Hi Matthew:
> If anyone has any experience using the 18mm or 21mm lens for landscape
> photography, I'd be interested in hearing about it. Do you feel that they
> add significantly to your craft or do you use them only rarely?
I rarely find that I want to borrow my gals 20 mm Canon FD. Too much
foreground, tiny rendering of objects, and uneven skies make it difficult to
use. But we are experimenting with it for panoramics. I can shoot my wide
angle effect shots with the 24 mm f/2.8 Zuiko and use the 35 mm f/2.8 Zuiko as
my typical landscape lens. I occasionally use the 50 mm f/2.0 Macro Zuiko or
85 mm Zuiko, but more often the 35-70 mm f/3.5~4.5 Zuiko because I'll have a
very specific framing/perspective I want which unfortunately lies intermediate
between the primes. I rarely pull out the 28 mm f/2.8 Zuiko now that I carry
the 24. (The 28 used to get used a lot).
I don't pull out the 100 f/2.8 or 135 f/3.5 Zuikos too much due to presently
having a case of wide-angle itis. I can't seem to see in telephoto and wide
angle at the same time. Obviously I'm not related to the raptors. My 200
gets used for wildlife. If I can't get close enough with it, then I don't
bother shooting that subject. There are too many others photographing
wildlife with lenses that are out of reach of the common man and woman.
I'll agree with others that a 24 mm is a fine lens to carry for landscape
work. It is too often obvious when a wider angle lens is used. I don't like
knowing that.
If the 35 mm Shift Zuiko had tilt it would heaven. Without it I'll just use
the regular Zuiko and modify the tripod height and tilt the camera, if
necessary.
Gary Reese
Las Vegas, NV
< 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 >
|