If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
28mm lens as "normal" lens on DSLR?
I'm considering purchasing a prime 28mm lens as a "normal" lens for my
D200, thus yielding a similar angle of view to a 42mm lens on a 35mm camera. The most obvious choice is the Nikon 28mm f/2.8 D AF. Anyone here doing this? Any comments about such a setup? Any comments on my choice of lens? -Karl |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
28mm lens as "normal" lens on DSLR?
What do you want to use this lens for?
A 42-44mm equivalent lens is not what many would consider a "normal" lens on a 35mm film camera. That would be more of a "semi-wide" lens. Lenses of this focal length were used on film P&S cameras but never really caught on for 35m slr cameras. If you want a flat, sharp, wide lens at a bargain price get the Nikon 50 f1.8 before it is no longer available. The 50mm focal length is long enough to be able to use selective focus at wider apertures, something the 28mm lens will not allow to any great degree. You may have to take a step or two back from your subject but it will be worth it. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
28mm lens as "normal" lens on DSLR?
"bmoag" wrote in message . net... What do you want to use this lens for? A 42-44mm equivalent lens is not what many would consider a "normal" lens on a 35mm film camera. That would be more of a "semi-wide" lens. Not really. The traditional "normal" focal length is equal to the diagonal of the negative, or about 43mm for a full-frame 35. So a 28mm lens on a D200 (equiv. 42mm on a 35) makes a very nice normal. No one really knows why Barnack chose 50mm for the Leica's standard lens, but for good or ill that became the established standard. Zeiss actually made a 42.5mm normal lens for the Contax in the 1930s, but it never became popular. Lenses of this focal length were used on film P&S cameras but never really caught on for 35m slr cameras. But for an entirely different reason. SLRs have a minimum flange-to-film distance in order for the mirror to have room to swing. For that reason, while slower, physically small four-element lenses like the Zeiss Tessar were usually 50mm, the much larger fast lenses like the Zeiss Biotar were usually 58mm. They weren't 58mm because that was a desired focal length, but because around 1950 or so it was hard to design a fast lens of shorter focal length that would still give the mirror room to swing. Later on, they were able to design 55mm and then 50mm fast lenses for SLRs. Shorter than that, fast lenses become harder to design for an SLR, more complex and therefore more expensive. Neil |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
28mm lens as "normal" lens on DSLR?
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 21:19:44 GMT, "bmoag" wrote:
What do you want to use this lens for? A 42-44mm equivalent lens is not what many would consider a "normal" lens on a 35mm film camera. That would be more of a "semi-wide" lens. Lenses of this focal length were used on film P&S cameras but never really caught on for 35m slr cameras. On the contrary, the 40mm and 45mm focal lengths were the basis of something of a cult. Nikon had its 45mm f/2.8 GN, and more recently the AI-P, Pentax its 40mm f/2.8 SMC-M and Contax had the 45mm f/2.8 Tessar. There was also the superb Konica 40mm f/1.8 Hexanon. All except the GN Nikkor were optically very good. They may not have been mass market lenses but they certainly had a very enthusiastic following. 40mm has also been a popular focal length in 35mm rangefinder cameras. The Leica 40mm f/2 Summicron is optically one of the best lenses Leica has ever made, and it can be purchased very cheaply indeed for a lens of such excellence. The Minolta Rokkor versions for the Leitz/Minolta CL and Minolta CLE followed the same basic design. The current 40mm f/1.4 Nokton is a strong seller and is optically very good indeed. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
28mm lens as "normal" lens on DSLR?
On Feb 16, 9:58 am, "Karl Winkler" wrote:
I'm considering purchasing a prime 28mm lens as a "normal" lens for my D200, thus yielding a similar angle of view to a 42mm lens on a 35mm camera. The most obvious choice is the Nikon 28mm f/2.8 D AF. Anyone here doing this? Any comments about such a setup? Any comments on my choice of lens? -Karl I am using a 28mm f/2.8 lens on my Canon DSLR, I really like this lens. On the Canon with its 1.6 crop factor it comes out to the same as a 45mm lens on a FF camera, pretty close to what you would be looking at on the Nikon. If I am shooting inside with available light this is my lens of choice. Scott |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
28mm lens as "normal" lens on DSLR?
I do exactly this on a Canon 20D, where 28mm is more similar to 45mm
and 35mm is more similar to 56mm. The difference seems slight, but I'd use a 35mm as a normal if I were using Nikon. The 42mm angle of view of the 28 is much further from 50mm than the 52.5mm angle of view of the 35. More than that, though, is the 2.0 maximum aperture of the 35mm. That extra stop will come in handy very often. Unless, of course, you already have a fast 50mm prime... I could see the want for more of a difference from that lens than a 35mm would offer. Really, neither choice is a bad one, so do what feels right. Will |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
28mm lens as "normal" lens on DSLR?
"Karl Winkler" wrote in message
ups.com... I'm considering purchasing a prime 28mm lens as a "normal" lens for my D200, thus yielding a similar angle of view to a 42mm lens on a 35mm camera. The most obvious choice is the Nikon 28mm f/2.8 D AF. Anyone here doing this? Any comments about such a setup? Any comments on my choice of lens? Have you considered the 35mm f/2 as a "normal" lens. It's got an extra stop and comes at a bargain price. The 28/2.8 would still be a nice lens to have, being much lighter and compact than the 17-35/2.8 & 17-55/2.8DX zooms which would be the logical alternative should you want a zoom rather than a prime. cheers adrian www.boliston.co.uk |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
28mm lens as "normal" lens on DSLR?
"Karl Winkler" wrote in message
ups.com... I'm considering purchasing a prime 28mm lens as a "normal" lens for my D200, thus yielding a similar angle of view to a 42mm lens on a 35mm camera. The most obvious choice is the Nikon 28mm f/2.8 D AF. Anyone here doing this? Any comments about such a setup? Any comments on my choice of lens? -Karl I've been using my 24mm and 28 mm f2.8 AIs lenses quite a bit on my D200. The 28mm in particular will close focus down to 9 inches, and with the crop factor, makes a nice little closeup lens. -- www.mattclara.com |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
28mm lens as "normal" lens on DSLR?
On 2¤ë17¤é, ¤W¤È3®É58¤À, "Karl Winkler" wrote:
I'm considering purchasing a prime 28mm lens as a "normal" lens for my D200, thus yielding a similar angle of view to a 42mm lens on a 35mm camera. The most obvious choice is the Nikon 28mm f/2.8 D AF. Anyone here doing this? Any comments about such a setup? Any comments on my choice of lens? -Karl I use a FA 28/2.8 on my Pentax APS-C DSLRs as the single standard prime and the equivalent 35mm focal is 43mm which is the perfect standard lens for the field of view, i.e. the diagonal length of the 135 film. RiceHigh http://ricehigh.blogspot.com |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
28mm lens as "normal" lens on DSLR?
Karl Winkler wrote:
I'm considering purchasing a prime 28mm lens as a "normal" lens for my D200, thus yielding a similar angle of view to a 42mm lens on a 35mm camera. The most obvious choice is the Nikon 28mm f/2.8 D AF. Anyone here doing this? Any comments about such a setup? Any comments on my choice of lens? Oh yeah, you will love it. Consider the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 also; though it's not cheap at $430. I've been using a beat up old AIS 28mm f/2 manual focus and I really love it though it is hard to manually focus. While the 28 does end up a bit wider than a normal 50 with crop factor, the 50 is a bit long to be actually 'normal' (a quirk of marketing an compromises I think). I also have a 45mm f/2.8 and that is way to long for a normal lens at an equivalent of 68mm. One place I noticed the field of view is a bit wide is with buildings, there is a substantial amount of perspective distortion at 28mm. If you think that might bug you, go for a 35mm f/2. But 28mm is so comfortable, so close to the normal human field of vision, I'm sure you will love it. If I had to throw out all my lenses & only keep one, this would be an easy choice, I would even dump AF for that. As another poster mentioned, it does freaking macros too. Regarding f/stop and speed, if you are interested in shallow DOF, the f/2.8 looks comparable to an f/4.2 lens on film. The low-light nimbleness of f/2.8 remains unaffected though 2.8 is not 1.8. The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 has a comparable DOF to a 45mm f/2.1 on film. If you think you might get a pricey 17-35 f/2.8 then the 28/2.8 will actually under-perform that expensive zoom. It is smaller though. It would be nice if Nikon released a 30mm f/1.4 DX but don't hold your breath; get the Sigma if that's your desire. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
240mm "macro" lens, 180mm lens with helical focus FA no reserve! | [email protected] | Large Format Equipment For Sale | 0 | October 18th 06 07:26 AM |
a "normal" lens | Nicholas O. Lindan | Large Format Photography Equipment | 70 | April 3rd 06 07:49 PM |
a "normal" lens | Matt Clara | 35mm Photo Equipment | 111 | March 17th 06 08:56 AM |
Canon 28/1.8 or 35/2.0 for 20d "normal" lens? | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 3 | February 18th 06 01:36 PM |