28mm and 35mm for landscapes

Just a quickie.
For landscapes how much difference does that 7mm make from the 35mm to the 28mm? Really noticable or does the 35mm on a film body give a good wide angle. Of course this is subjective but I'd be interested in your personal thoughts.

Thank you.

In the early 1960s 35mm was the widest lens in common use and 28mm was considered ultra-wide. As tastes changed, so did the perception of this and now 24mm would be the absolute minimum requirement for an ultra-wide lens.

However, 28mm is a jump from 35mm that is significant. A 35mm is considered by some to be a standard lens, a 28mm is certainly not.

All the above applies to focal length in relation to film bodies.

Thanks for looking in John, thought you may

Well I now have both the 28mm f3.5 and the 35mm f3.5 Super Takumars on the way as in my usual style I left research part to the last minute and couldn't decide, to be honest though the price you pay for these little gems is a breathe of fresh air coming from wallet emptying Canon background. I cant wait to get these and would love to see any sample photographs other users may have.

I found 35mm on my film bodies was not usually wide enough for what I wanted and needed and so went with the 28mm most of the time. I probably took more photos with my SMC-M 28mm f2.8 than any other lens until I "went digital" (which isn't a fair comparison as I'll shoot off many more digital frames in a day than I ever did with film).

Best wishes, Kris.

Thanks Kris.

I'm not to good with patients and waiting for my new glass is getting me all jittery...

I can see this being one of those cases where it could be easy to take the disired effect to far, hense I took the 24mm out of the equation. Mind you I bet it a nice lens.

I would say that 28mm would frame a lot more landscape shots the way you want them, and without distortion (if a good lens). 35mm is too narrow. 24mm is another option but this has noticeably more distortion than 28mm. It may not seem like a big jump, but it is 14% wider... that is significant.

Even on digital I prefer 28mm to 35mm, though for landscapes my 16-45 zoom has in the past been my lens of choice. The 16mm equates to a film 24mm field of view, so you can see the numbers match up rather well.

I think this is one of those questions where only you will know what you prefer once you've had a chance to try both lengths out.

When I was regularly shooting film (pre-digital days) I had a Minolta X700 with a Tokina 17mm lens and a Minolta 35mm lens - bypassing the 28mm focal length altogether.

Now I mostly shoot digital I have a Pentax DA12-24 which gives me the equivalent field-of-view to 18mm - 36mm. Funnily enough, it nearly always gets used at one of those two extremes (mostly the longer end) - so it looks like I was on the right track all the time!

I used a 35mm lens on my good old OM30 for many years and never felt I needed to go any wider. Its all down to your style of photography I suppose.
The 35mm was also a lot more usefull, in fact for many years it was the only lens I had. For a 35mm film format I reckon its probably the most useful, after all, most 35mm compacts will have something like a 35mm lens.

Received my 35mm today and in great condition so very happy. Hopefully the 28mm will be on its way soon and I can get out and see how they compare and work for me.

Interesting discussion.

On my old SLR,I was always looking for a 20 or 21mm for true 'wide angle' with little distortion.

Now with digital, I assume that means getting a 15mm or less. So I guess a 16mm that wide open is true, linear and fast is a good option for all landscape.

Again, this is why the DA 16-45 is a recommended lens. The focal lengths perfectly cover what you might need for landscapes, it is fast enough at f/4 for this application, and it has nice rendering and low distortion. Plus it's cheap.

For those not addicted to primes, it's a no-brainer. Get a polarising filter for it and you're all set.

My DA* 16-50 covers this range....

so I would not need my FA 28, 35 or 50, or the FA 31 Limited for that matter....

Or I could invest my money....