> considered 35 to be too close to a 50 to be of much use except as a
> replacement for a 50, and a 28 as the first real WA. I see the 21 at the
> longest true supersiede. Yes, the 21 can present challenges, but not so many
> as the 18...
Interesting discussion...
1. The 35mm is my "normal" lens. The 50mm is usually too long to be universal.
2. The 28mm was always too close to 35mm to be overly usable, but has
the advantage of being the widest lens that gives "normal" perspective
and doesn't give the pictures that wide-angle look.
3. The 24mm was my "wide-angle" axe of choice because it functions
like the 24mm, distortion wise, if you keep with the same working
distance as the 28mm, but also functions as an extreme wide-angle with
truncated coverage.
4. The 21mm and 24mm lenses are almost interchangeable, but the
advantages of each depend on how and what you photograph. If doing
event photography with people, I'll gladly take the 24mm, but I can
see where the 21mm would be handier for non-people photography.
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|