At 3/23/2020 10:03 PM, Moose wrote:
>On 3/23/2020 12:44 PM, Ken Norton wrote:
>>>On 3/23/2020 12:03 PM, Wayne Shumaker wrote:
>>>>Warmth, it was a bit cool, around 70. Me and the reptiles prefer a bit
>>>>warmer.
>>>>
>>>>The linearity of the lens I first thought was my imagination. But it really
>>>>make it easier to frame the scene the way you would like. And not have
>>>>to post process that aspect of the image. Even at close focus it does not
>>>>seem to have the feel like a too wide perspective.
>>This is why I so love the OMZ 24/2.8 lens. It's wide, but very well
>>behaved. The 21/3.5 is an awesome lens and it too is well behaved, but
>>the photographer isn't. Going wider than 24mm requires discipline
>>which I don't have.
>
>Interesting. Although I am always wishing for longer, I am also not uncommonly
>wishing for wider.
>
>The LR catalog tells me that, of 425 shots with the Panny 7-14/4, 231, 54%,
>were at 7 mm. At 14 mm eq., that's quite a bit wider than 20 mm, let alone 24,
>on FF.
>
>In my 5D days, I had a 17-35 mm zoom. at San Simeon, all but four of the shots
>in all four of these sub-galleries were @ 17 mm. I wanted wider for most and
>REALLY wanted much wider for the pools.
><http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MorroBay/HearstCastle/index.html>
>
>20 mm wasn't even all that wide in OM days, what with the 18/3.5.
Some on Fred Miranda are saying it may be closer to 19mm.
Perhaps as we get older, our perspective gets wider.
WayneS
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|