p.2 #1 · Do you see a big difference between 28mm and 35mm?
kakomu wrote:
I have the EF 28mm f/1.8 and I really like it. The soft corners thing doesn't really concern me, because the center is sharp enough for any reasonable subject.
I still have mine as well. I'm a photojournalist not a landscape photographer, so the soft corners are not an issue for me. Center sharpness of my copy is quite good even at wide apertures. Bokeh can be a little busy, but I do feel that this lens is better than its reputation.
For what it's worth, I still really like the mechanical design of Canon's mid-tier primes of this era. The 20 2.8 (another "ugly duckling"), the 28 1.8, the 50 1.4, the 85 1.8, and the 100 2.0 were all of a piece design-wise, and pair really well together. I own an EF 24 f/2.8 IS, and it feels out of place with these other lenses in my collection.
Jan 11, 2024 at 01:18 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.2 #2 · Do you see a big difference between 28mm and 35mm?
kakomu wrote:
I have the EF 28mm f/1.8 and I really like it.
There's your answer.
I mean. it's a sub-$300 lens. You can't get enough out of it to fund other gear, really, and if you like it, you probably shouldn't sell it even if you could. I doubt the 35 IS is too expensive these days, if you are looking to try one
I suppose you could tape a zoom at these FL or just go out and see how often you use the FL on a zoom
p.2 #3 · Do you see a big difference between 28mm and 35mm?
kakomu wrote:
I have the EF 28mm f/1.8 and I really like it. The soft corners thing doesn't really concern me, because the center is sharp enough for any reasonable subject.
The wide aperture can give me some spectacular special effects when I shoot a subject up close. Something I can't really get if I get the sharper 28mm f/2.8. It's also really small and easy to carry. Practically, it's the same size and only 1.5oz heavier than the f/2.8 IS version.
I've pared my kit down to two zooms and 1 prime. I was hesitant about whether I should continue with the 28mm f/1.8 or move to the more expensive 35mm f/2 IS. The more I read, the more I think it won't matter in the grand scheme of things and I'd be better off just sticking with what I have and not coveting new things.
Now, the 24-105 f/4L vs the 24-70 f/4L on the other hand... ...Show more →
The Canon 28/1.8 is one of the few lenses I regret selling. I only had a crop camera at the time, and even there the edges suffered. I also felt the lens needed to be stopped down to f/4 for best image quality. But the overall image quality was pleasing, with nice colors and contrast. I also liked the size, build quality and USM. Since I would want a fast 28 now for nightscapes and Aurora, I am on the fence.
p.2 #4 · Do you see a big difference between 28mm and 35mm?
If you really really really want to shoot everything with one fixed focal length lens it probably has to be a 35mm. I really really really DON'T want to shoot everything with one fixed focal length lens, because in some cases nothing is as bad as the best compromise.
The 40mm f/1.4 Art is an awesome lens, but it's a tad wide for my taste. Somehow it's large aperture makes up for it, as you can exclude too much back ground if desired. The Sony "50mm" f/1.2 GM is said to be an 48 or even 47mm lens, however, I found those few mm's to be a huge difference. Some say you can crop a 28 to a 35, or a 35 to a 50, and that's all (kind of) true, but a 50 can be used like kind of an 85mm, whereas you can't do that same thing with a 40,35,28mm.
With my 24-70mm I find myself often at 28-30mm. This is where the distortion isn't a problem yet, but at 24mm I found those stretched corners easily stretched too much.
So for me it's 28mm + 50mm + 105mm. But I can also go 40mm (f/1.4) + 85mm if there's less space. Some might want to add a 24mm to that, but for me it's either 28mm or going fish eye at that point. Of course some might pair that 85mm with a 35mm, but for me that's a no go. 28mm is about including environment, 50mm gives enough emphasis on the subject, but a 35mm is nor here or there.
Like others said: it's all very personal, and it can change overtime. It can also depend on the available lens options and the use cases coming by which focal length you will grow into. You can overthink it. Maybe you should just jump into something to see what happens. You can sell and buy something else. Don't worry.
When making a buying decision you might want to think about one of those two questions:
- at which focal length do I need compactness the most?
- at which focal length do I need a large aperture the most?
If you don't need a large aperture at on of the focal lengths you can use a slow standard zoom as well (FE 28-60mm vs a compact prime), but if you do, a big prime (f/1.4 options or even f/1.2) makes sense.
If you don't need compactness at one of the focal lengths you can use even a bigger and brighter standard zoom as well (an f/2.8 prime vs a 24-70mm f/2.8 zoom, or even the Sigma 24-35mm f/2.0 Art, and 35mm only is covered by the Tamron 35-150mm at f/2.0), but if you do, a small prime at that focal length makes sense. I can imagine for some shooters compactness matters more at 28mm, and for others it will be 35mm. The RF 28mm stm pancake or the Samyang 35mm f/2.8 are great weight savers. The RF 35mm f/1.8 has a nice balance between light gathering (both f/1.8 and ILIS) and size and weight.
p.2 #5 · Do you see a big difference between 28mm and 35mm?
garyvot wrote:
The 20 2.8 (another "ugly duckling"), the 28 1.8, the 50 1.4, the 85 1.8, and the 100 2.0 were all of a piece design-wise, and pair really well together. I own an EF 24 f/2.8 IS, and it feels out of place with these other lenses in my collection.
I, too, owned and liked the 20mm f/2.8, but ultra-wide has lost a lot of its appeal to me and I ended up selling due to lack of use. As it stands, I’m selling my 17-40 right now because I just didn’t use it much.
p.2 #6 · Do you see a big difference between 28mm and 35mm?
steamtrain wrote:
If you really really really want to shoot everything with one fixed focal length lens it probably has to be a 35mm. I really really really DON'T want to shoot everything with one fixed focal length lens, because in some cases nothing is as bad as the best compromise.
I want to pare my kit down. I have the 24-105 F/4L for my daily driver. The single prime is for when I want to go small.
p.2 #7 · Do you see a big difference between 28mm and 35mm?
I sometimes feel like I should have a 35mm....but I don't. I just got the 24mm 1.8 and like it after a nice day hiking with it. I love 50mm for portraits, but its too tight for indoors most of the time. 35 is good for some portrait work as well, but I was worried too tight for most indoor candid stuff.
Maybe some day I'll go for a 35 and see if I like it. A bunch of cheap ones may hit B&S when the RF 35 1.2L gets announced.
p.2 #8 · Do you see a big difference between 28mm and 35mm?
steamtrain wrote:
If you really really really want to shoot everything with one fixed focal length lens it probably has to be a 35mm. I really really really DON'T want to shoot everything with one fixed focal length lens, because in some cases nothing is as bad as the best compromise.
Back before zooms, in the early to mid- 1970s, photographers in general had either a rangefinder with a fixed 35mm lens or an interchangeable lens camera. For the latter, the common kit was 50mm, 135mm and 28mm. This hair-shirt idea of living with a single focal length seems to be a recent internet thing. Those with the fixed 35mm lens cameras back in the day were well aware they were missing out, just as phone camera users today know it.
A photographer constraining themselves to a single focal length is like a novelist using a word processor that requires paragraphs to be in a limited word count range.
p.2 #9 · Do you see a big difference between 28mm and 35mm?
kakomu wrote:
I want to pare my kit down. I have the 24-105 F/4L for my daily driver. The single prime is for when I want to go small.
I'm the same way - I've got "big" zooms for more serious work (in my case, landscapes), so primes are more for artsy work and casual shooting, where I appreciate smaller lenses. I'm not interested in the RF 35/1.8 though based on the optical performance in numerous reviews and photo galleries I've seen, so I'm curious about the upcoming rumored 35/1.2L, though it's also rumored to be even larger than the EF 35/1.4L Mk2, in which case it's pretty much the same size as my 24-105/4, which negates any small lens advantages. I might end up buying the Fuji 18/1.4 for that purpose after all, considering it's about the same size as the RF 35/1.8 (maybe slightly longer).
p.2 #10 · Do you see a big difference between 28mm and 35mm?
melcat wrote:
Back before zooms, in the early to mid- 1970s, photographers in general had either a rangefinder with a fixed 35mm lens or an interchangeable lens camera. For the latter, the common kit was 50mm, 135mm and 28mm. This hair-shirt idea of living with a single focal length seems to be a recent internet thing. Those with the fixed 35mm lens cameras back in the day were well aware they were missing out, just as phone camera users today know it.
A photographer constraining themselves to a single focal length is like a novelist using a word processor that requires paragraphs to be in a limited word count range....Show more →
Maybe, but constraining yourself can provide a certain amount of creativity. If you constrain yourself to a single focal length, you can explore how to use it in a variety of ways you may ignore because you zoomed in or out instead of composing differently.
I like to think of primes as teachers. It forces me to either make a bunch of samey photos or approach things differently for some variety.
p.2 #11 · Do you see a big difference between 28mm and 35mm?
kakomu wrote:
Maybe, but constraining yourself can provide a certain amount of creativity. If you constrain yourself to a single focal length, you can explore how to use it in a variety of ways you may ignore because you zoomed in or out instead of composing differently.
Well yes, and I imagine quite a few successful novelists sweated through an Engish degree writing pentameter, and maybe it even made them better writers. Just so long as you know what you’re getting yourself into! It was wrong for me, though.
p.2 #12 · Do you see a big difference between 28mm and 35mm?
kakomu wrote:
I like to think of primes as teachers. It forces me to either make a bunch of samey photos or approach things differently for some variety.
It doesn't hurt to have more than one teacher as long you have some discipline not to change teachers all the time.
p.2 #13 · Do you see a big difference between 28mm and 35mm?
kakomu wrote:
I like to think of primes as teachers.
I concur with this. I think new photographers in particular benefit from working with primes at first. Primes help you understand how focal length translates into visual language, and to hone an individual style, adding consistency to a portfolio.
As an aside, both of my sons have followed this approach; my older son is a professional videographer, and my younger (still in university) does concert and car photography as a side gig. When they signed up for photo class in high school, I started each of them with a (hand me down) full frame body and 50mm prime lens, instead of the school-provided APS body and slow kit zoom. My younger son still shoots with an all-prime kit (28, 50, 85, 135).
p.2 #14 · Do you see a big difference between 28mm and 35mm?
Love the 35mm. A 28mm ilens s quite a bit wider, but I would rather buy a 24mm lens, which is considerably wider than a 35mm. But I will always favor the 35mm for event work, shooting groups and so on.
Jan 12, 2024 at 10:37 AM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.2 #15 · Do you see a big difference between 28mm and 35mm?
I remember starting out, how hard it is to find something to take photos of using a 50mm. Much rather see beginners using zooms
if you move, it changes perspective, not a big fan of zooming using your feet.
Used to use 21, 35, and 50mm, though, which was great, after the 35mm had issues I used 28, but didn't like it as much. Using close to 28mm ff equivalent a lot lately, though. 24mm prime just didn't get used , back on film, even though I carried it in the bag
p.2 #16 · Do you see a big difference between 28mm and 35mm?
AmbientMike wrote:
I remember starting out, how hard it is to find something to take photos of using a 50mm. Much rather see beginners using zooms
It seems we have opposite preferences, haha.
For grins, here's an article I wrote for my blog many years ago lamenting the rise of "kit zooms" and praising the 50mm... (It's been republished as-is on my new website, so the date of the post should be ignored.)
p.2 #17 · Do you see a big difference between 28mm and 35mm?
garyvot wrote:
It seems we have opposite preferences, haha.
For grins, here's an article I wrote for my blog many years ago lamenting the rise of "kit zooms" and praising the 50mm... (It's been republished as-is on my new website, so the date of the post should be ignored.)
Yeah we definitely disagree a bit, here , really liked the 18-135 vs 50/1.8 even on the 30D for indoor photos of the family years ago. The IS and 1600 let me get good photos even back then granted af accuracy especially at 1.8 on older aps bodies lacking
I remember thinking how versatile a good 28-70 is on the 5D, even though it's really a pretty limited range. 18-55 is pretty close to 28-85 on film or ff and really covers a lot of ground. I'm not anti-50/1.8, definitely like them, it's just not a very versatile lens as an only lens imo, although I think it's better for people photography on aps, approaching the 85-105 "ideal" portrait FL.
It sounds like this is an older article, the early 2000's 28-80's might have been quite bad. Then again, touting optical performance and using at 1.8, I use my 50/1.8 II at 1.8, but it's not super sharp there, (though good for portraits) it is an excellent lens at f/4+, though, like most of these, and seemed good f/2.5 last I used it
p.2 #18 · Do you see a big difference between 28mm and 35mm?
The thought that it would be difficult to find something to fotograph with only a 50mm, as a beginner, is completely strange to me. As a kid, long before I had access to any camera, I played with framing "photographs" within a constraining "frame", and the possibilities seemed endless.
Now, I can find it more interesting to photograph the door, than the entire building. For landscape I often use telephoto, and I find it immensely difficult to compose with a 15 mm. Maybe how we react to working with certain focal lengths and primes vs zooms is connected to how we observe the world at a more fundamental level.
p.2 #19 · Do you see a big difference between 28mm and 35mm?
It’s super hard to compose with ultra wide angle lenses.
And most of the time the interesting thing are the mountains in the background that look tiny, not the stones nor the flowers in the foreground that are artificially huge. It’s very hard to find situations where it works for me, mostly architecture when you don’t have the room to move.
p.2 #20 · Do you see a big difference between 28mm and 35mm?
Different strokes for different folks, I suppose. Or maybe it's just that my compositional skills leave a bit to be desired. I can readily find subject matter for 8mm FE, and 8-16mm rectilinear zoom. My goto lens on the 90D is 12-28mm. I use my 35mm IS mostly on the 90D, also.
