TAKO. INTERNET SEIT 1996.
Olympus-OM

Re: [OM] freaking 9mm FF Laowa

Subject: Re: [OM] freaking 9mm FF Laowa
From: "Pearce, Wilfred via olympus" <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 04:50:10 +0000
Cc: "Pearce, Wilfred" <pearce@xxxxxxxx>
Ken,


It fits with what I do. I've shot a lot of street with the 28, but unlike many 
others I'm not afraid to get close. I can't explain it, but often I'm not even 
noticed. Maybe because I don't dance around and shoot from strange positions 
like many of the jackasses on internet videos. As to the 35, it's never been a 
thing for me, not wide enough to be wide, not long enough to be a  "normal."


But as some one said we're all different.


Bill

________________________________
From: olympus <olympus-bounces+pearce=kmuw.org@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of 
Ken Norton <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 7:05:06 PM
To: Olympus Camera Discussion
Subject: Re: [OM] freaking 9mm FF Laowa

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of Wichita State University. Do not 
click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the 
content is safe.


> I find this interesting, as when I see this I'm thinking  Hummmmmm, that 
> might be nice! But then I remember I once owned the OM 28, 21 and 18 
> lenses.The 28 became, along with the 28-48, my go to lens. There was 
> something about the 28 that made me feel like other guys do about their so 
> called nifty fifties and their 35mm's. The 21 was nice and useful but never 
> as big a deal as 28, and the 18 was only used for interiors. At that it was 
> superb, and if I was shooting real estate photos, I would use one again.

Not to make you feel old or anything, but I think your preference to
the 28 may be slightly age related.

The 28mm is pretty much the widest lens that doesn't give off
wide-angle vibes. The 35mm is very much a "normalish" lens, but the
28mm is in the category of wide. I think in terms of how far a
people/event photographer is from the subject. The 28mm and 35mm both
give the 2m working range. The 24mm is very much a wide-angle lens and
doesn't lend itself well to people/event photography in the 2m working
range, but is more group and room oriented. In the mid to late 80s,
the popularity of the 28mm waned in favor of the 24mm, but in doing
so, put more emphasis on having a lens in the "normal" 35-55mm range.
The 28mm was (is) nice because it means we don't have to have both a
35mm and 28mm. But it did emphasize the need for a really wide in the
18-21mm range.

If you use the 28mm, the other set of lenses in the normal and wide
range would be the 21mm and 50mm.
If you use the 35mm, the other set of lenses in the normal and wide
range would be just the 24mm.

I came of age just when 28mm had dropped out of favor and 24mm was the
hot stuff. Generally speaking, I much prefer 35mm and 24mm as 50mm is
not really my thing and 28mm usually seems too pedestrian for me. The
cellphone cameras are typically around 28mm equivalent and they just
don't rock my boat. However, if I want to travel light and not carry
multiple lenses around, I'm probably going to grab the 28mm instead of
the 35mm. 28mm may be neither fish nor fowl, but it does taste like
chicken.

AG Schnozz
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>