Is it really that much? I’ll have to get the zoom lens out and do some comparisons. Not that 28mm is an issue. I have a really cheap 7artisans 18mm pancake lens (28mm-ish) that I’ve used and I’ve liked the wider angle. 35mm is just my sweet spot for a do anything lensIt's not quite as simple as that as it will depend how far away you are from the subject. The difference is 25% so if you subject is at 2m away using a 28mm you'd need to be 2.5m away to get the same framing with a 35mm (2m x 1.25 = 2.5m). If the subject is 10m away with a 28mm you'd need to stand 12.5m away with a 35mm lens.
This can help get an idea
canon
lenssimulator-cna.academy.canon.de
Camera suggestions required
- Thread starter Nebular89
- Start date
- Messages
- 26,828
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
I prefer 35mm, it gives a more true to life perspective but still wide enough for a lot of things.
- Messages
- 3,808
- Name
- Tim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
All focal lengths are my favorites, just for different things. I agree; for me, 35mm is the most true-to-life. I like 28mm, as I find it a bit more immersive and gives a little bit more of the feeling of being in the scene.
- Messages
- 26,828
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
I think I need to go out with the cheap 28mm lens and see if I’ll miss a 35mm. Most of my comparisons have been fairly up close but if I do decide to go with something like the Ricoh then a 28mm will my main focal length.
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 43,970
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
43mm is considered the "normal" length based on the dimensions of a "FF" frame / sensor but I've always thought that was a pretty odd way to look at this. To me it's a "So what?" measurement. Might as well measure it in Mars bars. When looking through the VF if you put a camera with a 43mm lens to your eye and then one with a 50mm I think the 50mm will look more natural. IMO. Anyway. Is there a 43mm lens to fit your camera?
- Messages
- 26,828
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
I’ve not looked but I doubt it, 35mm looks natural enough while still being wide enough for a lot of things
I’ve decided what I’m going to do…I think!
I’m going to get a the Fuji 18mm f2 from MPB so I’ll have both a 28mm and a 35mm when I go to Scotland. I’ll take them with a view to use the 28mm over the 35mm. If I think I really don’t like the 28mm then I know there’s no point even considering the Ricoh, at least not the 28mm version. If I find I don’t miss the 35mm then I can consider the Ricoh.
It seems a bit counterproductive to look into cameras with zoom lenses if in truth I don’t particularly enjoy zoom lenses.
I’m going to get a the Fuji 18mm f2 from MPB so I’ll have both a 28mm and a 35mm when I go to Scotland. I’ll take them with a view to use the 28mm over the 35mm. If I think I really don’t like the 28mm then I know there’s no point even considering the Ricoh, at least not the 28mm version. If I find I don’t miss the 35mm then I can consider the Ricoh.
It seems a bit counterproductive to look into cameras with zoom lenses if in truth I don’t particularly enjoy zoom lenses.
- Messages
- 12,457
- Edit My Images
- No
"Different folks, different strokes" as the saying goes.
I use zooms or primes, whichever gets the picture I want.
It’s choice paralysis for me. I’m always happier going out with 1 camera and 1 prime lens. If I have a choice I end up switching cameras or lenses too much. Same with a zoom. It’s handy to have in the bag just in case but I always second guess myself
- Messages
- 189
- Name
- Caroline
- Edit My Images
- No
How about an Olympus OM-D E-M10? With a 17mm prime (34mm equiv) it fits in most pockets, it is not really bigger than the Fuji X100.
I’ll have a look but if it’s an Slr style it’s basically the same as my XT2. Granted with a pancake lens.
The idea is to have a camera that I can put in my trouser pocket that essentially feels like I have a second phone, size wise. I know there’s isn’t a camera that small but the Ricoh is the closest, though expensive. Then it’s cameras like the Sony rz100