Hi George and all,
From: "George Themelis" <george@xxxxxxxxx>
>Yes, I do like the 35mm lens too. I have called it the "golden" lens for
>stereo photography.
Interesting... my last attempt to stereo photography used a couple of
35mm's, but at considerable separation -- is that 'super-stereo'?
<http://www.flickr.com/photos/zuiko21/3906486393/in/set-72157622329773936/>
>But 40mm and 35mm are not too far apart :)
I agree. But I see a world of difference between 40 and 45 ;-)
40mm is my 'perfect standard' -- 50mm (even 45) is too narrow for me. When I
jumped into the OM system, I was of course looking for the 40mm... but my
first (and 'only', for many years) Zuiko was the 35/2 anyway, whose
'rendering style' didn't fit my taste at all :-(
35mm is a good alternative in rangefinders. However, in the case of SLR
lenses, I find an advantage of 40mm: they're more or less "standard" designs
(both the Zuiko and Ultron 40/2 are modified double-Gauss, with a *reversed*
front Gauss group) and usually very compact (the so-called pancakes) while a
35mm for SLRs *has* to use a much larger retrofocus formula...
Cheers,
--
Carlos J. Santisteban Salinas
IES Turaniana (Roquetas de Mar, Almeria)
<http://cjss.sytes.net/>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|