How much difference is there bewteen 35mm and 28mm Lenses?

Mr Bump

Mr Bump

From under the bridge
Messages
9,624
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
Yes
Yeah I know its 7 mm but in real world?
 
You are not the first person to ponder this question:

21mm-50mm%20frames.jpg

pic_02.jpg
 
Paul, another vote for 35mm as a great all around travel lens, I have often travelled with a bag of lenses and found myself mainly shooting with my 35
 
Jao said:
Paul, another vote for 35mm as a great all around travel lens, I have often travelled with a bag of lenses and found myself mainly shooting with my 35
Click to expand...

Yeah I am trying to get an idea, I don't mind getting a 35mm (probably the F2.5 version) but my poor 28mm never seems to get out.
 
Back in my prime lens days (which I am considering returning to), I never had a 28mm, was always a 35mm and a 24mm. They seemed to fit what I wanted much more than the 28mm which always seemed a compromise.
 
TBH, to a large extent, the wider the better. You can crop into an image from a 24mm to get a similar FoV of a 28mm or 35mm but it's a lot harder to stitch images together to simulate a wider angle, especially with film!

One possible single lens solution (which is what I think you're after) is a Cosina (also badged as Vivitar) 19-35mm zoom. It's not by any means perfect, delivering significant barrel distortion but it is pretty damn wide (and yes, it IS suitable for 35mm film and FF use!)

Yv has mine on extended loan at the moment but if you plan on being at the Extravaganza, maybe she could bring it. Pretty sure it's a D type lens rather than G so should work on older MF bodies as well as AF (it has an aperture ring.) Let me know if you're interested.
 
If I'm going out in town with one (FD) prime lens only, I'm more likely to take a 35/2.0 or 50/1.4 than my 28/2.0, though I have been using it on its own a lot more in recent weeks.

Two lens kit would often be the 50/1.4 and either a 28/2.0 or 24/2.8.

I prefer the 35mm for informal shots of the family and other people: it works well for observing the interactions of a couple of people, while 28mm is starting to get a bit wide and risking distortions toward the edge of frame.
 
Last edited:
How about a 28-50 and cover all the bases? Might be putting a Tamron one in the classies soon... :)
 
The pancake Hexanon 40mm f1.8 is a good all rounder for one lens......not much help to you though :(
 
It all depends on what format you are using really.


I guess we are talking 35mm though.
 
yep...
heard 28mm is "native" or standard focal length for crop cameras, but 35mm lenses tend to be faster
 
pingu666 said:
yep...
heard 28mm is "native" or standard focal length for crop cameras, but 35mm lenses tend to be faster
Click to expand...

35mm is the standard/normal focal length for most APS-C cameras. For example, Nikon DSLRs are 1.5x - so ~53mm equivalent field of view.

That said, some people love the 28mm focal length on APS-C because it's equivalent to ~42mm, and some people prefer 40mm as the normal rather than 50mm as the normal focal length (I personally think 50mm looks a bit 'long' sometimes).
 
IIRC, the "standard" focal length for any format is the diagonal of the recording medium so for 35mm it's 43.2mm. Taking the Nikon DSLR crop factor of 1.5x, looks like 28mm as a standard prime is a good call! Again IIRC, 50mm was a popular length in "the olden days" but was then known as 2".
 
Nod said:
IIRC, the "standard" focal length for any format is the diagonal of the recording medium so for 35mm it's 43.2mm. Taking the Nikon DSLR crop factor of 1.5x, looks like 28mm as a standard prime is a good call! Again IIRC, 50mm was a popular length in "the olden days" but was then known as 2".
Click to expand...

Which is very close to the angle of view of the human eyes which is 43mm...so a 40mm camera lens should be better for WYSIWYG
 
Well I popped the 28mm on my FE2 and took a long wander with the missus to the leggers pub in dewsbury along the canal.
I have to say 28mm is wide and although great for flowers as it focuses down to 30cm and thats from the film plane so more like 15cms from the front of the lens.

I am unsure of it as a holiday lens, I have the go ahead for a 35mm to purchase :)

Although i still think I could get away with the 50mm
 
Mr Bump said:
Well I popped the 28mm on my FE2 and took a long wander with the missus to the leggers pub in dewsbury along the canal.
I have to say 28mm is wide and although great for flowers as it focuses down to 30cm and thats from the film plane so more like 15cms from the front of the lens.

I am unsure of it as a holiday lens, I have the go ahead for a 35mm to purchase :)

Although i still think I could get away with the 50mm
Click to expand...

Well you never know what you prefer until you try all the focal lengths...for me I prefer 24mm, 35 or better 40mm and not 28mm or 50mm.
 
I have to say the 28 is a gem close up and over the table and group shots.
I found though as a general lens its just to wide for scene shots although I bet for crowded narrow streets it also could be good.
 
Mr Bump said:
I have to say the 28 is a gem close up and over the table and group shots.
I found though as a general lens its just to wide for scene shots although I bet for crowded narrow streets it also could be good.
Click to expand...

Well if you really like a 28mm then you can save some money as the 24mms have shot up in price ;)
 
Mr Bump said:
whats the max apature?
Click to expand...

Sadly I'm not where it's at right now to check... but Pentaxforums review site suggests [the Tamron Adaptall-2 28-50 zoom is] f/3.5-4.5, which fits my memory. It's heavy, though. 300 gms...
 
Last edited:
In the past I favoured a 35mm as a general purpose lens. But a 28mm is what I would use as the first true wide angle.
The difference might seem small but it is significant.
 
Mr Bump said:
Yeah I know its 7 mm but in real world?
Click to expand...

In real world are almost the same for me, I have a 28mm for my Yashica FR and a 35mm for my OM-1, both are great lenses, both are equally good when I go for street photography or even as a turist. But as Brian have said: Well you never know what you prefer until you try all the focal lengths...
 
My tuppence, for what it's worth, is that much depends on what kind of stuff you like taking pictures of. If you like getting in close-ish to people, then anything wider than 35mm is less than ideal as it tends to distort features in an unflattering way - big noses etc. However as you say, these wider lenses do focus closely so can be useful for close-ups/details. Certainly if you expect to be taking wide panoramics or dramatic wide-angle type shots then you'd want a 28mm or wider.

For many many years all I (and most people) ever had was a 50mm lens and I still maintain it's a strong candidate for a one-lens-only kit - it can be used for pretty much any situation, though perhaps feels like a compromise in many of them. It's also going to be the smallest and lightest option, and arguably the best optically.

Perhaps a 35mm is in some ways more suited to travel, as it arguably will handle landscape type shots better, but there's not much in it. It's also a very natural focal length for typical holiday snaps (pics of your missus in front of a scene etc), or environmental portraits to be more formal about it. A fast 35mm is possibly more useful in low-light situations too because you can hand-hold at about one shutter speed slower than a 50mm. But fast 35mm lenses are expensive! In Nikkor-land, the 35mm f1.4 is a wonderful lens but you'd need to spend £300+ to get one, and it's quite bulky. The 35mm f2 is also very nice, though still quite expensive (£150-200?). The cheaper 35mm f2.8 and f2.5 (Series E) versions are pretty average optically, to be honest, though still excellent stopped down a couple of stops, as you'd expect. I've owned all of these at one time or another but only have the f1.4 version now.

By comparison, all the 50mm lenses are excellent performers, all super sharp across the frame stopped down a little. Since you own the 50mm already, I'd probably stick with that TBH if you really can only take one (otherwise I'd squeeze in the 28mm as well and have the perfect lightweight 2-lens package!).
 
Last edited:
I've never got on with 28mm, it's in no man's land for me, too wide for normal, too normal for wide shots! I thought I'd find 35mm the same but TBH it's become a very widely used focal length for me now. I have available to me now 17mm, 24mm, 35mm, 40mm and 50mm.

I went out on Monday and on film used only the 35mm f2. I then ran out of film and switched to my camera in my phone which is 28mm equivalent. I had to really work it but I did manage. I still don't see me buying a 28mm proper lens though.
 
Thanks chaps and @TheGreatSoprendo I think a 35mm F2 is in my sights for testing :)

If anyone spots a nice one let me know, ta
 
Last edited:
The other thing to consider is prices...if you buy all Nikkor then you can't go wrong but there are a lot of cheaper 24mm, 28mm, 35mm makes available and stopped down I would say you wouldn't see much difference in a 10 X 8 print....if your camera can take screw lenses the old, cheap, Pentax 35mm is a lovely lens and quite sharp too..another example is the Vivitar 28mm close focus and is a good performer (I've accumulated sixteen 28mms and it's up with the good ones)..then there is the Sigma 24mm superwide II and my copy is a cracker and use it a lot especially for indoor shots.
If anyone is stuck for a 28mm and has an old Tamron adapter, I've got a Tamron 28mm f2.8 (model before the F2.4 but the ring just goes past f2.8 and could be a F2.4 as well)... looks good and results are good, the focusing ring seems to have some play, but hey anyone can have it for very long term loan for the £2.80 postage
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
In the past I favoured a 35mm as a general purpose lens. But a 28mm is what I would use as the first true wide angle.
The difference might seem small but it is significant.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much my opinion too, on 35mm film anyway.
 
IIRC back in the day (1970s and 80s) 28mm f/2.8 lenses always used to be fairly cheap relative to 35mm and more exotic 24mm wides. The Canon FD 28mm 2.8 is probably the second most common FD prime after the ubiquitous 50mm f/1.8 for sale even today as a result of the number of them that they sold.
 
Ok, I've read all your comments and it's true, there are differences between 28 and 35mm lenses, nobody ever will doubt about it, but please if you could give me some examples where you prefer to use a 35mm instead of a 28mm lens because you know you will obtain better results, and viceversa. Maybe in other words: what could you do or achieve with a 35mm that you can't do or achieve with a 28mm? (and viceversa). :)
 
I'm on a mobile device so I don't have shots to hand, but in my usage, 35mm is a more versatile general usage - snapshots, pictures of people (its probably the widest focal length you can use which doesn't distort people's features too much).

28mm? I don't like 28mm as much, but obviously it is wider and thus sometimes better for capturing a larger scene, landscapes. However I do often find composition difficult with a 28mm, just because there's likely to be something in the frame that detracts from the composition in some way.

As the above posts demonstrate, it is very much a personal preference and you do have to shoot with both to appreciate the difference.
 
ariel7515 said:
Ok, I've read all your comments and it's true, there are differences between 28 and 35mm lenses, nobody ever will doubt about it, but please if you could give me some examples where you prefer to use a 35mm instead of a 28mm lens because you know you will obtain better results, and viceversa. Maybe in other words: what could you do or achieve with a 35mm that you can't do or achieve with a 28mm? (and viceversa). :)
Click to expand...

As mentioned above, it's difficult to take flattering portraits with a 28mm unless the person is only a smallish part of the image (ie full body length in a landscape format image), due to distortions. A 35mm gives a more normal perspective and can be used more closely with people in the frame. 35mm is a classic focal length used for street shooting or environmental portraiture because it provides a natural looking perspective while allowing you to include people in their context. Of course you can also do this with a 28mm, but it's just a little bit wider and therefore harder to balance getting close enough to people with their surroundings.

However for a more typical wide-angle view, eg of a landscape, including elements of foreground close-up to provide perspective, a 28mm is going to provide a much more dramatic result with depth (though arguably I would go wider still for this kind of shot with a 24mm or 20mm lens). Likewise, for photos in areas with restricted movement, such as indoors or in narrow streets, a 28mm lens may be more likely to 'get it all in'.

There are other things, but these are two areas which I think explain the advantages of both. I think it's difficult to put this kind of thing in words, so we really should provide some examples. I'll see what I can dig out.
 
ariel7515 said:
Ok, I've read all your comments and it's true, there are differences between 28 and 35mm lenses, nobody ever will doubt about it, but please if you could give me some examples where you prefer to use a 35mm instead of a 28mm lens because you know you will obtain better results, and viceversa. Maybe in other words: what could you do or achieve with a 35mm that you can't do or achieve with a 28mm? (and viceversa). :)
Click to expand...

Well if you can't move your feet you are going to lose out using a 35mm if the shot needs a 28mm or 24mm.......but for me I'm interested in different makes of lenses so would try e.g. to use my favourite lenses like CZJ flektogon 35mm, Pentax screw 35mm, Hexanon 28mm and so on...sorry not much help but maybe it would give you something to think about in enjoying a hobby of using other makes of old lenses that filmies can use.
 
OK here's one or two:

1. taken with Nikon F and 28mm f2 AI lens. Shows the ability of a 28mm to create a more dramatic perspective:

9916430323_cffd8c3a56_c.jpg


Likewise, this (same set up) would be less dramatic shot with a 35mm lens:

9916250675_4aebbff493_c.jpg


Same story with this (different Nikkor 28mm f2.8 lens on an FE, cross processed slide film):

6322437910_6e23b9af25_z.jpg


Example showing how a 35mm can be used for portraits of people in context, while avoiding the distortion you would get from a wider lens if you got in close enough:

8696448050_a5338d9c89_c.jpg


At a push, a 35mm (this taken with Nikkor 35mm f1.4 wide open) can be used for relatively close portraits without too much distortion):

8741361910_efcd05bd43_c.jpg



35mm lens in a street context (on Olympus mju-ii compact), showing it's fairly 'normal' perspective on things:

5570718725_b0afe0291d_b.jpg

May not be the best examples, but will give you a better idea hopefully.
 
Last edited:
Thanks buddy, some great pics and cracking examples.
I have taken the plunge and got a 35mm F2.5 on its way :)
 
Hello, my name is Andres, I'm from Spain, and it's my the first time in this forum.
Regarding the difference between 35mm and 28mm lenses, they are different tools but with a close angle vision.
The perspective can generate distortion according to the subject's distance and shape (plain :a wall, a window...3D: a person, a monument), and also very dependent on the distance from camera to the subject (street photo, portraits, groups, landscapes, close up, etc).
It's more about a personal taste and type of photography, than the lens itself.
 
andresnika said:
Hello, my name is Andres, I'm from Spain, and it's my the first time in this forum.
Regarding the difference between 35mm and 28mm lenses, they are different tools but with a close angle vision.
The perspective can generate distortion according to the subject's distance and shape (plain :a wall, a window...3D: a person, a monument), and also very dependent on the distance from camera to the subject (street photo, portraits, groups, landscapes, close up, etc).
It's more about a personal taste and type of photography, than the lens itself.
Click to expand...

Agree, and welcome to the best bit of the forum Andres!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top