> 35mm lens (to me, the 35mm focal length was too much a mash-up of both fish
> and fowl) and were I still in a position to process my own film, I would
> still be using it.
This, again, points to a rather strange thing. There are "perfect"
lenses that I can't get along with, and "flawed" (imperfect,
pedestrian, normal, deplorable) lenses that I settle in and love.
Of my OM Zuikos:
The 24/2.8 is one of those "flawed" lenses that I can rock.
The 28/2 is a "perfect" lens that just isn't working for me.
The 35/2.8 is a "flawed" lens that makes me drive like Ken Block.
The 100/2 is a "perfect" lens that is great on some cameras but
doesn't feel like the first lens that wants to be used.
The 100/2.8 is a "flawed" lens that combined with the 35/2.8 would be
my last to go.
The Crown Graphic I had used the "normal" lens for 4x5 camera. This
lens was somewhere between normal and wide. I always wanted it to be
wider. While, the normal lens on my medium format cameras was just
fine. The 28mm equivalent wide-angle of the m43 camera kit lenses is
just not quite wide enough, even though it's wider than the 35-80 on
the OM bodies. The 28mm equivalent of my cell phone camera is
completely out of sorts with me.
So, it is a bit weird because I love 35mm focal length for 35mm
cameras, but I don't for other formats. The 28mm focal length remains
my puzzlement one. I just can't quite love it the way I should. It's
like a great looking pair of shoes that make your feet hurt.
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/
|