35mm or 28mm?


Status
Not open for further replies.

Saha

New Member
May 8, 2004
24
0
0
I am considering buying a wide angle lens and cannot make up my mind between 35mm and 28 mm. Can anyone suggest pros/cons? I'll be using it most for streetscapes.
 

Clown

Moderator
Staff member
Mar 24, 2003
3,779
1
38
Singapore
digital or film body?
 

Saha

New Member
May 8, 2004
24
0
0
35 mm film.
 

justarius

Senior Member
Nov 9, 2003
1,226
0
36
Northeast
Visit site
Depends on what other lens you have. For me, a true wide angle begins at 24mm. 35mm, 28mm is still more of a 'normal wide'.

If you already have a 50mm, try the 24mm at least. The 35mm will be too close to your 50mm, and personally, I find 28mm being not wide enough.

A simple 2 prime kit could be something like 24/50, or a 35/85. A 3 prime kit can be 24/50/105, or 20/35/85 or something else. It basically depends on what other lens you have, as you don't want the coverage to be too close.
 

Saha

New Member
May 8, 2004
24
0
0
I have a 50/1.8. I was thinking about the 24/2.8, but wondered if the 35/2 was a better option due to the higher speed.
 

Tetrode

New Member
Dec 29, 2002
1,374
0
0
Visit site
Saha said:
I have a 50/1.8. I was thinking about the 24/2.8, but wondered if the 35/2 was a better option due to the higher speed.
Depending on what the intended use of your wide is. If it is landscapes, the 24 or 20mm would be the better option. If you are gonna do more street work, then the 35mm or 28mm.

But know this:

1st of all, the difference between f2.8 and f2 is negligible in real world terms - you are not going to gain much of an advantage in low light with the f2 over the f2.8.

2nd, wides generally have deeper DOF, again no difference between f2 and f2.8 in real world terms.

3rd, for landscape photography, one should use a tripod anyway.

You won't go wrong with the 20mm or the 24mm AF-D - both are outstanding lenses. But between them, my fav is the 20, YMMV. And as someone has already mentioned, the 35mm is closer to the normal perspective than wide.
 

Saha

New Member
May 8, 2004
24
0
0
thanks Tetrode, as I have mentioned in my original post I'll be using it mostly for streetscapes. 20mmm or 24mm may be a bit too wide for that.
 

MooEy

New Member
Feb 21, 2004
170
0
0
agreed with them, get either 20 or 24mm. personally i would take the 24mm, 20mm seems to be a little too wild for daily use.

~MooEy~
 

justarius

Senior Member
Nov 9, 2003
1,226
0
36
Northeast
Visit site
Saha said:
thanks Tetrode, as I have mentioned in my original post I'll be using it mostly for streetscapes. 20mmm or 24mm may be a bit too wide for that.
On the contrary, I find 28mm too limiting for streetscapes. The 24mm is about nice, but there are times when I wish I could go wider.

Since you already have a 50/1.8, do have a real hard look at the 24mm. I would drop the 35/2 idea; if you are after speed, nothing can beat your 50/1.8 at a reasonable price.

If you can, borrow a wide angle zoom and have a look see yourself. You can really see the difference between a 24 and a 28.
 

lieu9310

Member
Oct 14, 2003
122
0
16
54
Singapore
Visit site
I will pick 28mm which what I am using now. You have a chance to crop the frame but not 35mm.

Happy shooting. ;)
 

pipefish

New Member
Dec 23, 2003
344
0
0
If by streetscapes, you mean shooting people on the street, I would discourage the use of the 20 or 24 because of distortion. You would have to be careful of where the people are placed in the frame and that would limit your composition.

IMO, there is not much difference between a 28 and 35. Winogrand used 28s exclusively and his pictures are not very different from 35 users like David Alan Harvey. The extra coverage of a 28 would come in handy if you intend to shoot indoors a lot, where you may not have the luxury of taking a few steps back.

I use a 50 only. When you use a 28/35 for street photography, you must also be daring enough to go right up to your subject if you intend to fill the frame.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.