Is it worth having a28mm and 35mm?

[ErikB13]

I habe an 28mm F2, I thought about getting the 35mm F1.4. Is 35mm too close to 28? I don’t want to waste money if they are too similar

[Manfred M]

That is a question only you can answer and really depends on the type of photography you are doing. If you are constantly wishing your lens was just a little bit narrower than 28mm, then it would be a good choice. If not, perhaps a different focal length?

I just spent a month shooting a lens with a minimum focal length of 28mm and wished I had a 24mm (or wider with me). I generally do not shoot a lot between 24mm and 50mm. If you want something a bit tighter, shoot the 28mm lens and crop the image a bit and you'll have the same result as a 35mm.

[xpatUSA]

I habe an 28mm F2, I thought about getting the 35mm F1.4. Is 35mm too close to 28? I don’t want to waste money if they are too similar

Not enough information for people to answer without guessing at your style and even what camera you use. Sorry.

[pnodrog]

Not for me. As to which one I would keep would depend on other lenses available. The 35mm f1.4 I would find great for low lighting street photography. However I would also want a 20mm, 24mm or wide angle zoom. You don't even mention if you are using a crop or full frame body which makes a huge difference. I have based my response on using a FF camera.

[DanK]

The formula for angle of view is 2arctan(SD/2FL), where SD is sensor dimension and FL is focal length. I use SD because the dimension of the sensor varies with angle--it's wider than it is high, and the largest length is the diagonal. So to pick a dimension, let's consider angle of view on the horizontal axis. For a full frame camera, that becomes 2 arctan(36/2FL). This gives a horizontal angle of view of 54.4 degrees for a 35mm lens and 65.5 degrees for a 28 mm lens. The AOVs would be smaller for a camera with a smaller sensor.

[Tri Danimal]

My 28mm lens zooms to 75mm f2.8. I don't have to choose ;-)

[DanK]

My 28mm lens zooms to 75mm f2.8. I don't have to choose ;-)

Indeed. I own no primes other than macro lenses. Years ago, my walk-around was a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. Now it's a Canon 24-105 f/4. I just assumed the OP was committed to having primes.

[William W]

I wholeheartedly agree that there's too little information to provide any reasonable feedback to address your purposes.

The one element of information you've provided that I can address is the fact that you already have a 28/2 and are thinking about buying a 35/1.4.

Prima facie - there is only ONE key consideration and that is for you to answer whether you want (need) the extra stop of Lens Speed?

Framing the Scene with a 28mm Lens and Cropping in Post Production to attain the AoV of a 35mm Lens is really simple and won't lose that much Image Quality.

***

That stated: for MY purposes, when using 135 Format Cameras (aka "Full Frame") a 28mm Lens is next to useless. A 35mm lens is much more useful for me. If I want anything wider then a 24mm, or 16mm Lens is what I would use. For my uses a 28mm Lens has always been in a 'no man's land'.

When using APS-C Format, especially the smaller mirror-less cameras, similar applies; I like a 23mm lens as 'ideal' and that paired with a 35mm lens is sensational for what like photographing (i.e. for an interchangeable lens system I'd use a 24 and 35 because there are very few 23mm lenses available).

For me, the quintet of 24, 35, 50, 85, 135 Prime Lenses has always been the best for 135 Format Cameras. When using APS-C 24, 35, 50 and 85 make a nice quartet for my uses.

Additionally I really value fast Lens Speed, so I would necessarily always opt for very fast Prime Lenses.

Of course, your purposes might be (probably are) totally different to mine.

***

All that stated, on the general question of acquiring a Kit of Lenses: there are many logical and well referenced arguments for buying ONLY good quality Zoom Lenses and having no Prime Lenses, at all.

WW

Addendum: re posts #6 & #7 - these were being written at the same time I was writing:

I also assumed the OP was committed to Prime Lenses, or at the least exclusively discussing Prime Lenses, and I think it useful to prompt thinking, or discussion about Zoom Lenses because one premise of the OP is asking advice about buying more gear.

I think that there are many www myths and murky rationales as to why Primes are in some way 'better' than zooms.

[rpcrowe]

Hit it right on the head when asking if the OP was shooting full frame or crop sensor...

I don't necessarily go along with it but, there was once a theory about lens collections... It was touted that if each of your lenses was double the focal length of the wider lens, you might be in good shape...

In other words, a start with a 50mm or 55 mm lens and have a 28mm, a 100mm and a 200mm.

However, I like a combination of 35mm and 85mm or 90mm primes for general shooting on a full frame camera... I began my adventures with interchangeable lens 35mm cameras, using a Leica M2 Kit which was U.S. Navy issue. The kit had 35mm, 50mm and 90mm lenses. I gravitated to the 35mm and 90mm focal lengths.

The only 28mm focal lengths that I own are the short sides of my Tokina 28-70mm f/2.8 TX and Sony 28-70mm f/3.6-5.6 OSS lenses. I don't mind the rather tight wide ends. However, on my primes, my widest lenses are considerably wider than 28mm.

My prime setup for my crop factor Sony A6500 are: 12mm Samyang, 19mm f/2.8 Sigma, 30mm f/1.4 Sigma, 50mm f/1.8 Sony OSS and 85mm f/1.8 Sony. I bought all of these lenses used except for the Samyang and got good prices on every one. I get a lot of use out of each of these lenses and will get more use when I get my second APSC Sony mirrorless. Whether this will be the inexpensive A6400 or the upcoming A7000 or A6700 which will be the replacement for the A6500...

I think that the primes for my Sony A6500 are better choices than the zooms because of their size and image quality and aperture. As an example, the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 lens is one of the sharpest e-mount lenses out there - combined with its almost normal angle of view on APSC and its fast aperture, it is a great choice on an APSC Sony. OTOH, the full frame Sony 85mm f/1.8 is a relatively small form factor glass that makes a great portrait lens on my A6500...

[odds]

...For me, the quintet of 24, 35, 50, 85, 135 Prime Lenses has always been the best for 135 Format Cameras.

The vertical field of view of one lens matches (approximately) the horizontal field of view of the next longer focal length.

--
Odd S.

[xpatUSA]

The vertical field of view of one lens matches (approximately) the horizontal field of view of the next longer focal length.

--
Odd S.

I did not understand, sorry. Is it assuming that the sensor has an aspect ratio of 3:2 thus creating a geometric series with that same ratio? (because 'field of view' depends on sensor dimensions).

[george013]

I did not understand, sorry. Is it assuming that the sensor has an aspect ratio of 3:2 thus creating a geometric series with that same ratio? (because 'field of view' depends on sensor dimensions).

135mm format means a film frame of 36x24mm.

George

[xpatUSA]

135mm format means a film frame of 36x24mm.

George

Thank you. So, Odd's 'rule of thumb' just applies to 135 format not, for example, to micro four thirds.

[odds]

So, Odd's 'rule of thumb' just applies to 135 format

I don't remember if the rule was applicable to rectangular formats in general or if it was for 3:2 only. I think it was based on an idea of filling the frame. If the subject was too tall for landscape format, rotate camera 90 degrees and shoot in in portrait format. If subject then turned out to be too wide for portrait mode, switch to the next shorter focal length and go back to landscape format.

--
Odd S.

[William W]

I don't remember if the rule was applicable to rectangular formats in general or if it was for 3:2 only. I think it was based on an idea of filling the frame. If the subject was too tall for landscape format, rotate camera 90 degrees and shoot in in portrait format . . .

It works nicely for all 3:2 Aspect Ratio Formats. I also think it is based upon easy Framing, especially for a range of Portraiture shooting.

I picked it up when working part time for a W&P Studio when I was in College; it was mentioned by the owner as part of his explanation when I asked why he used 645 and 135 Formats (and not the then typical 6x6 and 135 Formats).

As additional information, he advised, that for my 135 Kit I should get a 35 and ditch the 28 that I had at that time, if I wanted wider get a 24, then he instructed that I was never to use a 24 at any Wedding that I shot for him. I already had a fast 58, 85 and 135. I sold the 28 and bought a (faster) 35, later I bought a fast 24. I’ve stuck with that set of Primes through three camera brand changes. (replacing the original fast 58 with a 50, or often two of them).

My 645 lenses are; 35, 55, 80 (and 80 Leaf Shutter) and 150 – which sort of follows the ‘rule’, and 645 is not exactly 3:2.

WW

[Manfred M]

Erik - One more thought from me on the two lenses.

Do you print or do you display all of your images on a computer screen?

If you are a printer, especially if you print large format images, the every pixel is important and using a lens that delivers the FoV you need is important.

If on the other hand you are someone who mostly displays only on a computer screen (social media, etc), then you are dealing with images are are usually around 2MP in size (1920 x 1080 = 2.07MP) , so cropping and downsampling to screen size are part of your workflow, whether you realize it or not. Cropping and posting give you a lot of flexibility, so your 28mm lens will give you results that are going to be very close to what a 35mm lens give you.