Which focal length is best for street and travel photography: 28mm or 35mm? If you've been thinking about buying a compact camera but you're not sure if 28mm or 35mm suits your style better, hopefully, this article will help.
In March 2024, I took two compact classics with me to China for a week: the Ricoh GR III and the Fujifilm X100VI. I shot both cameras side by side during an 8-day trip. Although there doesn't seem to be a huge difference with the focal lengths, you'll see through the photos below just how much of a difference 7mm makes.
My Traditional Preference
I must confess that I've always been a 35mm guy—or so I thought. Before I bought the Ricoh GR III Diary Edition camera, I'd always loved 35mm-equivalent lenses. The wonderful Fujinon XF 35mm f/1.4 R lens for Fujifilm X Series is one of my all-time favorite lenses. I'm also a huge fanboy of the X100 line with its 35mm-equivalent focal length. Since the launch of the original X100 in 2010, I've owned every camera in the series apart from the X100S.
Ricoh GR III Versus Fujifilm X100VI
In March 2024, I impulsively bought the Fujifilm X100VI despite telling myself I wouldn't. A week later, I took it and the GR III on a trip to Beijing, Suzhou, and Shanghai.
I was looking forward to this match up, as I'd already come to the conclusion that the GR III was the perfect camera for street and travel photography. It was a lot of fun using both cameras, but I did get a little sick of swapping back and forth all the time.
Soon I'll write an article about which of these you should buy, but for now, we're just looking at how the difference in focal length affects different scenes.
Image Comparisons
In the photo comparisons below, the Ricoh 28mm image is on the left, and the Fujifilm 35mm image is on the right. When taking the comparison images, I tried to stay in the same spot for both photos so I could compare and contrast the shots.
Film Simulations
All images are JPGs, with only minor cropping and exposure corrections in Lightroom. The Ricoh shots used the camera's Positive Film simulation, and the Fujifilm shots used the new Reala Ace simulation. If you're keen to see how Reala Ace stacks up against four other color film sims, make sure you check out my Fstoppers article Reala Ace: How Does the X100VI’s New Film Simulation Compare?
Which Focal Length Is Best?
That's pretty much down to personal taste and the story you'd like to tell. The wider view of 28mm is ideal for street photography as it allows you to tell a more layered story, including more of your surroundings. The 35mm view can be better for focusing on a main subject in an image, with less distraction.
The 28mm vs 35mm choice also depends on which camera brand you want to shoot with, as the X100 line is strictly 35mm-equivalent focal length, unless you use the somewhat hefty wide and tele converters.
With Ricoh, you have the choice of 28mm equivalent lens on the GR III or 40mm with the GR IIIx. If you'd like to see example street and travel photos with the 40mm lens, make sure you check out my GR IIIx review and photos on Fstoppers. I'll be including all three cameras in an upcoming comparison article.
More Image Comparisons
If you'd like to see even more photo comparisons between the Ricoh GR III and the Fujifilm X100VI, make sure you check out the video at the top of this article where I compare more than 50 side-by-side images.
Conclusion
After spending a week shooting two compact classics side by side in China, I've gained a deeper appreciation for how these two focal lengths shape storytelling in street and travel photography.
I can't help but feel that for fast-moving travel and street photography, 28mm feels more natural for me. It excels at creating a sense of place and including more elements in the frame to build a richer narrative. However, this wider field of view demands careful composition to avoid clutter or distraction.
The 35mm focal length seems to shine more when isolating a subject is key. With a slightly narrower view, it helps simplify compositions and can lend immediacy. It's a much better choice for close-up portraits or if you want to focus attention on a specific detail.
Ultimately, the best focal length comes down to personal taste, shooting style, the story you want to tell, and which camera brand you like. Both have their strengths, and choosing one over the other depends on what resonates with you as a photographer.
Which is your pick for street and travel photography: 28mm or 35mm? Let me know in the comments.
The Ricoh colors are nicer, but 28mm looks too much like a phone picture. I like the slight compression of 35mm better.
Love the Ricoh colors! If you saw the photos in Lightroom (and not smaller versions here) you might appreciate the quality a bit more, thanks for reading!
Im confused on this, Ricoh is APS-C right?
If so, the lens on that is actually 18.3mm not 28mm but the lens in the Fujifilm is actually 35mm or 50mm equivalent on full frame
So it seem that in full frame equivalent you're testing 28mm against 50mm
The Fuji is a 23mm F2 lens, so a full frame 35mm equivalent.
Yes, correct :)
Neither is a full frame camera, so those are equivalent FF focal lengths :)
X100VI has a 23mm lens (FF equivalent 35mm ish)
Ricoh GRIII has a 18.3mm lens (FF equivalent 28mm ish)
I've caused some confusion by mistakenly referencing the 35mm f/1.4 X Series lens in the article (FF equivalent 50mm ish). Of course I was thinking about the 23mm f/1.4 lens X Series lens (FF equivalent 35mm ish).
Thanks for reading!
If I had the budget - I think the Leica Q43 is spot on, so somewhere around 40 to 50mm.
I shot 44 alot with my GFX and its a bit tight for me unless doing portraits.
A great all round focal length, but I'd want a wider lens with me too, or a wide angle converter for a fixed lens cam
When I was younger i was very much a 20 to 28 'wide" shooter
Now with wisdom 35mm to 40mm is my preferred.
44mm is too tight unless doing portraits.
35mm is my preferences plus you can always take 2 pics at 35 and stitch them for a wide shot. And likewise you can crop in a 28 to 35.
So just maybe it realky doesnt matter too much these days.
The ability to stitch certainly reduces the need for WA lenses when shooting still subjects. It's one of the reasons why I never felt the need for a wider lens in my one-zoom hiking kit. Stitching gave me panos as wide as I could want. And, I combined this with exposure bracketing to get larger-sensor DR from a smaller-sensor camera.
Smart. I often just stich two images...at 35mm it gives 20mm approximately. As there is a bit of overlap. That said 43 mm is too tight for my liking. 35mm just right!
40mm.
You seem to be confusing APSC and FF a bit, calling both the x100vi and 35mm 1.4 as 35mm equivalent. It's a great lens but doesn't seem to belong to this discussion, unless you really meant the 23mm 1.4!
I agree with your conclusions, but I feel from the photos you have taken that many are situations ideally suited to 28mm, and then repeated with the 35mm equivalent. So the 35mm images as a result seem to lack something in the composition. The reverse is true with the more portrait orientated images.
I think if you approach a 35mm equivalent as a cropped 18mm image, you don't master that FL and vice versa.
So, using it this way, on the one hand you can always crop into the 28mm images to get to 35, even if you gain depth of field and lose compression compared to a native lens of that focal length.
I really enjoy 28mm.
But this is where buying the WCL converter for the x100vi is the best of both worlds. Some days I use the x100 mostly with the WCL mounted, but I've always got the opportunity to use it at 35mm when the location opens up. Plus it's f2 not f2.8, which is nice for both the 28mm and 35mm applications of the camera.
Which is why the GFX fixed lens camera is a mistake in my opinion, starting at 28mm, when a longer focal length with a wide angle converter could have made it far more versatile - even if adding cost and bulk.
Oops, yes you're right re my reference to the 35mm f/1.4 lens which of course is a 52mm-ish equivalent lens! I should've referenced the original 23mm f/1.4 lens which I also own, which is 35mm-ish FF equivalent! Sorry about that, both of those OG lenses are stunning and were magic on the X-T1 / X-T2.
That's true that many of the scenes favoured the 28mm lens, but I guess that just shows that focal length is better / more versatile for street and travel? With the 35mm focal length better for other subjects, including portraits. Thanks for reading!
Agree. Referencing the apsc 35mm 1.4. Really sloppy editing
It seems pretty clear to me that the Ricoh is the more versatile of the two AND it fits in your pocket.
I pretty much only carry my x100vi in my slim (not skinny!) jeans 🤷🏻
And in my back pocket is the tiny wide angle converter that gives me 28mm on demand. All at f2. Crop in the Ricoh to 35mm field of view and it's equivalent to f3.5. Quite a difference.
I never put cameras in pockets .....im snapping
When not snapping small shoulder bag *leather
The one thing I don't like about that.Camera is the build quality.There's been a lot of problems with it.I also think it's probably the ugliest camera i've ever looked at. I held one in my hands once and it just is not an inspiring camera to hold.
I wouldn't call it ugly, it's efficient and purposeful. As for build quality, it's actually excellent! The only concern I'd have is the delicate lens cover, but I've had my GRiii for 2 years now and no issues.
Its the ugliest camera I've seen
I'd go for the GRIIIx (40mm EFL).
Another great choice, though having taken both the GRIII and GRIIIX to Indonesia recently, I now question whether I need both. Thanks for reading!
They are great cameras to use ....one thing I dont like os they are ugliest camera to look at ha ha..
I actually brought both a GRIII and a Canon with a 35 on it for my last 6 month trip to Japan. I find them different enough that they provoke a particular shooting style, while similar enough that it's an easy switch. 28 is my work a scene lens, I can get interesting angles, heights, and distances to really fill the frame and make context a subject to find the perfect composition — it's more considerate and truthful. 35 is my perspective, I use the EVF and capture the world from my point of view despite compostional perfection — it's more intimate and personal.
So, both? 🤷♂️
I agree with 'I am a fish', most of these photos were taken to suit a 28mm lens. I own an X100VI and until a few months ago owned a GRIIIx. I sold the GRIIIx as it was too narrow for me, I wish I'd bought the 28mm version instead. However, it might have been just me, but the images that came from the Ricoh were just not up to the Fuji. I could always tell just by a glance, which camera took which photo. I too used them side by side and it only took me a few months before I sold the Ricoh; it just didn't cut it overall. Having said that, in form alone, the Ricoh was superb; excellent build quality and so easy to slip in a pocket. I still want the 28mm version, but doubt I could live with image quality compared to the Fuji. I have the wide converter for the Fuji, but it makes it a bit too bulky for me. I wish there was a perfect camera out there.
Deciding on which lens all comes down to preference as a 35mm can replicate, to a degree, the field of view of a 28mm by using ‘foot zoom’ by standing a bit farther back. The wider lens will have slightly different optical characteristics, more distortion, deeper dof etc. I feel the test would have made much more sense if the framing for each shot were the same. If you want to take a photo of a particular subject with a fixed focal length camera one will stand in an appropriate place to give the desired framing rather than the false restricted way the test was done. I’m not sure what the author was wanting to prove as everyone knows the wider lens will produce a wider shot. If ‘foot zoom’ were employed giving similar framing people would see the real differences between the focal lengths. In a free situation where the shooter is not restricted to where they can stand it will all come down to the ‘look’ the photographer prefers. While you can achieve similar framing with a 35mm lens by stepping back, the perspective, depth, and visual effects will differ slightly. To be totally accurate if you’re trying to mimic the look of a 24mm lens specifically, it’s not just about framing—it’s about how the lens interacts with the scene and the spatial relationships between the elements in the frame. That test would have yielded a much better optical comparison in my opinion.
Yes and no. I think the point was to get the composition he envisioned regardless of focal length to see if one did it better. I don't think shooting the same subject with or without "foot zoom" would be a good comparison, because neither of these show the unique strengths of each focal length if they are forced to shoot the same thing.
If anything I'd rather see them shoot the same location, and see what the focal length inspires a photographer to shoot — instead of seeing a 35 shoot scenes perfect for a 28 and vice versa.
Usually on 28 I'd shoot the space and texture more, and on 35 I'd shoot subject and life more — just because one feels like my personal perspective and the other feels like a wider sterile documentary perspective.
I feel you are putting the cart before the horse and allowing the photographic hardware tail to wag the compositional dog. Ask yourself what motivates a shot? The lens on the front of a camera or the scene or subject coupled with the creative vision of the photographer? If it’s the scene or subject is the motivating factor for a shot the photographer will stand in the most suitable position to take the shot regardless of lens. The lens is no more than the means to an end. I disagree with you totally regarding comparison. If a true and meaningful comparison is to be achieved then comparing apples with apples will be more revealing than comparing two very different fruits. Once more, too much emphasis is placed on gear. It’s not the gear that makes the difference it’s the photographers mindset and skill. Sure gear is a factor but it’s not the deciding factor that you and others like to make out.
I mean, obviously the scene motivates the photo, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that not everything is an apple, and shouldn't be compared as one, some fruit needs to be peeled for the best taste. Photographers should show us what they want to get while using a 28, and what they want to get while using a 35 — trend and pattern will emerge. Certain perspective differences will motivate compositional choices and cause the photographer less friction to use.
Which is why the majority of people showing a comparison between 28 and 35 end up just shooting the 28 like it's a 35 (apples to apples) and getting flat, awkwardly far, and muddled compositions. It's not their fault, standard lenses are just more comfortable to use with a "what you see is what you get" kind of perspective. Luckily OP knows how to shoot a 28, but it's why some comments have complained that he shot the 35 like a 28, giving the 28 an edge. That's what they mean by that. In this case we need to compare bananas to apples, and factor in the extra bit of leg work to get to the good taste.
I loved the pancake 40mm on my Canon FF cameras. Very small, unobstrusive, light and (for me) the perfect focal length.
Just back from spending more than a month in Japan, and after so many years with the GR's, now I understand very well why the GR III 28mm lens rules supreme in the crowded streets of places like Tokyo and Osaka. The GR's are definitely made for the type of photographic environments found in those uber-crowded streets in Japan and not so much for broad, open space photography where so many other cameras are better. Walk those people-filled, structurally-busy streets in places like Rome, Berlin, Tokyo, NYC, etc. and you'll come to realize why that 28mm angle of view is so great up close and personal, and when stealth and speed are critical. In Tokyo just this past week, my 35mm Fujifilm received less love than my 28mm GR, but admittedly, I was more into snapshots than into isolation photos. At the end of the day, both are great, but like in fishing, depending on the fish you're after will dictate the kind of hook you'll select.
With the Ricoh, take a couple of steps forward to get the same field of view as the Fuji. For the Fuji, take a couple of steps back. 😂
As far as the film simulations go, who needs 'em? I can get the same effects in Lightroom.
Great article.
I love my 35mm on full frame Sony. With all prime lenses, zoom in or out with your feet! A comparison of the lenses from distances to shoot the same field of view would be helpful.
Ricoh colours are far better. And 28mm FF I think It's also better to describe the scene.
Better than fuji ...yeah nah
I certainly prefer the 35mm (equiv.) and the Fuji colours.
I was reading your article with interest as my favourite lenses are 24, 28 and 35. What i would like to see is a comparison of the two lenses with the same image composition. Not two photos from the same location. No matter which lens you are using you will get the composition right and then shoot. In case of the 28 you would go a step closer. In case of 35 you would go a step farther away. If compared with the same framing we would see the differences of the look of the two lenses!
I dont know. Maybe its just me, but whenever i do a lens comparison i always, let me rephrase that....I ALWAYS...use one camera body and 2 lenses from the same company. I'm not comparing different lens or camera manufacturers. I'm comparing....the difference between one focal length to another. Using one camera will tell me exactly what the different 'looks' between the 2 lenses are, with the exact same color rendition results or just b&w. To me, it makes no sense to compare these focal lengths on 2 different cameras let alone 2 different lenses. What's the point? Really, what is the point of your comparison? Are you really comparing 2 different lenses from different companies or do you want to determine which focal length is more pleasing, acceptable, usefull or any other word you want to prescribe to it? Comparing focal lengths should be just that....focal length. Not which picture from which camera came out 'better' or more pleasing. Addressing the primary topic...to me it really doesn't matter. A few steps closer or further, not so important.