At 13:05 7/31/02, Pete wrote:
>Sorry, reference is to a faster lens which gives more light
>and a shallower DoF in the viewfinder. If you want a "feel"
>for the difference, stop a lens down to f/2.8 and depress the
>DoF preview button. Then stop it down to f/4 and do the same.
That's what I thought you meant, but I was confused when the
first few sentences referred to f3.5 lenses and the last few
sentences referred to fast lenses, all in one paragraph.
On a related subject, I'd like to hear your opinion on my
"Ranking of cheap wide angle lenses" post. Considering your
comments on f3.5 lenses, I'm curious if you think that makes
the 21/3.5 lens worse than the 24/2.8 lens.
Pete,
Two different lenses with two considerably different perspectives. It
defies comparison. Given a choice of one *or* the other, *and*
disregarding all the other lenses I currently have, I would pick the 24/2.8
because of its focal length. Utility (frequency of likely use) has
everything to do with the choice between focal lengths and not lens
speed. The wider the lens, the less it is likely to be
used. Super-duper-wide (21mm and shorter) demands very careful use in
composition to control "dead space" so that it doesn't detract from the
image, and controlling horizons and perspective lines. (There are
photographs in which dead space is used quite effectively to isolate an
item of interest.) Lenses that short are so much different from human eye
perspective they also require more effort and experience in visualizing an
effective photograph.
It would be better to compare the 21/2 with the 21/3.5 and the 24/2 with
the 24/2.8 lenses. Among those two pairs I'd rather have the f/2
lenses. Note: I have never used either of the 21mm lenses. I rarely use
anything wider than 35mm indoors or under other circumstances that involve
closer focusing such as night street shooting (as differentiated from night
city-scapes). When it involves people as the primary subject I typically
don't go wide. I do have the 18/3.5 and chose it based on criteria other
than sheer speed. It was part of a long-term plan to build a system of
primes and 18/3.5 -> 24/2 -> 35/2 -> 50/1.2 comprise the wide end. The
18mm does see use am very glad to have it when the visualization calls for
a super-duper-wide, but it's not as often as the 24mm is used.
-- 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 >
|