I have the 28mm f2 and it is excellent.
May be some example shots of the same subject with 28mm and 35mm will clarify OP's doubts.
OM-1n: Do I need to own a Leica?
Rolleicord Va: Humble.
Holga 120GFN: Amazingly simple yet it produces outstanding negatives to print.
if you already have a 50mm, get the 28mm. although if you only had the 85mm, id say definitely the 35. 35 is a much better walk around lens than a 50mm imo. the 50 is too tele to be as versatile as it's considered.
i'd go with the 35 for a walk around. i find 28 just a tad too wide in some situations.
I can't speak to which Nikkor is an optically better lens, but as to FOV for street and general carrying around i use a 35mm. I have a 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, etc i've compared FOV to FOV and hte 35mm really is a great every-day focal length.
I really like my 24mm for landscape, while the 28mm FOV just never really did anything for me. I'm not talking about resolution, contrast, etc - just simply FOV. I know you can 'foot-zoom', but it just isn't the same - doesn't look the same.
My 50mm's are great GP lenses and one pretty much lives on my favorite all-manual body, but quite often the 35mm supplants the 50mm's place.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I use the 28mm for " In Your Face" shots
" A loving and caring heart is the beginning of all knowledge " ~ Thomas Carlyle ~
anyone with either of these mind posting any sort of examples for me? I think I might be leaning more towards the 28mm
I have used the 35mm 1.4, nice lens, but I returned it, the elements had some separation problems. With the time I spent with it, my impressions were that It was nice and fast, no distortion, and handled well. But It wasnt much of a useful length for me. I may pick it up again in the future.
I have the 24mm F2, its wide and fast. A true gem I keep on most of the time when I'm out and about.
For longer lengths I use the 50mm, either 1.2 or 1.8. I never use anything longer as I like to work close.
I routinely use the 28mm focal length on my sigma miniwide 2, but its just never wide enough for me. With a 24mm I can set to infinity and snap with the camera hanging from the neck without every picking it up, and I get nice sharp contrasty negatives, and people are never the wiser.
Plus the wider you go, the slower you can hand hold. =]
My typical prime trio is 24/50/135. I do most of my shooting with a 24, occasionally switching to 135. The 50 is almost never used. I've been quite content carrying a pair of bodies with 24 and 135 mounted, and the 50 in my pocket. I have several 28s that never get used. And I've found that 35mm is a superb walkaround lens if I only want to carry one body/lens and no bag.
Right now in Spain they're holding the Running of the Bulls,
followed by the Soiling of the Pants, and the Burying of the Idiots.
If that's your gut feeling, go that way.
Originally Posted by Jaime Marin
I wish I could help with examples here but having had both focal lenths available for a very long time and switching them at a whim in the field and occasionally cropping a shot renders any example I might show you irrelevant. (I doubt I'm alone in this failing.)
Part of the equation here is how you normally like to print too. At 8x12 you don't have to crop but for 8x10 you normally lose some of the long edge. Do you like composing for square prints?
Both focal lengths are very workable.
Buy one and go shoot 10 rolls. If you don't like it define specifically why, sell it, and buy something that fits you better.
Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR
"We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin