RE: [Leica] 28mm vs. 35 mm lenses

["B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>]

Welcome, Jackie! You will now be inundated with more personal opinions than
you probably thought could exist on this subject.

I'd say go with the 35:

A 35 is just wide enough to give you a slightly different perspective if you
want it; it's just wide enough to let you stay relatively close and still
take in a wider-than normal scene; and it's close enough to normal so that
it can very easily become your "normal" lens.

A 28, on the other hand, is neither fish no fowl - and I know that there are
some LUGers, and some of the world's greatest photographers, including S.
Salgado, who make great use of a 28. But I find that a 28 is not wide enough
to serve as a "real wide" angle, but just a bit too wide to serve as a
normal lens.

If I could only have three lenses, I would have a 21-35 and 90, and skip the
50. But that's just my opinion.

Good luck - and I hope you have a large mailbox.:-)
B. D.
From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
[mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of Jackie
Fuchs
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2000 2:22 PM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: [Leica] 28mm vs. 35 mm lenses


Hi everybody!

I'm new to the group and just wanted to get some opinions on which
wide-angle
lens to get.  I shoot an M6TTL and right now have a 50mm and 90mm lens and
need
a wide-angle to complete my set.  I absolutely hate the distortion of
wide-angle
lenses to I had been thinking about getting a 35mm, but it seems a little
redundant with a normal lens so I've been moving toward a 28.  Any thoughts
about the relative advantages?

Many thanks,

Jackie

P.S.  You can check out some of my work at jackiefox.com