Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: 7519772104 reasonable 40f2

Subject: [OM] Re: 7519772104 reasonable 40f2
From: Earl Dunbar <edunbar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 19:10:39 -0400
Well, it all depends on the subject of the photo, does it not?  For 
"painted landscapes", I agree.  Years ago my photography tutor gave me 
so great advice regarding my impending trip to Colorado and the 
Rockies.  He said most people make the mistake of using a wide angle 
lens to capture the vista of a range of mountains.  The result is 
majestic mountain peaks trivialized as insignificant specs by a 28mm or 
so.  He suggested the Zuiko 100/f2.8, and I was not disappointed.  Of 
course, it was pretty fortuituous that I had one, of the AG schnozz 
variety. ;-)

Anyway, 40mm for intimate portraits, isolating a subject by getting 
close and framing well, is damn sweet.  It is still true that 40-42mm is 
what we see without peripheral vision, so that has to count for something. 

Earl

Winsor Crosby wrote:

>Richard, nice to see a post from you on the list again.
>
>I have to agree with you, for myself. I think I would rather have a  
>really superb 35mm lens which manufacturers compete to make better.  
>And below a certain size and weight I don't think compactness matters  
>much and sometimes makes the lens difficult to use. But I know Nikon  
>has done a 40mm pancake lens and it has a similar enthusiastic  
>following.
>
>A month ago Steve Johnston took up the banner for 40mm in his Sunday  
>Morning Photographer column on Luminous Landscape and seems to think  
>it has something to do with its being the closest to true normal of  
>43mm for a 35mm film frame.
>
>If there were a natural focal length I think it might be in the  
>85-100 range. Many years ago Leica Fotografie did an article that  
>studied of a number of painted landscapes  hanging in art museums,  
>went to the sites where the artist set up his easel and found that  
>most of the paintings had framing and perspective similar to these  
>twice "normal" lenses. I think many of us bought a lens in that  
>length for portraits and then found we liked it for much, much more.   
>It would partly explain the enthusiasm for the "incredible  
>sharpness", at least on a Nikon list, for this length when Nikon's  
>own MTF figures put them somewhat below almost any of their modern  
>zooms.
>
>
>
>Winsor
>Long Beach, California, USA
>
>
>
>  
>



==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz