[Leica] 28mm vs. 35 mm lenses

[Mitch Alland <malland@mac.com>]

>Jackie Fuchs>>>>>
>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?
>

I would go for the 35. I have 21, 28, 50, 75, 90 and 135mm lenses and find that I take almost 90% of my pictures with the 35. It's a very versatile focal length: good depth of field; and it doesn't create a "lensy" type of space that wider angle lenses do, with a tremendous amount of foreground. If you use a 35mm lens a lot, a 50mm lens starts feeling like a telephoto. If you hate the distortion of wide-angle lenses, as you indicate, the 35 is preferable to the 28. While the 28 is not that extreme it creates a perspective that is noticeably more accentuated than the 35. I just don't think that the 35 is that close to a 50.

Also, Leica makes fantastic 35-M lenses: the two new aspheric ones and the last 35/2 non-aspheric which I have and which I think is a wonderful lens, with beatiful bokeh character (out-of-focus areas). By the versatility of the 35, I mean that its a good lens for landscapes, street scenes, interiors and whole-figure portraits. For face portraits, the 90 is more suitable; and for close-ups of objects, the 50 and the 90.

- --Mitch