I see your point. So in addition to my 18/3.5 and 24/2.8, I need not only the
55/1.2 and the 50/1.2 (to find out which is best), but also the 21/2.0, the
28/2.0 and the 35/2.0. Oh, and of course, why not the 24/2.0 as well.... :o)
Thank you all for your kind advice! This list is terrific!
Now...., Will anyone help me talk to my wife about this? ;-)
-poo
At 2003/04/01 Tue AM 10:29:29 CEST Jim Brokaw <jbrokaw@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Actually, the 21/2.0 is great for group pictures... not only do you not have
> to step back, you don't even have to stand up! I think either a 28/2.0 or a
> 35/2.0 would be the best for indoors group shots (without flash). If you use
> a flash then you have to make sure the coverage is there, and the 21 is a
> bit wide for most flash coverages...
> --
>
> Jim Brokaw
> OM-'s of all sorts, and no OM-oney...
>
>
> on 3/31/03 2:24 PM, Moose at olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > Recent experience at the ZA Bay Area meeting indicates 50mm isn't really
> > wide enough for groups at a reataurant table. Anybody remember me almost
> > falling backwards over some chairs and another table when I stepped back
> > with the 50/1.4 to take you picture?
> >
> > Moose
> >
> > Thomas Heide Clausen wrote:
> >
> >> <>
> >> For your use, which you write up as "restaurants", I imagine that
> >> focal-length-wise the 50 may be better for you: a 55mm is slightly
> >> longer, and restaurants in general do not sport a lot of space to
> >> "step back". So alone the sligltly larger angle-of-view may make the
> >> 50/1.2 more desireable?
> >>
>
>
>
> < 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 >
>
>
< 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 >
|