Use advice to someone new (and in need of shopping for) a 28mm lens?
Favorite 35mm film lens focal length...!
-
A
- Thread starter Nikon 2
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Deardorff 5x7 (V5) Camera
- Started by Barlow
-
For Sale NEW UNUSED FIDELITY 13x18cm boxed, 4 pieces.
- Started by Philippe-Georges
-
For Sale LINHOF 4x5 to 13x18cm POLAROID 54 adapter
- Started by Philippe-Georges
-
For Sale Filter Set for Elmar 5cm f/3.5
- Started by Alex Varas
-
Sold Fujichrome Velvia 50 120 - 20 Rolls
- Started by 0x001688936CA08
Forum statistics
OP
OP
Nikon 28mm f/2.8 AI-s…!
35 f1.4 L, Canon
I'm a nature photographer leaning more into intimate landscapes, detail/abstract type shots, and even macro work; much less grand landscape type stuff. For that reason, I find the range of 50mm to 200mm to be most used. I think if I could only pick one lens, it might be a 100mm or a 135mm.
My 28mm 3.5 gets a lot of use and seems to be the sharpest lens I own. I love my 35mm F2 but it's a bit softer and it's heavy and large with the metal shade. The 50 1.8 doesn't get much use anymore (plus the aperture blades are beginning to stick)
My new favorite is 28/48mm f4 zoom acquired cheap from a camera shop closeout, and that lens is nearly as sharp as my 28mm. It's great with faster film or bright sun.
My new favorite is 28/48mm f4 zoom acquired cheap from a camera shop closeout, and that lens is nearly as sharp as my 28mm. It's great with faster film or bright sun.
I used to think 35mm, but I have been very comfortable with a 40mm Voigtlander lens in the last 3 years.
A quick perusal of the responses so far:
21, 24, 28, 35, 40, 50, 85, 105, 135, and, as an outlier, 300.
Who knew?
For me, when shooting film, 18 through 50 macro. When shooting APS-C digital, 10-24 and 18-55 zooms, which are roughly 15-35 and 28-85 full-frame equivalent.
21, 24, 28, 35, 40, 50, 85, 105, 135, and, as an outlier, 300.
Who knew?
For me, when shooting film, 18 through 50 macro. When shooting APS-C digital, 10-24 and 18-55 zooms, which are roughly 15-35 and 28-85 full-frame equivalent.
Last edited:
I don't have a very good 35 (only a Jupiter-12), so that figures into it, but I seem to prefer 28 for the enjoyment of using it and 50 for the actual results - the discipline in excluding non-essential content it forces on me often makes for better pictures. I also adore my 100 mm lenses and find it hard to leave my 21 and 24 at home, but don't really have much use for them...
I enjoy the 24 - 35 focal range. I have a 24mm Nikon that I use on my full frame and aps-c camera which gives me a 24 on the FF and 36 equivalent focal range on the aps-c. I enjoy both focal ranges. I have a 15mm that I rarely use but it works on rare occasions.
Very wide angles lenses such as 15m to 20mm are limited in practical use. Newbies use them to take in the whole scene and loose all the details and that is not a good use for those lenses. Those lenses generally do well for one object close in getting all the attention and the rest just falls into place.
Sometimes that's true. Other times not so much.
What is the 35mm equivalent of the 38mm lens on your Hasselblad SWC? There are a couple of different ways of doing the conversion, but I think it is around 21mm. I thought you were pretty high on your SWC. Is it really of limited practical use?
Last edited:
The 80mm is normal.
The 60mm lens is equivalent to roughly 37.5 mm comparing widths.
The 50mm lens is equivalent to roughly 31.25mm.
The 40mm lens is equivalent to roughly 25mm.
The 38mm lens [SWC] is equivalent to roughly 23.75mm.
The 30mm lens [Fisheye] is equivalent to roughly 18.75mm.
I use the 80mm, 50mm, the 38mm and the 30mm ==> 50mm, 31mm, 24mm and 19mm.
What formula did you use for your conversions?
Focal length in question * 50mm = 35mm equivalent
80mm
Is the quickest and easiest calculation to make for converting Hasselblad focal lengths to 35mm focal lengths.
Earlier I stated width to width but that is not as easy to use. That involves some Trigonometry and I have not used that in sometime. I would have to rederive it again.
To avoid having to use trigonometry, here is a link to a page on Histrorical Hasselblad which gives lens equivalents calculated on 1) horizontal angle of view, 2) vertical angle of view, and 3) diagonal angle of view:
www.hasselbladhistorical.eu
Images from the 38mm lens on the SWC look wider to me than a 24mm lens on a 35mm camera, but that is just my take on it.
Hasselblad Historical - Focal length comparisons
Images from the 38mm lens on the SWC look wider to me than a 24mm lens on a 35mm camera, but that is just my take on it.
Last edited:
To avoid having to use trigonometry, here is a link to a page on Histrorical Hasselblad which gives lens equivalents calculated on 1) horizontal angle of view, 2) vertical angle of view, and 3) diagonal angle of view:
Hasselblad Historical - Focal length comparisons
Images from the 38mm lens on the SWC look wider to me than a 24mm lens on a 35mm camera.
I am using an approximation because I can do the calculation in my head. To accurately calculate the comparison would require memorizing the complete trig tables, and I frankly do not have time for that.
Trig tables? Aren't we really just talking about the using the Pythagorean theorem. Common Core calls for the Pythagorean theorem to be taught in the 8th grade. Or if that is too complicated, you can just look it up on the chart I linked to. Surely you have memorized the conversions for the lenses you have by now so you don't have to do the calculations each time you use a lens?
Last edited:
It is not linear enough for the Pythagorean theorem to do it accurately, but it is not import enough to work out the exact number. An opproximation is good enough to get the SWAG. If it is that important to you can work it out. What many websites have is just a SWAG since the lenses are not interchangeable.
Excuse me, but what?! Phytagirean theorem, trig tables? You need nothing but a factor, which is the ratio of the dimension your interested in, say the widths, of both formats you're comparing. Ok, Pythagorean theorem does come in if you're interested in diagonals.
Crop factors are determined by the diagonal. I think that is the way to go. Otherwise, there is a wide difference when you compare lenses between formats using height vs. width calculations, neither of which look quite right.
But using the diagonal means nothing when comparing 6x6 with 24x36. The diagonals just do not convey the different formats.
And width and height do?
Width to width makes sense as well as scaling focal lengths. I use the latter if I do not have the angular width for each lens.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |