I seem to always be odd man out ... my shift lenses get much more use
outdoors than the ultra wides. I don't like to have pine trees leaning
inward nor outward.
However with the amount of indoor shooting I do, the 7-14 is probably the
most cost effective piece of photo gear I own. If Olympus can get more mega
pixels behind it, I would probably use it more often outdoors.
... and seconding the statement, nice images Jon.
-jeff
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Joel Wilcox" <jfwilcox@xxxxxxxxx>
Nice shots, Jon!
-snip
I think
the 11-22 is probably more realistic for my needs. I'm a bit of a POL
addict, which is possible on the 11-22 and not on the 7-14. The 7-14
seems like a lens you need for very special circumstances, rather like
a 24 shift, which one would not tend to use for normal 24mm duties.
For landscape guys, the superwide range is mainly useful for trickery
in enlarging foreground objects relative to background. This is
especially effective if the background area is still close enough that
in the resulting photograph it looks fairly normal and unstretched.
-snip
Thanks for sharing your work.
Joel W.
On 9/22/06, Jón Ragnarsson <jonr@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> This might sound like a "sour-grape" rant, but I belive that 11mm is as
> wide as I need/want to go. I've rarely wished for something wider when
> composing a shot, and I have found that too wide sometimes makes
> landscape look less spectacular. And of course it is brighter, lighter
> and takes filters. The 7-14 is a lottery item, I'll only buy it if I
> have money that I have no idea of how to spend. :)
> 11mm:
> http://jonr.light.is/gallery/v/landscape/_5212515.jpg.html
> http://jonr.light.is/gallery/v/landscape/_C189344.jpg.html
> http://jonr.light.is/gallery/v/landscape/_C189365.jpg.html
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
