John
Sorry to go off-topic here, but I'd have to disagree about the 24mm
having radical perspective and being a last resort. Most large format
architecture is done with the 90mm focal length which on 4x5 is the
equivilent of 25mm in 35mm. The radical perspective depends upon how
it's used (even a standard lens can look "radical" in skilled hands) and
the 90mm wide angle is "standard issue" for most architectual
photographers because it's extremely common and therefore quite cheap.
If I was doing architecture with 35mm I'd want the Zuiko 24mm as *first*
choice, the 28mm Nikon shift lens second choice. A 35mm shift lens would
be last choice because it's too too inflexible: a wide image can always
be cropped. But to be honest 35mm is a poor choice for architecture --
the same money would buy a decent used 4x5 with 90mm lens plus extras.
Vaughan
--
John A. Lind wrote:
> IMO the much higher price for the 24mm is not because they're not as easily
> found, it's more because of the lens design and what they sell for
> new. Remember that a shift lens is specialized in purpose and has manual
> stopdown; not something you'd want to use as a general purpose wide-angle
> lens. In most applications calling for a shift lens the 35mm length sees
> much more use. The 24mm length has such a radical perspective it's more a
> lens of last resort when a shift is needed and the 35mm perspective won't
> work (or do) for the task at hand (e.g. very tight urban quarters and with
> very tall structures).l
< 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 >
|