File: DSC_3097.jpg (3.5 MB)

3.5 MB JPG

28mm filters out the bokehfags and gearfags, if you need 100mm f0.95 to make good pictures you suck

>>4462881
you forgot to mention that you are a fat retard like you always do

>>4462866
Fat people like it because it makes them look skinnier

>>4462881
This would be really compelling if the person saying it had a shred of evidence that they'd ever taken a good photo at any focal length, let alone 28mm. Go be fat somewhere else.

File: ContactSheet-001.jpg (1.3 MB)

1.3 MB JPG

>>4462866
28 is dope

4462884
4462888

>Provide evidence slamming no-talent hacks and a decent photo taken at 28mm
>ad hominem

Never change 4chan incels

28mm 1.4 is pretty fun though. I'll post some later.

>>4462893
Tag me properly you retarded fatass. No one is using ad-hominem. You presented a photo, it fucking sucks. Everyone can see it fucking sucks. I tell you it fucking sucks, and that the rest of your photos fucking suck. I also tell you that your argument would be more compelling if you presented relevant information, and that there is no evidence that you have relevant information (good photos). Fucking think for once, you post like Brian Griffin. Everything goes over your head and you strut around like a winner. It's small wonder that recent poll put you as the most hated person here.

4462897
>Where are my (YOU'S)! WHAAAAAH!!!

>>4462897
i like his photo :) i think its pretty good

28mm is one of my favorite focal lengths actually half my shots on a kit zoom are 28-35mm

>>4462897
The poll that was so fake an israeli fed paid a random brazilian $3 to bot it?

>>4462898
>>4462902
>receives criticism
>cognitive dissonance, brain turns off
>well im just going pretend that didnt happen im actually the best and also im barely even 200kgs and smell like onions

File: 469359951_922410480018472_1455236380368102627_n.jpg (103.1 KB)

103.1 KB JPG

>>4462898

>Someone actually defending me
>mfw

4462903

Ad hominem isn't criticism it's just called being a faggot

I don't like 28mm that much either, 24 or 35 is often much better. I like it on crop though.

>>4462881
oh no I agreed with Sugar on something. It feels wrong

what are the best 28mm for Nikon z ?

File: MDR_7747-edit-BW-7-6.jpg (1.7 MB)

1.7 MB JPG

I honestly haven't used it much and I'm having a hard time adjusting to it for some reason. I actually find it easier to go wider, and I don't even do that very often. Picrel is the "best" 28mm shot I've taken lately.

>>4462881
this is a good photo and this guy here >>4462897 knows how to describe himself:
>Everything goes over your head and you strut around like a winner.

Anyway, try using wide angles indoors or in cramped spaces.
>Who likes it?
Boomers love wide angles.

>>4462905
>>4462929
Nah kill just kill yourself man

>>4462937
you are very impolite

File: DSCF6691bw.jpg (1.1 MB)

1.1 MB JPG

i like 28 for groups of peopel and close quarters

>>4462897
>Tag me properly
>Tag me
>Tag

File: Garry.jpg (248.7 KB)

248.7 KB JPG

>>4462866
It is better than 35mm that is never enough wide or tight. At least 28mm is always wide enough to pack everything in to frame. 35mm and 50mm is for photographers than can not take a good picture so they rely on the dof to save them.

Utter garbage, the Winogrand length and phonefag length. Snapshittery is all it's good for. It's one of the many reasons Leica Q pix sux so much. K3k!
The underwater photo is good because being underwater actually changes the effective focal length by a 4:3 factor. A 28 underwater behaves like a 37 outside, roughly 35. In other words, a 28 is what you need to be uncle Terry in the depths.

What are you saying, it’s too wide or too tight, it seems like a very natural looking frame to see

28 is just right. 24 gets distorted, 35 is just meh. Perfect wide-angle.

File: 1137c-0832.jpg (873.9 KB)

873.9 KB JPG

>>4463129

>Gear made this photo good

Spoken like a true gearfag, Helmut Newton and Daido Moriyama worked in 28mm, do they suck too?

>>4462897
>It's small wonder that recent poll put you as the most hated person here
It was literally a samefag schizo that voted the same options multiple times

>>4463124
shhh, retard

>>4463157
well yes

>>4463159
You know for a fact that's a cope. Every time you post here you're met with hate. You're an incredibly hard person to like.

>>4463173
Yes, keep on making up nonsense and samefagging to agree with yourself. Literally nobody here cares but you. You're a sad individual.

>>4463181
>th-the poll was f-fake!!!
>th-they hacked it to make me look bad!!!
Do you see how retarded you sound?

>>4463188
Bro some guy literally said he paid a brazillian $3 to put in 20 votes or whatever

That poll wasn't just shitposting? Someone is actually taking those results as gospel? Like our local schizos don't have enough meaningless spam material as it is.

Shit, I wanna be schizo too. Who's ring do I kiss?

File: comment_16099568776W3lWJSSx6wwv8D8hrTf9y.jpg (71.1 KB)

71.1 KB JPG

>>4463192
>>4463193
>a-anyone who says it didn't get magically hacked is schizophrenic guise!!!
Why not just accept the obvious truth that literally no one likes you. No need to do mental gymnastics about how "the site got hacked by your stalkers" when the explanation is obvious. People who try to steer the discussion of an anonymous photography forum to be about themselves, their life, and how special they are, are generally socially stunted man-children. People just don't wanna hear from you.

>>4463205
No, strawpolls are fake as fuck. Anyone with a VPN or a phone with an airplane mode toggle can spam votes.

>>4460343
>>4460352

>>4463211
Personally, I think it's one or two really obsessed guys that don't even post photos, which makes the whole thing even sadder.

You're a schizo. Brazillian dude is the only guy who came out with any benefit to the poll

>$3.50 for 6 high value (you)s
Was it worth it? The expenditures of the leica man are simply disgusting...

>>4463157
Helmut mostly shot longer lengths, 28mm is far from representative of his work. Moriyama does indeed suck.
I reject your gearfag claim, it's the AoV/perspective and even if your gear was brushes and paint it would be the same.

>>4463157
In photography, using the correct gear for the photo does in fact determine if a photo is good or bad.

You shot a 35mm portrait due to optical tricks. 28mm above ground is really tacky and overdone.

>>4463129
>>4463221
shouldn't you be talking about dogs in some other thread

>>4463193
>Nobody likes you because of a poll!
>Poll is fake
>Wait n-nobody took the poll s-seriosly i was only pretending to be retarded!!!!!
>Samefags himself in agreement

>>4462866
Phones

>>4462866
what kind of stupid retarded question is that?
you need it when you need to go wider than 35mm but don't want the dreaded super wide look

sage
>>4469173
>necro a retard-tier thread to call the op a retard
sage next time retard

>>4462866
28mm is the 40mm of wide angle. it's a youtube consoomer cattle focal length. so boring and mediocre phone makers decided to use it as the standard fov for their consoomer cattle phones.
if you shoot 28mm you lack any soul. you're consoomer cattle. you don't deserve the gift of life. throw yourself under a freight train. disgusting cattle.

>>4462881
imagine needing a focal length to not be a sorry bokeh addicted faggot. yeah budde, we get it, you're not fucking kids because you moved into a retirment home. /golfclap for your iron will lol

>>4462927
only 28mm nikon makes is a plastic trash tier consoomer lens for those Zf cattle. nikon knows that 28mm is a trash focal length. just like 40mm. that's why they make only joke lenses in that format. they're laughing in japan about all the faggots who unironically buy those lenses. it's a phone focal length for teenage girls sending dickpics to niggers

>>4463098
holy fuck that absolut med washed out black and white profile. what is this? some fuji shit? absolutely soulless phone tier. telling that you like 28mm. disgusting animal.

>>4469189
>argument
>argument, japanese

>>4463124
>At least 28mm is always wide enough to pack everything in to frame.
lol spoken like a true duning kruger beginner retard. "ITS ABOUT PACKING EVERYTHING INTO THE IMAGE. THE MORE THE BETTER" kek the absolute state of /p/ cattle m00

>>4469189
>teenage girls sending dickpics
brother, what?

>>4469194
>he doesn't trick teenage girls into sending him dick pics
your loss I guess, heh

File: lol.gif (818.3 KB)

818.3 KB GIF

>arguing over focal lengths and maximum aperture
never change, /p/

>>4469202
we are discussing girl dicks, fuck off retard

>a focal length is bad
There aren't any good or bad focal lengths, just good or bad photos

>>4469225
Shitbull owner mentality.

>>4469229
using the right tool for the job without preconceptions of what a "good" or "bad" focal length is makes me the same as people who refuse to train their bred-to-be-violent dogs? fuck me for wanting to take a group photo in a small space I guess.

I like it fine on a crop body.

>>4469236
>there's no good or bad breeds just bad owners
Yes, it makes you the same as them. Also 28mm isn't wide enough nor tight enough to make anything worthwhile.

>>4469229
stop fucking dogs

>>4469239
What makes something worthwhile in your mind? If I want to take a close-ish corner shot of my house 28mm is just the right focal length. If I want to get multiple people in frame while being relatively close to them it's a fine focal length. If I'm taking a landscape shot it's a length I might consider. What is the obsession with 28mm being bad and likening it to poor pet ownership?

for me it's 1mm (not a typo)

>>4469240
stop the disinfo
dogs fuck him

>>4469250
>What is the obsession with 28mm being bad and likening it to poor pet ownership?
That's just typical 4chan retardation. You have to use the /p/ approved focal lengths and camera brands, or else you have no ability to take good photos whatsoever and people will keep debating you as if their life depends on it.

>>4469236
28mm is never the right tool

>>4469305
It was the right tool for the 28mm lens competition.

File: clankers.jpg (39.1 KB)

39.1 KB JPG

This whole thread is just bots talking to one another.

sudo rm -rf

>>4463230

but 28 was the correct FL for that image because I knew those optical tricks would come into play, so by your logic, I did use the correct gear to make that photo.

calm down your autism and go touch grass

I haven't used my 28mm prime very often. Every time I try it again, I end up preferring something much wider or narrower. However, when I adapt the lens to my M43 video camera, my focal reducer's crop factor of 1.28 makes the FOV closer to 35mm.

>>4462866
I shoot my 20mm more than any other lens. On paid jobs too. Get fucked telefag.

Yeah FUCK 28mm its SHIT and for FAGS
i love my 27mm though
I use it all the time. And not just because its a pancake

File: img18051.jpg (2 MB)

2 MB JPG

I finally took a 28mm shot that I actually liked.

>>4462866
Nobody likes 28mm. Theres a reason why 35mm is the most popular, then 24mm. 28mm is the wide angle no mans land.

File: 17038641582542977543055653095112.jpg (81.9 KB)

81.9 KB JPG

>>4463307
>>Samefags himself in agreement
The single snoy essay schizo on this board is the worst culprit of this

>S tier
28mm, 50mm, 135mm, 300mm
>Meh tier
24mm, 35mm, 40mm, 85mm, 200mm, 400mm, 600mm

>>4472191
setting looks pretty but comp looks unremarkable. what do you like about it?

>>4472207
Mainly the setting as well. I have other shots at other focal lengths, maybe I could try some wider crops on this one and do away with the bottom grass to emphasis the sandlines.

>>4469250
>If I want to take a close-ish corner shot of my house 28mm is just the right focal length.
I guarantee it's worse (less interesting) than what 24mm would give you AND what 50mm would give you.

>>4472221
The most based corners are shot at 16mm and you can't convince me otherwise

>>4472224
based real estate shooter

Based photography: A Technical Guide
By A. Non

Alright sniggers, you need to buy nothing but prime lenses because zooms suck the sovl out of your penis.
You must shoot these things with these lenses:
>Portraits at 16mm
>Building corners at 400mm
>Birds at 50mm
>Landscapes at 1200mm
Yes. You must be a 1200mm lens otherwise you are in fact NOT based and you cannot use that to shoot birds. That's what the P320 is for.

>>4472252
What about rocks, leafs and clouds

>>4472255
>Rocks at 200mm (preferably f/2 so nothing is in focus)
>Leaves are for the classic 24mm so you can get more leaves per pixel
>Clouds deserve 135mm so you can prevent the faces in them from having werid distortion. Rock Kockwell taught us faces look more natural like this.

>>4472252
you forgot to add that only pentax cameras are allowed, every other brand gives you bad pictures by default

>>4472282
this but unironically

>>4472191
That's a good photo anon. Evokes a sense of exploration and majesty. Thanks for posting it.

>>4472282
Oh I forgot about Pentax. What's their current most successful model of full frame camera being sold today?

File: 139406455_3970232879688736_3674269708462010522_n.jpg (499.9 KB)

499.9 KB JPG

>>4472192
>Nobody likes 28mm. Theres a reason why 35mm is the most popular, then 24mm. 28mm is the wide angle no mans land.
I own 24, 28, and 35 ... in multiple formats (35mm and 6x7 equivalent). 28mm is the most useful by far. Wider than 35 while still not too exagerated so it's still "general purpose".

24mm is entirely different, 24 is where it starts to really look artificially wide. Which is a plus if that's what you want. But for "general purpose", the widest is 28mm

Pic related, made with a 55/3.5 Pentax 6x7, equivalent to 28/1.7 in full frame terms.

If you love 28mm, you'll love 26mm even more for sure.

>>4469192
It's not about packing everything into the image, it's about framing with layers much more effectively.
Look at you and >>4463162 both of you can only use ad hominem attacks against me. Weak.
What ever, I will go back to enjoy my photography with a 28mm lens.

>>4462866
I personally hate anything from 25 to 50mm.
28 is barely usable, I'd go wider.

>>4462881
Pictorialism is a legitimate style

>>4472922
I went to the camera store recently and picked up a 28mm lens for my Minolta X-700.
I was a little annoyed at first because I really wanted a 35mm lens, but I bought the 28mm lens anyway because why not.
Honestly, I've been enjoying using it. It is a really nice focal length imo.
I took a bunch of pictures of my town today, and I plan on using the 28mm lens in the city this weekend.

File: 987698.jpg (138.6 KB)

138.6 KB JPG

>>4462891
These are almost all posed. I hate posed shots and you need to be posed to use 28mm because the camera is 2 inches from their face.
I think phones have ruined 28mm. 28mm photos are just too ubiquitous.

>>4462866
28mm is for when you have a girlfriend and you want to take sexy photos to stock your coffers for the rest of your life. It's good for photos of people when you're 2-8 ft away. Phones have made it the easiest focal length for dummies to pick up. If you have a subject and beautiful natural backgrounds to put them in front of it's great. xf18mmf2 gets shat on for edge quality but it stays on my x-t2 and I hardly want to take it off.

>>4462881
Based

It's a zoom focal length. You're not going to get great DoF anyway, so you may as well keep the flexibility of a zoom. 50mm looks very different on primes vs zoom, 28 does not.
>t. sold my 28mm prime because i never used it

24mm and 50mm are non-compromise focal lengths. 28mm and 35mm are compromise lengths; not wide enough to exaggerate proportions, not narrow enough for nice compositions. Good for snapshits.

File: onion.png (240.7 KB)

240.7 KB PNG

>>4475765
>can only get good compositions with telephotos
ngmi my dood

Also,
>>4475762
>You're not going to get great DoF anyway
Wider FLs with bright apertures don't exist to get some magical bokehwhoring dreamy creamies, they exist to get lots of light on the sensor. At the same focus distance, a 28mm (or anything in the 16-35mm range really) with have more in focus at f/2.8 than a 100mm will at f/8. Three stops of light for the same DoF is great, it just comes down to if that FL is useful to you or not in the first place.
>t. favourite lens is a 16-35 f/4

>>4475769
>Wider FLs with bright apertures don't exist to get some magical bokehwhoring dreamy creamies, they exist to get lots of light on the sensor.
Yes, but that advantage is nowadays greatly diminished by great IBIS. There are still cases when it is very helpful, but much less so than it was 10 years ago. Bright apertures on normal lenses actually make your subject stand out because of bokeh, which is something that we'll probably be able to replicate with digital processing in a few years down the line, but can't really be replicated well at the moment.

Works as an OK "cone of attention" lens on APSC.

4chan is a 28mm website.

>>4475778
Fast aperture wide angles are some for the shallow DoF look

>>4475860
This, that makes it quite passable when it comes to microtonal harvesting, although most experts would agree it's surpassed by the 30mm plastic lens found on so many disposable cameras. You know, it's basically the 28 with decorative vignetting. That makes the microtones in the cone of attention stand out so much more.

I use a 30mm Sigma everyone raves about
It's ok but I'm not sure I can get used to this "zoom with your feet" nonsense.

>>4475964
"zoom with your feet" is autisimish for "no I don't understand how focal lengths influence distortion and background compression, why do you ask?"
It works with normal lenses because they look, go fucking figure, normal, and they're a short enough focal length that you can still use them for average snapshitting.
"zoom with your feet" falls apart at wide and tele lengths because you either can't frame the way you want to or framing it with the focal length prime you brought with you looks odd. Yeah we can take a group portrait guys let me just zoom my 300mm prime with my feet into the next post code.

>>4475969
>I don't understand how focal lengths influence distortion and background compression
Yeah I'm quickly finding that out
I did have less trouble when I got started out with a cheap kit lens, although most of my shots were at 24mm

>>4475983
>>I don't understand how focal lengths influence distortion and background compression
>Yeah I'm quickly finding that out

>People casually find out something very fundamental which ought to be figured out from the beginning of learning photography.
Sad. gearfags even fucked up people's very basic knowledge.
People should always think in distance between camera and subject instead of muh focal length.

File: 28 meter.jpg (66.7 KB)

66.7 KB JPG

I think one of the disasters of AF lens design is that people stopped giving a fuck about distance.
Because you don't need to look up to it and the camera will give it a fuck for you so you can just shutting without a cell of your brain.

>>4475983
Primes have their place and sometimes it's nice to have one over a zoom for general shooting. I will freely admit that. But the amount of scenes that will line up their composition for you and the single focal length you brought out that day is minimal; you'll miss more good shots with a prime, but you'll gain some IQ overall for all your snapshits.
Basically, primes are for snapshits and carefully curated scenes like studio shots.

>>4476011
Holy fuck fine.
DISTANCE to subject influences distortion, and FOCAL LENGTH influences background compression. There. Christ the pedantry is numbing.
Filling a subject for two given focal lengths will require difference distances to subject which is where the link comes from.

>>4476014
>DISTANCE to subject influences distortion, and FOCAL LENGTH influences background compression
Actually it's distance alone. It's perspective compression, not actually "telephoto compression". It's most noticeable when a telephoto lens does the cropping for you, but it's not the one doing the compression. Zoom with your postprocessing :^) and you'll see it's true.
However, the type of picture one typically takes with a tele is more compressed than the one you typically take with a wide because you naturally use the tele for things that are far away.

>>4476011
I'm still somewhat getting started, so forgive my retardation there. I got into this 3 months ago and I've been absorbing a lot of conflicting information that I'm trying to put into practice at times. I do admit I did buy compulsively into something I saw high recommendations on and a low price (mainly because I had to give the first camera with a kit lens I used back to its owner).

>>4476014
I'm guessing one of the reasons why primes are recommended over zoom ones so often is because decent zoom lenses are generally pricier. I grabbed this Sigma 30mm f/1.4 for 180€ and I don't feel it was pricey at all, but I'm not taking as many shots as I used to. I gotta say though it's pretty good on low light conditions.

>>4476026
>I'm guessing one of the reasons why primes are recommended over zoom ones so often is because decent zoom lenses are generally pricier
Yes and no. Any consumer prime made in the last 10+ years is going to btfo even modern consumer zooms and come with brighter apertures*, but zooms normally come with image stabilisation which evens the playing field against primes without stabilisation**. Professional zooms will be on par or better than consumer primes so long as there's rough parity in age (a 20 year old pro zoom may lose against a modern prime for example). Then finally your pro primes like the beefeater 85mm f/1.2's will decimate all else.

*Wider apertures allow you to shoot with faster shutter speeds which help freeze the motion of moving subjects. Good for portraits, cars, birds etc.
**Image stabilisation allows you to lower your shutter speed and still avoid shake blur, but IS does nothing to help with moving subjects. The tradeoff is because you "gain" light with a longer shutter instead of a wider aperture, your depth of field is greater so more is in focus. Good for landscapes, buildings, still life etc.

>I gotta say though it's pretty good on low light conditions.
Having at least one prime for exactly this is a good idea. Cheap 50mm primes are a, ahem, prime candidate. Huehuehue.

>>4476029
>Having at least one prime for exactly this is a good idea. Cheap 50mm primes are a, ahem, prime candidate. Huehuehue.
Yeah, good thing I got this mainly because the brightest shit I'm going to look at is christmas lights, the sunny days are likely gone over where I live for quite a while.

File: _DSC2233.jpg (3.5 MB)

3.5 MB JPG

>>4475416

fuck pictoralism

t. straight photography

>>4476029
You're forgetting one advantage of IS, that's sharper tracking shots.

>>4476052
So true, as often as you talk about cameras, you have some awesome tracking examples to share with us right?

>>4476052
The eternal an unceasing seethe you generate is truly something to behold. Truly magnificent.

>>4476051
>not in color
Keep trying, kid.

>>4476133
>The eternal an unceasing seethe you generate is truly something to behold. Truly magnificent.
Thanks anon, it's taken quite some time to cultivate so I appreciate that you can appreciate it :)

File: nikon 135mm.jpg (70.4 KB)

70.4 KB JPG

>>4476014
>DISTANCE to subject influences distortion, and FOCAL LENGTH influences background compression.

Not really. And that's what i'm talking about how people became so ignorant.

Distance tricks perspective. Focal length tricks mere field of view.

Take picture with 28mm, crop the center in 50mm or 100mm or 1000mm and compare with actual 50 or 100 or 1000 lens's picture.
The only difference will be the field of view, how wide or narrow the picture.

In other words, in wide picture there is narrow focal length's 'compression' always. You just have to crop it to make it prominent to notice.

It's like people saying people using umbrellas causes rain.

Same in muh Portrait Lenses.
The real reason why 75~135mm are called PL is because the distance you take with them creates appropriate perspective for portrait.

Then
>Why not just shoot 18mm and crop it to 135?
Because of the resolution.


Lastly, there is another micro difference between different focal length lenses. Minimum and Maximum focus distance.
28mm lens has maximum focus distance at 2(or i would say 8) meters>>4476013
. And 135mm it's 20 meters.
Which means with a 135mm lens you can be precise to focus a subject at 10m or a subject at 20m and 28mm can't do the same thing.

>>4476051
Not a counterpoint, f/64 viewed the Pictorialist style as inherently antisemitic and fascist with no justification
>the Jew fears the soft-focused titty

>>4476155
So do you have have any of your tracking shot examples to share with us?

>>4476240
real? based pictoralists

>>4476240
based mortensen chads. Fuck incel adams.

File: DSC_0934.jpg (3.4 MB)

3.4 MB JPG

being the "1x" angle of view on cellphones, the answer to your question OP is that literally everyone uses it every single day, by far the most widely used focal length on the planet. Its purpose is to capture the scene around you in a normal way.

>>4483253
>Its purpose is to capture the scene around you in a normal

But it literally doesn’t

>>4483253
Yeah this is kind of bullshit. UWAs are for putting the viewer into the photographer's shoes. "Normal" isn't something applicable to this style of photography because most photographers dont shoot at UWA FLs regularly. If you mean less distorted, then fine but that's not what you said.
28mm is just about the widest you can get without having heavy distortion, but it's also short enough that getting a large aperture doesn't require a big aperture (total mm).

It's literally the path of least resistance and that's why it's popular in phones. Cheap to make, wide enough, normally supplemented with digital zoom... it's a snapshit generator focal length.

>>4483335
Yes it does

>>4483336
28mm isn't UWA, it's 7mm less than 35mm. It's normal wide, not ultra wide.

>>4483335
Yes, it does. If you're standing on the street and there's something a few feet in front of you, and you point a 28 at it, you'll capture that thing and a bit of context around it.

>>4483451
>28mm isn't UWA, it's 7mm less than 35mm. It's normal wide, not ultra wide.
Which if you weren't some Bangladeshi ESL, you'd understand I wasn't claiming it was.
>If you're standing on the street and there's something a few feet in front of you, and you point a 28 at it, you'll capture that thing and a bit of context around it
This is just weak reasoning too. That would apply for literally any focal length between 24 and 80~ish it only depends on how close you are and how big/small the subject is.
Wides are cheap to manufacture and can be supplemented with digital zoom. That's literally it. The fact everyone settled on 28mm was purely because they were following the leading product at the time, the IPhone.

File: 1213.jpg (2.2 MB)

2.2 MB JPG

28 is fine actually

>>4462866
The perfect focal length

>>4483455
>The fact everyone settled on 28mm was purely because they were following the leading product at the time, the IPhone.
Explains why no one ever used 28mm before smartphones

>>4483516
Things that make this photo good
>Lighting
>Subject
>Pose
>Makeup
>Background
>Naked woman+++[TOPMINT]
Things that do not make this photo good
>Focal Length
This could be taken on anything between 24-100mm with no significant difference. In fact this looks more like 50mm or maybe even 80mm. The only change would be the distortion on the subject which there isn't any so it's not that wide, and the amount of background seen. Considering very little of the window is actually viewable and the "perspective" is from the edge of the bed I'm voting for 50mm.

28mm is like 40mm on apsc ain't that the point

>>4483528
For phones you moron. Learn to inference properly.

>>4483455
this would be a very intelligent argument if the iphone didn't start with 37mm ff equivalent and didn't only turn to 28mm in 2013 following photography trends

>>4483543
And those phones got it from photographers beforehand
>>4483548
Very true, not to mention most phones now aren't even 28mm anymore either, current iPhone is 24mm

File: Naked woman.jpg (210.6 KB)

210.6 KB JPG

>>4483531
>a-anon-kun... do you really think i'm +++[TOPMINT]? >.<

>>4483538
28mm on FF is equivalent to 18mm on APS-C

>>4483824
Yeah I mean the other way around 28mm on apsc is 40mm ff

>>4483555
chek'd
TOPMINT+++++ no fungus

Just bought a 28mm lens fuck you dipshit queer

I much prefer a 35mm. And if I have to go wider, I'd rather pick a 24.

Luv me 24mm APSC, simple as.

Is 28mm good for landscapes? I usually default to having a 50 on my camera because I worried (especially on film) detail would be lost with the wider angle.

Its just a standard wide.
If you get it as a prime, it will be fairly wide and sharp.
If you use it to make panoramas you will have less distortion than a wider lens and retain more detail.
I had one for a couple of years, but, admittedly, didn't use it much.

The main issue I have with a 28mm as a noob is because it's so wide it feels like more of a balancing act to frame shots. Like with a 50 or a 135 it's much easier to focus on something specific and blur everything you don't want, but the 28 seems to thrive when you have most things in focus and properly balance them. That or you treat it like a 'short 50' and just get closer to everything you want to shoot.

>>4488557
You are struggling with the right thing. Lots of noobs take garbage shots with wide angles. It's hard to compose good shots with them. 50mm is harder than 135mm too. The main thing beginners get wrong is not being able to take simple and clear photos, teles make this easier and wide angles make this harder.
>That or you treat it like a 'short 50' and just get closer to everything you want to shoot.
Read about perspective distortion, "zoom with your legs" is not actually a thing.

>>4488574
Do you have any advice for this other than just shooting more?

>>4462866
I shoot almost exclusively at 28mm and 40mm. Sue me.

>>4488624
Learn to compose and look at and analyze more wide angle photography. Some places (the woods for example) rarely look good with wide angle. Time of day and quality of light matters much more with wide angles, so only shoot golden hour or in interesting weather.

>>4488727
The day I bought the lens I took it to my local park to test it and every picture ended up boring as fuck. Also it isn't super fast so I can't really shoot it at night. I'll look at some other wide-ish shots and study the composition.

>>4488736
>Also it isn't super fast so I can't really shoot it at night
Tripod or even a diy base for the camera will do wonders. Or just use your phone since you fell for the 28mm meme))

>>4488736
Also 28 and 35 are boring lengths, if you're going wide get a 24 for FF or 16 for APS-C at the very least.

>>4488739
>>4488740
I liked the wide view when I put it on my camera but I just can't seem to make it interesting. I feel like I see the world in 50mm so it works the best for me.

>>4488741
50mm is based after all. This new captcha is fucking wild also lmao

>>4488741
Are you on APS-C or FF?

>>4488743
FF, old film SLR

>>4488744
Then I suggest a 24mm to spice things up. 28mm is a shitty in-between length. I know 4mm doesn't seem much, but the wider you go the more each mm counts.

>>4488746
Do you have any tips for composition? I feel like bringing in more of the background on wider lenses makes my shots look less focused and ore busy. Basically everything turns into snapshits.

>>4488750
get close
that's the fucking secret to phone-like focal lengths. (there's a reason why 28mm looks like snapshits - because it's the snapshit focal length every teenage girl uses on her iphone)

>>4488750
If you go wide, shoot wide subjects or get close as >>4488753 said. Seaside shots as well as in-car shots are two examples that benefit from proper wides.

>>4488753
>>4488756
Word, I'll creep up closer. Or shoot wide landscapes. Also the wider lenses for this camera are expensive. If I can't make 28mm work I'll probably just go back to shooting 50 and 135.

>>4488725
i'll see you in court.

>>4488750
Get 28mm vision in your mind.
It usually can be acquired by getting closer to subject and observing the environment before shootong.

Wide angles are difficult because our vision is usually much narrower.

But some dudes mentioned about
>muh zooming with your feet
It's a meme. If you make a change in the distance between camera and the subject, you will get different result. It just doesnt work.
On this matter, i recommend to think of composition based on the distance between you and the subject, rather than focal lengh of your lens and the subject.

File: DSC_0706.jpg (149.7 KB)

149.7 KB JPG

>>4462866

trash at my sensor and i got no swabs

File: 1769255005780732a.jpg (220.4 KB)

220.4 KB JPG

>>4495117
Here, i got the shits removed for you.