Using 28mm lens

[Anton Lukoszevieze]

I photograph alot of places I travel to, mainly in the street, generally not people, but buildings, facades, some cityscapes, always with 50mm lenses, I like the proportions and framing with that focal length. I am thinking about wider angle lenses to capture more in the frame, would people recommend the 28mm focal length for this? 35mm feels too close to 50mm and 21mm feels too distorted, thanks. Sorry if a boring question...

 

[Larry the sailor]

It may be my favorite lens on 35mm format. Mine is a Vivitar 28mm Wide angle/close focus f2.0. Canon FD mount. I've found it gives very little distortion unless your really up close.
This is an example from that lens

heeled-004 by lmmiers, on Flickr

 

[jim10219]

You gotta try it to know if you like it. But 28mm is my favorite focal length for 135 film. It's the first lens I grab if I'm shooting big things outside, like building, trees, and landscapes or normal sized things indoors, especially if it's crowded like at a convention or museum where you often can't back up very far. The only down side to them are they generally aren't as fast as most 50mm's and aren't as sharp at wide open apertures.

You're right about 35mm lenses. They're good compromises if you're only taking one lens and can't decide between a 50mm and a 28mm, but if you can carry two lenses, I'll usually leave that one behind.

 

[Mick Fagan]

You may think 28mm is quite wide, it is, but if you have the chance to try a 24mm lens, do so.

I have just come back from Iceland and Germany where I had 24mm, 50mm and 105mm lenses. I used the 24mm almost all of the time. Followed by the 50mm for some of the time, then the 105mm for only a few shots.

I have used a 28mm quite a lot for European city scapes, it works well, but with a 24mm you have quite a bit more flexibility, along with the ability to get the top floor of the many five story buildings in abundance in most of the Europe that I know.

I have a Sigma Super-Wide II f/2.8 24mm lens, takes 52mm filters. Bought new over 30 years ago. They sell quite cheaply these days.

My 28mm is a Nikon Series E f/2.8 and one that is currently on one of my bodies now, it is being used in an urban environment exactly as you suggest. It is quite good after the 24mm only as my wide close-up type lens, but it does not have the ability to get all the picture in in tight places. Takes 52mm filters

I don't run 20mm or 21mm lenses, but I do use an 18mm lens, which is another Sigma lens. It is more than competent for my intended usage, tight places and getting city scapes in. Works well up to about a seven story building size, if you know what I mean.

Mosfellskirkja Iceland, 24mm Sigma almost full frame, just a slight cropping of the flag pole which is ever present at virtually all of Iceland churches we came across. This would have been doable with a 28mm lens, but I would have been further back, therefore further down the steep hill. Fuji Neopan 400. This is a negative scan, the print I have is brilliant by comparison.

This was taken inside the Reykjavik Symphony Orchestra building, once again using 24mm. I was pretty much backed up against a railing to get this, anything longer and I would have missed out on this, or at least I would have had to be more selective than I already was. Sigma 24mm Fuji Neopan 400

This was a grab shot using 24mm in quite inclement weather. I had a parked car directly behind me, so I couldn't go back any further, I feel would have missed this with a 28mm as I pretty much know the pantograph would have been cropped out. Swinging the lens upwards would possibly have shown the wideness of the lens by allowing one to see edge distortion a bit more than by keeping the lens almost horizontal. Life is always a compromise, eh?. Sigma 24mm Fuji Neopan 400 and quite obviously taken around 1528 local time.

Mick.

 

[Cholentpot]

I use one because it's the widest I can go for the money I have.

I like to exaggerate the distortion. It took me a while to learn to fill in the corners and stop treating it like a 50mm.

 

[Paul Howell]

Depending on which camera system you use, I recommend buying a cheap 28 to 80 or 28 105, shoot a few rolls of film to see if shoot at 28 or 35, of if you say I wish I had just a little wider then a 24. I have 24, 28, 35, I find 28 to be my sweet spot for wide, I seldom use 35, too close to 50. Then buy the prime that best meets your vision.

 

[RichardJack]

I love the 28mm focal length (24x36mm) for scenery, still life, and interiors. I don't recommend it for groups of people, heads at extremes will be distorted. I prefer primes but get some very pleasing results from my 24-85mm and 28-105mm zooms. I all comes down to your subject matter, shooting style, etc. My next favorite wide is in the 20-21mm range. It will distort but capture much more than the 28mm. 35mm is and was many photographers "normal" lens, especially a fast one like a 35mm f1.4. Generally they distort very little, are extremely sharp at all distances and is perfect for group photography. Just not portraits because of poor perspective.
My recommendation is once you make up your mind, set your goal high and buy the best. Anything less can ruin the whole experience and why not always take the best photograph you can?
Buy what you like, make up your own mind and learn from experience.

 

[CMoore]

I photograph alot of places I travel to, mainly in the street, generally not people, but buildings, facades, some cityscapes, always with 50mm lenses, I like the proportions and framing with that focal length. I am thinking about wider angle lenses to capture more in the frame, would people recommend the 28mm focal length for this? 35mm feels too close to 50mm and 21mm feels too distorted, thanks. Sorry if a boring question...

You can spin this a million ways i guess, but.....your observation jibes with mine. As others have said, there is Nothing Like Screwing The Lens On and seeing what is what, but if i had to choose 2 of those 3, i guess i would rather live with the 50 (and not the 35) if i also had the 28.
Then you get into the whole 20-24-28 argument
If you have the money, there is probably a good scenario for All Of Them.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

If people are not the subject I recommend T/S lens. You could also check 21mm lenses on rangefinder cameras.

 

[ac12]

I went with a 24 and did not regret it.
I had 2 reasons

• The Nikon 24 was the widest lens that used a 52mm filter, at that time, the 1970s.
• I can always crop into the frame of a 24, but I can't expand beyond the frame of a 28.

There have been a few times when I wish I had a even wider lens. But the 24 has worked well for me.

But you do have to get used to the lens and learn how to minimize the wide angle distortion effect.
This is the reason many people stop at a 28. It is easier to deal with the lesser distortion of the 28.

 

[MattKing]

I am happiest using three small Olympus Zuiko lenses:
24mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2 and 85mm f/2
The 35mm f/2 is my "standard" lens.

 

[wiltw]

A long time ago I tried 28mm on 135 in Europe, and was highly dissatisfied with it...not wide enough. I bought a 24mm f/2.8 and went to Europe with it on a later trips, and loved it. I even once travelled to Europe with 24mm f/3.5 shift lens and loved it, never regretting the f/3.5 slow max aperture because of all that shift movements enabled.

Separately, I have found that 28mm is about as wide as you can go when shooting groups of people at weddings and receptions, as with 24mm it is too easy to result in induced perspective distortion due to close subject distances.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

It'

I photograph alot of places I travel to, mainly in the street, generally not people, but buildings, facades, some cityscapes, always with 50mm lenses, I like the proportions and framing with that focal length. I am thinking about wider angle lenses to capture more in the frame, would people recommend the 28mm focal length for this? 35mm feels too close to 50mm and 21mm feels too distorted, thanks. Sorry if a boring question...

s a choice of personal preference;to me, the 28 isn't much of a wide angle and is too close to 35 and I either take the 35 or the 24 if not the 20.

 

[Sewin]

As Ralph says.

I use 28mm, 35mm, but one lens which really surprised me which gets poor ratings and looked down upon is the Prinzflex Auto 23mm. I bought it out of curiosity.
It's a budget basement no name lens, mine only cost a fiver, but when stopped down it's quite sharp.
Either my eyes are going or I touched lucky!

 

[Ian Grant]

Choice of a wide angle is down to individual requirements, I prefer a 28mm for 35mm and an equivalent in MF and LF. I used to have a 24mm but found it too wide most of the time (too big a gap between a 50mm and a 24mm). I do use wider a 19mm for 35mm and the equivalent for 5x4 (LF) but only when really needed.

Ian

 

[warden]

28 and 50 is a fine combination. If you like your 50 I agree that a 35mm lens won't be enough of a difference for you to enjoy the wider view.

I used 28 + 50 for years happily and now use 25 + 50 and I'm equally happy. See if you can borrow or test drive and you'll be set.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I photograph alot of places I travel to, mainly in the street, generally not people, but buildings, facades, some cityscapes, always with 50mm lenses, I like the proportions and framing with that focal length. I am thinking about wider angle lenses to capture more in the frame, would people recommend the 28mm focal length for this? 35mm feels too close to 50mm and 21mm feels too distorted, thanks. Sorry if a boring question...

28 is a great balance between angle of view and distortion. If I had to choose two lenses to walk around with, i.e. a compact kit, it would be 28 and 50/55, or 35 and 85 - depending on what I forsee photographing. There are times when 35 isn't wide enough, and 24 gives too much "wide angle-ness". I never really liked the 24 when I had one, but then again I lacked experience in using really wide lenses.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

It'

s a choice of personal preference;to me, the 28 isn't much of a wide angle and is too close to 35 and I either take the 35 or the 24 if not the 20.

I agree, however ,over the years and several formats,I found the following relationship based onN= normal focal length to make sense:1/2N+N+2N;set like that for any format has you well prepared for 90% of all shooting conditions without owning a zoom.

 

[destroya]

i use a 28mm now. had a 24 i was given many years ago when a friend switched to digital and of course it wouldn't work on his camera so he gave it to me. it had fungus so i never really used it, but it seemed to me to not be that much off from a 28. I do have the awesome nikon 14-24 zoom, but never use it as a walking around lens, just to wide for me. its a special purpose lens. I agree with many that say its much harder to use a lens at 20mm and under as they distort very easily, not because of a lens defect, but because of keeping it parallel to the target plane, or some other geometric reason. so its how i use it not the fault of the lens. i also had a nikon 20mm d lens. it just seemed too wide for me so i traded it in for a like new in box fm3a. not a bad trade as I use the fm3 as my main camera and used the 20mm not enough.

i just find the 28mm lenses, and in MF 28mm equivalent, to bee perfect for me and what i shoot

 

[blockend]

You have to get close with a 28mm lens or everything looks distant. It's a good focal length for layered compositions as it has an inherently deep field of focus, allowing close, medium and distant subjects to be rendered sharply in the frame. It's a good people lens if you're prepared to get in their face, but not one for shrinking violets.

I prefer a 35mm for a walk round lens, but some great shots have been taken on a 28, including most of Garry Winogrand's work.

 

[Ian Grant]

You have to get close with a 28mm lens or everything looks distant. It's a good focal length for layered compositions as it has an inherently deep field of focus, allowing close, medium and distant subjects to be rendered sharply in the frame. It's a good people lens if you're prepared to get in their face, but not one for shrinking violets.

I prefer a 35mm for a walk round lens, but some great shots have been taken on a 28, including most of Garry Winogrand's work.

I agree about getting close with a 28mm (I do the same with my 45mm on a 645) and 90mm lenses for 5x4), I like the FL for landscapes as well as for portraits and nudes.

For me a 24mm (or a 75mm on my 5x4) could with 35mm and is (75mm on 5x4) beuseful but only when a 28mm isn't wide enough but instead I have a 19mm for 35mm (which I can't remember using for years - over 20+, I do very occasionally use a 65mm with my 5x4 which is roughly equivalent to a 19/20mm on 35mm.

Ian

 

[Sirius Glass]

I photograph alot of places I travel to, mainly in the street, generally not people, but buildings, facades, some cityscapes, always with 50mm lenses, I like the proportions and framing with that focal length. I am thinking about wider angle lenses to capture more in the frame, would people recommend the 28mm focal length for this? 35mm feels too close to 50mm and 21mm feels too distorted, thanks. Sorry if a boring question...

You are correct. 35mm is too close to 50mm. 28mm is a great lens for traveling and architecture.

 

[narsuitus]

I am thinking about wider angle lenses to capture more in the frame, would people recommend the 28mm focal length for this? 35mm feels too close to 50mm and 21mm feels too distorted, thanks.

When I need a wider lens than the 50mm lens I am carrying on my 35mm camera, I will take a 28mm or a 24mm. Either works for me.

When I need a wider lens than the 35mm lens I am carrying on my 35mm camera, I will take a 24mm or a 21mm or an 18mm. They all work for me.

Rarely do I carry a 35mm and a 50mm at the same time because they are too close together for may taste.

My typical 3-lens kit consists of 50mm, 28mm, and 135mm lenses.



50mm, 28mm, 135mm by Narsuitus, on Flickr

 

[Ces1um]

My typical 3-lens kit consists of 50mm, 28mm, and 135mm lenses.

on Flickr

I second this combination. I have smc pentax 28mm, 55mm and 135mm lenses, along with a 100mm macro. Seems to hit all the bases for what I need. That being said, sometimes a 15mm just has that extra legroom for wide open scenic shots but the distortion is definitely visible in every shot at the periphery.

 

[Punker]

I took a 28 and a 50 to Thailand last year and I barely used the 50. Now I like a 35 as an inbetween all around carry.