Masters of 28mm

<p>Hi everybody,<br>

First time poster, but have been reading from you guys for a while now. Firstly I'd like to thank you all for contributing on this forum with the wealth of information that you have. It's always helped me along. <br>

I've been looking at pictures from famous Magnum photographers like HCB and other great masters but have found that they mainly used a 35mm or 50mm lens. I'm starting to develop an understanding on what makes a good photo for those two focal lengths. What I want to know now is, what makes a good 28mm photo? Who would you recommend studying for that focal length or that 'type' of photo? I've had a browse on flickriver but there aren't really many great ones. For the ones that I do find in searching 28mm summicron however, turns out to be from an M8, which effectively is a 35mm or 37mm photo. Maybe I have just developed an appreciation the aesthetics for those focal lengths? Can someone point me in the right direction?<br>

Wayne</p>

<p>Who? Garry Winogrand.</p>

<p>Jeanloup Sieff - known for his breathtaking 21mm-shots - was a master of the 28mm too.<br>

http://artpages.org.ua/index.php?option=com_datsogallery&Itemid=104&func=viewcategory&catid=36</p>

<p>Constantine Manos</p>

<p>Gary Winogrand.</p>

<p>You have to remember this, for some of the post-WWII era, a 28mm was pretty wide, and usually expensive.</p>

<p>That is also to say that the photographers in question had formed their styles when the 'standard' photo kit would have been an RF with a 35mm or 50mm lens, if they weren't shooting larger format altogether. I don't have good data on how long it took for the switch to SLRs happened, but some pros were using Exaktas and later Praktinas before the game-changing introduction of the Nikon F--not until 1959.</p>

<p>As far as SLRs were concerned, the Angénieux and Flektogon 35mm retrofocus lenses for SLRs only came in in 1950, three years after the founding of Magnum.</p>

<p>Thanks everyone for the suggestions. I did have a look at all your suggestions. What I have come to conclude so far is the approach to 28mm is very different to 50mm. 50mm, commonly known as the normal lens, gives you a flattened perspective, the elements in which photos appears to me more like a 'painting' as HCB would describe. When trying to analyse 28mm photos in that way, it really doesn't make sense to me. It seems like even when you try to go closer to the subject to fill the frame, the end result is much different. The wide angle will often give the photo a 3 dimensional look, as if you were in the midst of what is in the photo. I kind of understand how this would work if parts of the photos in which the foregrounds are used to communicate the context, but what I really don't get is coming so close to a person in street photography. What can be portrayed by a relatively close up person? Sometimes this will work on an emotional level, but a lot of the photos I see are just snapshots of people walking or sitting around doing their own thing. To me even if there is sometimes, for example, a humorous connection to the subject in the background, it doesn't seem to work as effectively or aesthetically as a 50mm would.</p>

<p>What do you guys think of this?</p>

<p>Sounds like you are a candidate for a 28-50mm zoom lens.</p>

<p>I guess what I understand now is that 28mm is a documentary focal length that draws the viewer into the scene and allows them to experience what the photographer was experiencing at the time, it's not really as great in the sense of aesthetics for 'making a picture' as the 50mm that allows the photographer to really 'paint' a picture per se.</p>

<p>Sorry if I'm rambling but I just want to share some thoughts of grasping how fov works between 28mm and 50mm.</p>

<p>I think in 50mm photography, the picture tells a story that is primarily focused on subjects in the frame, so it is more suitable for candid story telling. Whereas, with the 28mm focal length the photographer becomes part of the picture and the viewer really starts to see what the photographer was experiencing at the time he took the photo with the inclusion of more subjects in the foreground that draws some of the attention away from what could be the primary subject of the photo. I think what would make a really good 28mm photo is one which captures a connection or interaction between the primary subject of the photo and the photographer.</p>

<p>My 2c.</p>

<p> You should add William Klein to the list.</p>

<p>Antonin Kratochvil, VII agency, shoots with one body and a 28mm. Nice video here. Go to the link then scroll down. <a title="http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/galleries/galleries/interviews/canon_interviews_vii.shtml/?CID=1-350UO2&CON=1-P97-3536&PRO=&RID=1-3AV4IK&WT.mc_id=EM1109EO03003" rel="nofollow" href="http://t.co/lVHeMsab" target="_blank">tinyurl.com/63fgyn7</a></p>

<p>Thanks guys, keep them coming.</p>

<p>I'm feeling the emotion in Antonin Kratochvil's pictures. Just beaultiful, thanks John.</p>

<p>Wayne,<br>

Sam Abell, a long time National Geographic photographer, shoots primarily with a 28mm lens and a 90mm lens as his second most-used optic.<br>

Check out his work in A Photographer's Life.<br>

Steven</p>

<p>Great post....the subject of using equipment to deliver the art, and examples of the art, make this a post related to art and offers images to stire the imagination about technique as well as images that just please the soul. If only more threads were as positive, educational, and thought provoking! Not complaining, just commenting on what a pleasurable thread this is. </p>

<p>It makes me wonder about a thread where masters of 35mm focal lengths are discussed, excluding HCB, which forces folks to go beyond this obvious master and might show some images we have not all seen many times.</p>

<p>Thanks for a great thread. </p>

<p>Thanks Steven, Sam Abell's style is exactly what I was looking for from the start. Thanks for the tip mate.</p>

<p>Desmond, I agree! I think most of us are guilty of being gear obsessed at one point of our photographic lives. On the topic of lens discussion, I often hear people suggest that some may select prime lens rather than zooms because that it forces you to think and "zoom with your feet". However, what I realised after recently acquiring the 21mm color skopar for my M8.2 (28mm equilvalent) is that it cannot substitute for a 35mm equivalent lens, not by zooming with my feet, and certainly more so with rangefinders as the closest focusing distance is 0.7m. Sometimes I find that I can't get close enough to frame in the way that I envision it to be. That's when I started to think more about the perspective of each focal length and realise that each focal length tells a different story and gives you a much different result.</p>

<p>I think 28mm, as I wrote in my previous ramblings on the first page, shows just enough context in a photograph to really involve the photographer into a shot, giving one the sense of "being there". 35mm I think is a more normal neutral view that gives photos and its subject context, but doesn't draw attention away from the subject and onto the photographer. 50mm is a flatter focal length that works well for photos in which some photographers, such as HCB, explain to be setting a stage for its actors. The viewer is more akin to an audience of a play.</p>

<p>In the end, I think each of the normal to wide focal lengths, 28mm, 35mm and 50mm, are very distinct in their nature and is not substitutable by "zooming with your feet". I think in the end all three focal lengths have their place in my camera bag. I guess it's time to save up for that 28mm elmarit! (to add to my 21mm color skopar and 35mm f2 zeiss)</p>

<p>Isn't it really a matter of how close you stand and how big the subject is? A 50mm & a 28mm photo can be made to look identical.</p>

<p>I run a 35mm, but only because after 30-odd years, I don't need to look through the viewfinder to know what the camera is going to get. I used a Leica screwmount with an old Hoya lens first, then moved to a Olympus XA, because I prefer small and simple.</p>

<p>"A 50mm & a 28mm photo can be made to look identical."<br>

Hi Sanford--I'd be interested to see examples of two pictures, shot full frame, with a 28 & a 50 that are identical.</p>

 

 

 

<p>I don't have any examples but it is just a matter of standing closer with the 28, or further back with the 50 (zoom with your feet).</p>

<p>@ Sanford: This will work only with 2-dimensional subjects.</p>

<p>That's why I used the "can" word - to cover my can, so to speak.</p>

<p>Sanford, I think I know where you're coming from, and it can be a common misconception. I have to say that strictly speaking I think you cannot produce identical pictures with different lenses, even as George suggests to shoot against two dimensional subjects, such as a wall or a piece of paper, there must be curvature that covers the different fovs to produce identical pictures. Sure, it can look similar, but I think there is still enough perspective distortion in 28mm pictures that will allow a keen observer to pick out the difference.</p>

<p>Of course you may be right in regards to shooting 2-dimensional subjects, but this doesn't really apply in a practical sense.</p>

<p>I believe Salgado used a 28mm and a 60mm macro in his 35mm film days. Check out "Uncertain Grace", "Workers", and "Other Americans"</p>

<p>Steve</p>

<p>Hey ... "you <strong>GUYS</strong>" ... so sick of the "you <strong>GUYS</strong>" bullsheeet.<br>

It's no wonder there are so few females contributing here.<br>

28mm ? You can shove it. All 28mm of it.</p>