Hi Peter,
Depends what's "wide". Our eyes see about 180 degrees total sideways,
but less than 10 degrees in detail. So which is the "right"
perspective, 8mm or 200mm?
It's more of an aesthetic question. Are you interested in details or
surroundings, or a bit of both? And how close are you, or can you be?
Tom
At 2000 June 25 - Sunday 20:18, Peter A. Klein <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
spoke about *Re: [OM] Re:minimum carry kits...* saying
> Mike Swaim sez:
>
> >At the moment, I can't think of too much that would fall under the category
> >of routine documentary type stuff that couldn't be done with a battery
> >consisting of just a 28mm/2.8, a 50 macro, (for those odd occasions) and a
> >100/2.8.
>
> So Lex sez:
>
> >A PJ whose work I really admire, Mark Milstein of Atlantic News Service,
> >does his most dramatic work with a wide angle (20mm I think). That takes a
> >lot of courage to get into the thick of things for the lens to do its job.
>
> So I sez:
>
> For years I took all my photos with what I called my "Eisenstadt
> outfit"--which consisted of a 35mm, 50mm and 90mm lens on an old
> screw-mount Leica IIIf. I rarely wanted anything wider or narrower.
>
> I have always wondered why super-wides have become so popular. I've even
> heard people say that they regard a 24mm as their "normal" lens. Now
> perhaps this makes sense for photojournalists who often find themselves in
> small rooms. But in general, I regard super-wides as special tools whose
> perspective distortion is a spice, not a main dish.
>
> Recently, I saw a photo in the Seattle Times of a basset hound and his
> owner. For those that don't know, a basset is sort of a chunky beagle with
> sad eyes that has been stretched like a dachshund. The photo was
> wide-angle (probably 24mm), taken fairly close to the dog and at an oblique
> angle, so that the already elongated dog appeared elongated even further.
> The effect was comical, but I'm not sure whether the photo was about the
> dog or about the wide angle lens.
>
> I often get this reaction when I see super-wide shots. They put the
> subject IN YOUR FACE and add a bit of surrealism in the bargain. They are
> great for showing the viewpoint of an insect, or a small child, but they
> create a view that is (in skilled hands) intense, but often more fun-house
> mirror.
>
> So all you folks that think 28mm is already a medium telephoto, why do you
> like your super-wides so much?
------------
Tom Trottier ICQ: 57647974 TomATrottier@xxxxxxxx
<<<<Abacurial Information Technology Consulting>>>>
400 Slater St. Suite 415, Ottawa ON Canada K1R 7S7
__o +1 613 291-1168 fax:594-5412 (877)247-8796
_ \< Vote for your favourite Olympus camera at
(+)/'(+) http://www.freevote.com/booth/fav_camera
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|