At 01:39 3/6/02, chris waigl écrivit:
Le Tue, 05 Mar 2002 17:47:40 +0000, "John A. Lind" <jlind@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
écrivit:
Very interesting. 135mm has quite a remarkable perspective to it, and
you're right, it's not often seen these days. I'd have guessed wrongly the
above three shots were from a longer telephoto lens, but there's something
like a hint of hesitation about just how close or far the viewer is from
the subject about esp the first three pictures.
The 135mm is my "increase magnification just a little more" lens without
the obvious depth compression from a 180mm or 200mm. It is there if you
look for it, although some compositions do not provide much to use as clues.
In days of yore, before the Nikon F invaded from faroff shores and overtook
them, when photographers of old sallied forth to tackle their subjects, one
could occasionally catch a whiff of the leather covered bodies and spot the
glint of light playing off of the solid brass, glass and deeply knurled,
heavily chromed steel knobs on their RF's. If one, perhcance, got a closer
view of the battery of lenses carefully held in reserve for the decisive
moment, oft found among the longer of them were the 85mm, 135mm and 180mm
reflex.
There was method in their madness with these fast primes. The diagonal of
the 35mm film frame is approximately 43mm; 2X is about 85mm, 3X that
roughly 135mm, and 4X created the queen of the 35mm small format
rangefinder, the 180mm reflex lens. And so, for those who yet shun the
ubiquitous zoom lenses that have all but diminshed their once teeming
throng, we still find among them that vestige of the past in these same
focal lengths today.
-- John
< 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 >
|