Lex rattled out:
>Anything from 35mm to 55mm is a "normal" lens to me. I don't usually care
>to use anything wider outdoors. To my eye, 28mm is a bare minimum wide
>angle for indoors - but generally I don't want to use anything wider than
>necessary unless deliberate distortion is desirable. So, sure, I'd say
>you'd find both the 28 and 24 useful. But if I had to choose one, I'd stick
>with the sharper lens.
Depends all on the subject matter and "vision". For example, at the end of
this month I'm going to Upper Michigan to do some fall color/waterfall
photography. A 24mm lens is absolutely a requirement to get waterfall
shots without branches/trees intruding on the subject. This also allows
you to "enhance" the scale of the waterfalls a bit too. Granted a "normal"
lens might be more "accurate" but how often is "accurate" what we are
after. Besides, some of the close quarters limit how far away you can get.
Interiors are a pain. As much as I like my shift lens, it is worthless for
most interior shots. I use a 24mm almost exclusively and wish for a 21mm.
I appreciate the fact that my 24/2.8 has exhibited very little vignetting
and is quite sharp at F8. Stopped down much more and diffraction kicks in
and resolution drops. Mine has undergone severe treatment through the
years (taking a dive into beach sand--grind, grind, grind), getting rained
on and requiring major defogging on the heater vent for almost a week, and
finally taking a horrible dive to the floor when my backpack strap broke in
the Dublin Ireland Airport. The filter ring is mangled beyond recognition
(vise grip repair), but it still takes excellent pictures.
Some of my gear definitely doesn't owe me anything.
Ken Norton
< 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 >
|