At 02:40 3/7/02, Mark Lloyd wrote:
The thing that struck me most, however, was its lack of apeture settings
only 5 stops from 3.5 to 16. I for one feel that they should have added an
f22 stop cause in the bright snow with portra 160 even at f16 I had to use
1/500 to 1/1000th of a second to get the OM-1n's needle inbetween the
lines. Still it was an interesting day using a lens that has an overall
different feel from any other lens in my lineup.
Aperture diffraction limiting is the reason. Resolving power would plummet
at f/22. Lens design cannot fix this; it's a relationship between focal
length, absolute aperture diameter required for f/22 at that focal length
(f-number is focal length divided by effective absolute aperture diameter)
and the wavelength of visible light.
[snipped out some "rambling" :-) ]
It's a difficult lens to control since it's such a huge angle and I'm
thinking of maybe selling it to try for a 24/2.8 or should I just get out
and practice more? Thanks for listening to my ramblings
Yes, a super-wide is more difficult to control, it's not a lens for
everything, and you won't likely use it as much as other focal
lengths. However, it can create some magnificent perspectives if the
subject material supports the super-wide view. I wouldn't think of giving
up my 18/3.5 even though I use other lengths much more often. When I want
the super-wide perspective, my next step up, a 24mm, doesn't have what I'm
looking for. It takes a while to learn how to envision what it will do
because it is so different from the human eye's perspective. Keep using it
and experimenting with it; give it a chance to grow on you, and for you to
grow with it. Don't forget to think about vertical as well as horizontal
composition with it.
Start saving for the 24mm and be patient. Don't worry, there's plenty of
them around!
-- 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 >
|