Here's your lens in desired focal length and speed :-)
<http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/162614-USA/Canon_2512A002_Wide_Angle_EF_35mm.html>
Chuck Norcutt
On 10/21/2010 1:09 PM, Ken Norton wrote:
> Well, this discussion of wide-angle primes has me thinking about a couple of
> things. First of all, since I am a hybrid digital and film shooter, whatever
> lenses I have must work well on either system. The OM 35/2.8 tends to be a
> little better for digital than the 35/2 because of the central hot-spot
> issue common with the 35/2 lens. However, on film, the 35/2 is almost always
> superior to the lowly 2.8 version.
>
> But then I stop and think about how often I use the 35/2.8 on the digital
> cameras? Slim to none. On the E-thingies, it gives me an effective 70mm
> focal length which is my choke and puke focal length. Nothing good ever came
> out of 70mm... It's too long to be normal, it's too short to be a telephoto.
> YMMV, but that is one focal length I never came to grips with. Once in a
> while, sure, but not typical at all.
>
> The 24/2.8 is a decent lens on both digital and film. Do I love using that
> focal length? Well, in a way, yes, but it's also a very utilitarian focal
> length. Not very artsy and it just works.
>
> If I was forced to have just one focal length for the rest of my life
> (perish the thought), I personally would consider the 35mm focal length on
> FF 35mm film to be my perfect lens. That's one reason the new Fujifilm x100
> has some serious draw to me. Of course, that camera probably stinks in other
> regards, but the lens, for a fixed focal lenght, seems about right.
>
> If given a choice between a 35/1.4 and a 50/1.4 lens, I'd choose the 35mm.
> Since it doesn't exist, well, then the 50/1.4 serves me duty for the
> hyper-bright lenses these days. Unfortunately, at 1.4, it doesn't gain you
> anything on digital, where you have to stop down to F2 to get rid of the
> fringing and the max aperture of the mirror chamber in the E-thingies is
> 1.8.
>
> Something has been stewing in this little pea-brain of mine. People are
> spending $500 on junk lenses for the digital cameras these days. $500 can
> get you some seriously good OM lenses. I bought the E-1 with the 14-54 mk1
> lens. Figured it cost me $500. Sold it for about half that. Just bought a
> second-hand 14-50 for $600 and they tossed in the DMC-L1. "Investing" in
> digital equipment is like "investing" in a car. You're better off buying
> beachfront property in the desert.
>
> But then the question eventually has to be asked...why shoot film? Isn't
> digital better? Well, yes--usually. I still think that even as good as my
> E-1 is with skintones and such, there is no substitute for Kodak Portra NC
> films. I did a quick scan a few nights ago for somebody needing a reprint of
> a portrait shot a few years ago. It was on 160NC. The IQ is simply
> unattainable by anything E-system. You really see the difference when you
> have a high-contrast edge--especially with saturated colors. Skintones? Oh,
> how I miss those skintones. My last two portrait shoots had to be digital
> for reasons beyond my control, but I'm eager to do an upcoming one in a
> couple of weeks with film. Today's Portra 400NC is simply so good as to
> render 160NC unneccessary. I have a wedding scheduled in a couple months to
> be shot with film. Aaaahh. Discriminating customers know the difference.
>
> Why shoot film? If Dawid's pictures don't explain it, no amount of words
> will.
>
> AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|