Mike,
Having had a 28, and now with a 24 and 35, I would keep the 28mm for what
you are doing. The jump of only 4mm from 28 to 24 seems to be the "break
point" between wide-angle and super wide-angle. My definition of this is
the point at which perspective exaggeration becomes very noticeable and
requires extra care to keep it from being unnatural looking in the
photograph. I experienced this the first time I used the 24mm after having
used a 28mm for 20 years. It's one of the reasons I got a 35/2 even though
I already had the 35/2.8 shift lens. Don't want to discourage you from
trying a 24mm, but don't dump the 28 to do it; not until you've used the 24
some and feel comfortable its perspective exaggeration is OK for what you
are doing. IMO the 24/2 and 24/2.8 are great lenses, but they can get you
into perspective trouble more easily than the 28's.
-- John
At 22:42 6/24/00 , Mike Swaim wrote:
[snip]
>Sure, I often still have the jumbo Lowepro Nova 5 shoulderbag with backup
>OM1n and 6-8 more lenses from 19mm to 500mm, from macro to tele. in the
>car. But the more that I use and appreciate the 28/2.8, the less inclined
>I am to immediately assume that I'll need more. When one of the instructors
>first mentioned that he shoots the bulk of his work with a 24mm and an
>18mm, frankly I thought him a bit odd. But the more I get used to the
>merits of the 28, the more I think I might eventually get a 24mm. I'm not
>at all suggesting that these wide angles are the mythical ideal focal
>length or perfect for every situation. Rather, I'm just saying that for
>"get the interview" or "do a photo essay" type things, they make life
>easier due to greater depths of field, more coverage and the ability to get
>up close and personal and their inate ability to tolerate handheld shots at
>lower shutter speeds and less critical focusing. When I started this, I'd
>assumed that my tele-zooms and/or 135mm would be getting a workout, since
>they're more often thought of in terms of portrature. Quite the contrary
>has wound up happening so far.
>
>At the moment, I can't think of too much that would fall under the category
>of routine documentary type stuff that couldn't be done with a battery
>consisting of just a 28mm/2.8, a 50 macro, (for those odd occasions) and a
>100/2.8. There are occasions when other focal lengths would come in handy,
>but I can't imagine too many scenarios were their lack would mean the
>complete absence of printable images. (Assuming we're not even talking
>about long distance wildlife photos and that ilk.)
>
>I'm still very much learning this craft and would appreciate comments from
>those who've tried this approach and found it lacking.
>
>Thanks,
>Mike Swaim
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|