perspective is altered between the main subject and the other items in the frame. Assuming that you want the main subject to represent the same portion of the frame, irrespective of the focal length, then the perspective must change. I assume one wouldn't JUST want to use a broader angle of view with a wide angle, while remaining in the same spot, but rather, to alter the composition as well. THAT'S what I meant by the different focal lenght lenses dictating different perspective, and that's the effect I meant to describe.

Douglas, I agree 100% with you. I think its important to be clear that the change in perspective is caused by moving the camera, which often is the most natural and desirable thing to do when you use different focal lengths. However its not always the case, sometimes one just want a wider view. You did a nice description of the 28mm lens in your first respond that indicates what I just told.

I think primes should be carried in about a factor of 1.4 (or squareroot of 2) progression:

 

If starting from 14mm, go to 20mm, then 28mm, then 35mm, 50mm, 70mm, 105mm, etc. Where you start and if one of these lenses shpould be a 24 mm lens etc is debatable, but a step forward/back by around 1.4 seems to well fit all requirements of capture.