At 01:52 1/30/01, Mike Lazzari inquired:
So... What do I get? I already have a 28mm 3.5 so if i went for the 24mm
2.8 I could sell the 28mm as redundant and save a little $$. If I got
the 21 I might keep the 28 costing much more overall. (but I'm attached
to it, it's been with me since Panama 1976) But after seeing shots
taken with an 18mm I'm not sure that the distortion would appeal to me.
I would use it for scenery and interior architectural. What is the
distortion like @ 21mm? Money is a consideration but not at the expense
of getting the wrong lens. Big glass is out, small is good, that's what
attracted me to OM in the first place. 49mm is a plus. What's the
consensus?
What focal length you use is very dependent on your vision of what you want
for your images. Yes, I guess that's a waffle answer. In terms of short
primes, most of us, except Tom Scales, (sorry Tom, couldn't help it) don't
find the need to have all of them spaced so close together. The two series
that seem most popular are:
a. 18mm, 24mm, 35mm, 50mm
b. 21mm, 28mm, 50mm
The 24mm is a little less forgiving than the 28mm in handling perspective;
in other words you will have to be more careful than with a 28mm to keep
from having a perspective that is visually unattractive. 28mm seems to be
the "break point" below which there isn't nearly as much "forgiveness" with
perspective. I used a 28mm for some time and eventually sold it when I
acquired the primes in the first series above. It took a short time to get
used to it, but it's not that bad. I see it as a "learning curve" in
getting used to the 24mm lens. Again, which ones you acquires will be
dependent on what you want for your images.
-- John
< 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 >
|