Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,202   Posts: 1,531,535   Online: 1051
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Shooter
    35mm Pan
    Posts
    32
    No. i have the 28/35/50/75. i think an rf is perfect for these fl. 90 is to long. 24/25 is stretching the wa.3 of these are
    always with me. imho.

  2. #12
    nicefor88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Bruxelles, Belgique
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    250
    ok, some of you will probably don't like this but I'll always go for the 35. The 28 shows more distorsion. Not to mention larger wideangles. The unusual scope of these lenses distract from the subject and take away meaning of a photograph. Different pictures taken with a super wideangle all look the same. If a human being finds itself on the edges of the frame then you'll see these ugly body distortion. aaargh!
    In the contrary, the 35 shows discreet distortion, that looks quite all right.
    It is truly a versatile lens, ideal to me at least.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    268
    To me, the perfect RF kit is 15, 25, 40, 90. And nowadays, it's easily doable. And the best camera for it is a Minolta CLE, in terms of having framelines for 40 and 90, and the entire finder outside the lines works OK for 25mm. But you probably need to plan it from the start, or else you'll surely find yourself with a 50mm and either a 28mm or 35mm.

  4. #14
    Rol_Lei Nut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Hamburg
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,118
    My perfect trio is 18/19/20/21mm + 35mm + 85/90mm.

    I do have various 24, 25, 28 & even 30mm lenses available, but if I can take an extra lens along, it will be a 15mm and/or a 180/200mm (with SLRs of course))

    While a 24/25mm is a nice FL to use, mine don't get much use in practice.

    I'm usually quite happy to leave the 21-35mm hole unplugged! YMMV...
    M6, SL, SL2, R5, P6x7, SL3003, SL35-E, F, F2, FM, FE-2, Varex IIa

  5. #15
    2F/2F's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,008
    Images
    4
    Big difference between 28 and 35 (20%), and between 21 and 28 (25%). The real question is how much will you actually use the 28, not whether it is too close to 35 or 21.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Western Australia
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    12
    If you are a completist and money is no object, plug the gap.

    I don't own Leica equipment (can't afford it) but own extensive slr systems from Minolta, Canon, Nikon, Mamiya and Fujica (yes, I know!). I had been happy with my Canon FD lens selection, which comprised 20, 24, 35, 50, 90 (Sigma macro 2.8), 135, 200 and 300mm plus several zooms. I felt the need to fill a couple of gaps so bought a 28mm. I used it with one film and found it didn't give the sort of width I was used to from the 24 (naturally) and didn't satisfy. It wasn't a replacement for the 35 either, as it was too wide for my purposes. I then decided I needed an 85mm 1.8. $150 was quite reasonable. I used it with one film, didn't use the extra stop of speed over the Sigma, and found I missed the macro capability.

    Excuse my long-windedness. The moral of my story is that although I was sure, at the time, I needed to plug those gaps, I bought two lenses I just don't use.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin