> It fits with what I do. I've shot a lot of street with the 28, but unlike
> many others I'm not afraid to get close. I can't explain it, but often I'm
> not even noticed. Maybe because I don't dance around and shoot from strange
> positions like many of the jackasses on internet videos. As to the 35, it's
> never been a thing for me, not wide enough to be wide, not long enough to be
> a "normal."
If, in some deranged dystopian world where I could have only one focal
length, it would be 35mm. But I could go with 28mm if I had to. But it
really depends on what my main purpose in photographic life is. If
it's landscape photography, it would be the 28mm. If people
photography, the 35mm.
I went through a phase where "wider is better". If 35mm was good, 28mm
was better, and 24mm was best. I couldn't afford anything wider, so
that's where it ended for me. For the better part of ten years, my two
most used focal lengths were 24mm and 200mm. I'd like to think that
I've matured from that time. Now it's 28mm and 300mm. :)
But for event photography, I like that 35mm focal length as it gets me
close to the subject (2 meters working distance, give or take) with
excellent subject-background isolation. And in the case of the classic
OM Zuiko 35/2.8 lens, the bokeh spread is most unusual as the
background will actually take on the appearance of darkening. Usually
the bokeh just spreads what is there out, but the 35/2.8 spreads and
darkens. I'm not sure if it's actually measurable, but that's what
that lens does for me. It might be some optical trait or it might be
vignetting, but whatever it is, it is unique. The OM Zuiko 35/2 seems
to have a little bit of it, but I'm still very new to this lens.
AG Schnozz
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|