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

Freecom2, Brian and Francesco, thanks for your comments, I agree with you about the distorition and perspectives of the 28mm lenses, and the advantage of using a 35mm lens when people are involved in the composition of the picture. Francesco, your pictures have been very helpful for understand and see the differences, and BTW, very nice shots. :)

Also agree with Andres: "It's more about a personal taste and type of photography, than the lens itself."

Andres, welcome to the forum! (y)
 
Last edited:
WoW Francesco that shot of the two children is popping out of my screen....you can also use a 28mm quite close to a young child (small features on the face) say from waist to top of the head...just watch where the hands are though ;)

And if everything is roughly the same distance from the lens, you can get away with a 24mm:-

Sigma 24mm.... the black curly line was actually one hair stuck to the frame opening in the camera.
 
Last edited:
excalibur2 said:
WoW Francesco that shot of the two children is popping out of my screen....
Click to expand...
Cheers Brian. It's on Ektar - can be a frustrating film to use (and if you want to be really picky you could say that the skin tones have the typical Ektar red-ness) but when it works, it really works, and in this case it really captured the bright sunny afternoon mood perfectly. Portra would have been more subtle and is often better for portraits, but don't think it would have improved this one.
 
TheGreatSoprendo said:
Agree, and welcome to the best bit of the forum Andres!
Click to expand...
^^^WHS^^^ And it's definitely the best bit of the forum, we even have our own manservant who dispenses alcoholic libation when needed :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: PMN
I would go for the 35mm as many fixed lens compacts used 35mm and I usedto find good for travel.
 
Well my used 35mm F2.5 Series E arrived toay, it always makes me smile when people label things as used with signs of wear and you open them up and there like new :)
 
The FG is a bit of a sleeper SLR. Sure, it isn't the metal lump that the FE or FM series cameras are... but then again, it weighs less, and also has shutter priority/program modes in addition to aperture priority.
 
I use to have one, i only moved it on for the FE2 with th faster shutter speed.
I want another FE2 so will buff it up and offer it up :)
 
Why doesn't anyone recommend the F301\N2000, they go for peanuts and I've used mine now and again with Tamron lenses (only got a Nikkor 50mm) and can't see anything wrong with it for the ordinary amateur.
 
Last edited:
I used an F401 for a few years in the late 80s/early 90s and agree it was fine for most uses, though the autofocus is pretty awful. However you can get a much better camera now for just a few more peanuts... For instance an F80 can be had for about £25 or similarly an F90. A lot more camera for your peanuts :) .
 
TheGreatSoprendo said:
I used an F401 for a few years in the late 80s/early 90s and agree it was fine for most uses, though the autofocus is pretty awful. However you can get a much better camera now for just a few more peanuts... For instance an F80 can be had for about £25 or similarly an F90. A lot more camera for your peanuts :) .
Click to expand...

Had a senior moment and it's the F301\N2000 manual focus :oops: :$
 
The F80 is a decent enough camera agreed but maybe it not metering with m/f lenses is why it is so cheap? Probably the same for the F65. People can't even get £10 for an F65 body on ebay most of the time. For me it limits their appeal. I rarely use my F80 & haven't used my F65 for years now. Also agree that the F301 is underrated. I am on my second. Gave the first away as wasn't keen on it, but thought again about it & got a second one a couple of months ago. It probably loses points as being the first of the plastic Nikon SLR's but it shoots well enough for it. The FG is a lot of camera for such a small package. Probably the best compact SLR that Nikon ever made?

Have you ever thought of getting an F3 instead of a second FE2? Ok the top shutter speed & the flash sync is lower but to me the F3 seems nicer to shoot than the FE2. Really like the 80/20 metering & the way that it handles.
 
TheGreatSoprendo said:
I used an F401 for a few years in the late 80s/early 90s and agree it was fine for most uses, though the autofocus is pretty awful. However you can get a much better camera now for just a few more peanuts... For instance an F80 can be had for about £25 or similarly an F90. A lot more camera for your peanuts :) .
Click to expand...

Although I made a typo and meant F301, the F401 is not Nikon's best effort........ maybe a new thread should be started "The worst cameras that you have used and why" ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jao
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top