No 28mm lens... WTF?

[Oíche]

Well Nikon have one and I've read nothing but positive reviews of it. They've even done it at a reasonable price - I think that's where Panasonic might struggle more...

They have indeed and both 28 & 40, I looked these up, not quite pancake but small and light. The 40mm has 6 elements and they even put 9 into the 28mm. 52mm filter thread also.

It seems they just gave the job to Sigma and they made the Contemporary lenses but these aren't as compact as those Nikons.

 

[Oíche]

As I said before though a cheap spec without good coatings and especially no weather sealing would make these a chocolate teapot for me. There is no reason why they can't weather seal a smaller lens, and I especially don't like the plastic mount on those Nikons, but maybe that's my Jurassic bias and if thinking about it I wouldn't care if it had a rubber gasket and the rest of the lens was sealed.

I'm now reading that compact Nikon 28 f2.8 is weather sealed. I should fully read these things first.

 

[Jonathan-Mac]

I'm with you there - I would prefer sealing and a metal mount but at some point a decision is made on which items are "budget" lenses and as the 40mm f/2 is essentially the kit prime lens for Nikon FF mirrorless cameras they decided to keep it cheap. Honestly, if it or something very similar were available on L I would buy it either way, but I'd prefer to pay a bit more for a metal mount and decent sealing even if I have four weather-sealed lenses already.

 

[PhotoPete]

Just some philosophical thoughts about the lens selection.

In the earlier days when I was shooting 35mm film I had cameras that had a fixed 35mm or a 28mm lens. The 35 was a bit too much for indoor shooting and I thought that 28 is better. Nowadays some people are saying that they prefer wide angles. I mean below 18 or so. I see that there is some idea in wide angles in some situations.

I have started to think that instead of trying include everything in the photo, I should think what is that you want to say with your photo. Pick one idea and find the leading lines and so. Usually that means deselecting most things and cropping the photo.

I am interested of a fast prime for those evening walks and family gatherings at our house. So I was playing a bit with my 20-60 Zoom in our living room. I though that maybe the difference between 24 and 28 is not such a big deal. I started with the 50mm and it is very nice but basically suitable only for taking photos of a single person sitting on the sofa. When you go to 35 you feel much better. Going further you feel that 28 would be much perfect. If you you then go from 28 to 24 things change dramatically. There is a big distortion in the perspective if you are shooting the sofa in an angle. I could give you example photos but everybody knows what I'm talking about.

So maybe my result is that if I want a fast prime for indoor shooting, I should buy the Lumix S 35mm F1.8.

I try to keep my lens selection as small as possible. I have noticed that If the bag becomes too heavy, I don't want to carry it around. I normally just select one lens with the camera and maybe carry one extra lens in the pocket. So I have sold all my bigger, more heavy lenses. I have now a Lumix 20-60, 50 and 100mm. I like the 50mm most.

Anybody happy with there Lumix S 35mm F1.8?

 

[xaviergut]

Anybody happy with there Lumix S 35mm F1.8?

I am very happy with my Lumix S 35mm f/1.8, it is my favorite lens among the Lumix primes and my "do it all" focal length. You can take portraits with context or simply crop because with today's cameras, which already all have 24mpx or more, it is very easy to crop an image and leave it to your liking.

If you are with this lens and you see the need to take a photo with an ultra wide angle lens, the easiest thing is to take two juxtaposed photos and then join them in Lightroom to make a panorama, it takes just 1 minute!!

It is also an excellent lens for video, in general all the Lumix FF primes (18, 24, 35, 50, 85 and 100) are excellent for video.

 

[RBecker]

Just some philosophical thoughts about the lens selection.

In the earlier days when I was shooting 35mm film I had cameras that had a fixed 35mm or a 28mm lens. The 35 was a bit too much for indoor shooting and I thought that 28 is better. Nowadays some people are saying that they prefer wide angles. I mean below 18 or so. I see that there is some idea in wide angles in some situations.

I have started to think that instead of trying include everything in the photo, I should think what is that you want to say with your photo. Pick one idea and find the leading lines and so. Usually that means deselecting most things and cropping the photo.

I am interested of a fast prime for those evening walks and family gatherings at our house. So I was playing a bit with my 20-60 Zoom in our living room. I though that maybe the difference between 24 and 28 is not such a big deal. I started with the 50mm and it is very nice but basically suitable only for taking photos of a single person sitting on the sofa. When you go to 35 you feel much better. Going further you feel that 28 would be much perfect. If you you then go from 28 to 24 things change dramatically. There is a big distortion in the perspective if you are shooting the sofa in an angle. I could give you example photos but everybody knows what I'm talking about.

So maybe my result is that if I want a fast prime for indoor shooting, I should buy the Lumix S 35mm F1.8.

I try to keep my lens selection as small as possible. I have noticed that If the bag becomes too heavy, I don't want to carry it around. I normally just select one lens with the camera and maybe carry one extra lens in the pocket. So I have sold all my bigger, more heavy lenses. I have now a Lumix 20-60, 50 and 100mm. I like the 50mm most.

Anybody happy with there Lumix S 35mm F1.8?

It depends on your style, your kind of pictures and your personal favorites…
In film times I always owned a 35 and 24 and selected on the situation. But the lenses at that time (Canon FD) where so small, it was not a matter of weight and with 2.8versions also not a big matter of money.

Real wide angle with 20mm or less was much more expensive and my 4/17 was an investment, the 14mm not possible at that time!

Therefore we have much more options today, but most of the lenses are much bigger then the last MF lenses from the 80s …

 

[RuleOfThirds]

Anybody happy with there Lumix S 35mm F1.8?

Yes I am. Today I’m returning from a short trip to Berlin and used it in the evening. Haven’t looked at them on a bigger screen though

 

[SimonC]

Anybody happy with there Lumix S 35mm F1.8?

Absolutely, it's a superb lens. I do a lot of shooting in churches and cathedrals - often in low to very low light situations. I find that a trio of 18mm, 35mm and 85mm f1.8's do a tremendous job (although I sometimes pack the 100mm f2.8 for close up work now).

 

[xaviergut]

I'm now reading that compact Nikon 28 f2.8 is weather sealed. I should fully read these things first.

Maybe we get a 28mm f/2 lens from Lumix but attached to a compact camera...

 

[CMS]

Maybe we get a 28mm f/2 lens from Lumix but attached to a compact camera...

I'd be in.

 

[Markuswelder]

Just some philosophical thoughts about the lens selection.

In the earlier days when I was shooting 35mm film I had cameras that had a fixed 35mm or a 28mm lens. The 35 was a bit too much for indoor shooting and I thought that 28 is better. Nowadays some people are saying that they prefer wide angles. I mean below 18 or so. I see that there is some idea in wide angles in some situations.

I have started to think that instead of trying include everything in the photo, I should think what is that you want to say with your photo. Pick one idea and find the leading lines and so. Usually that means deselecting most things and cropping the photo.

I am interested of a fast prime for those evening walks and family gatherings at our house. So I was playing a bit with my 20-60 Zoom in our living room. I though that maybe the difference between 24 and 28 is not such a big deal. I started with the 50mm and it is very nice but basically suitable only for taking photos of a single person sitting on the sofa. When you go to 35 you feel much better. Going further you feel that 28 would be much perfect. If you you then go from 28 to 24 things change dramatically. There is a big distortion in the perspective if you are shooting the sofa in an angle. I could give you example photos but everybody knows what I'm talking about.

So maybe my result is that if I want a fast prime for indoor shooting, I should buy the Lumix S 35mm F1.8.

I try to keep my lens selection as small as possible. I have noticed that If the bag becomes too heavy, I don't want to carry it around. I normally just select one lens with the camera and maybe carry one extra lens in the pocket. So I have sold all my bigger, more heavy lenses. I have now a Lumix 20-60, 50 and 100mm. I like the 50mm most.

Anybody happy with there Lumix S 35mm F1.8?

What about the Sigma 28-70mm f2.8? It's a brilliant lens, not too big and heavy at 450? odd grams. Then just add a wide angle prime, and you have a very capable kit, that's not large, heavy or expensive.
Full disclosure -I have the Sigma 28-70mm and Lumix 14-28mm as my all round "good" kit.

 

[robin0112358]

I am interested of a fast prime for those evening walks and family gatherings at our house. So I was playing a bit with my 20-60 Zoom in our living room. I though that maybe the difference between 24 and 28 is not such a big deal. I started with the 50mm and it is very nice but basically suitable only for taking photos of a single person sitting on the sofa. When you go to 35 you feel much better. Going further you feel that 28 would be much perfect. If you you then go from 28 to 24 things change dramatically. There is a big distortion in the perspective if you are shooting the sofa in an angle. I could give you example photos but everybody knows what I'm talking about.

Exactly. There is a big difference between 28mm and 24mm in terms of the geometric distortion. Of course with just the right shot, that has just the right relationship between subject and environs, this can be minimised. But shots that fall outside this domain look better with 28mm. I "discovered" this a long time ago and it has only been reinforced on my S5. The 28mm FOV is the widest I like to go without a photo being obviously a "wide angle" shot.

What I am talking about is not subjective. Anyone can be trained to see the effects and realise the impact on their photos. Of course, some might prefer the widest shot possible, and there are plenty of applications for that. There are also plenty of lenses for that.

So maybe my result is that if I want a fast prime for indoor shooting, I should buy the Lumix S 35mm F1.8.

I try to keep my lens selection as small as possible. I have noticed that If the bag becomes too heavy, I don't want to carry it around. I normally just select one lens with the camera and maybe carry one extra lens in the pocket. So I have sold all my bigger, more heavy lenses. I have now a Lumix 20-60, 50 and 100mm. I like the 50mm most.

Again I agree. The camera with (smaller) lens is already heavy and bulky for me. The most I will carry is one extra lens. I no longer shoot professionally but would say the same even if I did!

I decided to split the FOV a bit differently. Besides the very wonderful 20-60mm I bought the 35mm and 85mm. So I can tell you that the 35mm is as good as the other lenses but like them is missing "magic". That's OK though. I view development as equally important as composition... even in the digital era. (See shot below.)

Unlike you I find it difficult to jive with 50mm. I much prefer 35mm to let more environment into the frame. This has been true since I started with a Pentax K1000! I never understood why I was not feeling the photos until I took off the 50mm lens.

From what you wrote, it's possible that you might never again use 50mm if you have the 35mm. Example...

 

[Jonathan-Mac]

Despite the valid discussion on what's best or more suitable I think it's fair to say that those who want a 28mm prime should be able to buy one. Zooms may cover the same focal length but the prime vs zoom shooting experience is another discussion that can be looked up elsewhere.

 

[Oíche]

Coming from DSLR I love how the focal length is displayed in the EVF with both 24-105 & 70-300 I have. Do all the Lumix FF cameras have this?

 

[PhotoPete]

From what you wrote, it's possible that you might never again use 50mm if you have the 35mm.

You might be right on that. I have now been reading lens reviews and the Sigma 35mm F2 seems to be sharper than the Lumix one. I am taking stills so focus breathing doesn't matter to me. It is a bit heavier but the difference is only 295 / 325 grams so maybe I wouldn't notice it(?). Anybody have that?

 

[Jonathan-Mac]

You might be right on that. I have now been reading lens reviews and the Sigma 35mm F2 seems to be sharper than the Lumix one. I am taking stills so focus breathing doesn't matter to me. It is a bit heavier but the difference is only 295 / 325 grams so maybe I wouldn't notice it(?). Anybody have that?

I have the Sigma and it's excellent but I've also only heard good things about the Lumix (would need to be checked for blue fogging of course).