Dearlist,
Winsor Crosby <wincros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<< that ratio(1.8) would work. But things are
just not that predictable and it assumes you cannot move to reframe
the picture. It gives you the series of focal lengths(if you start at
21) 21, 35, 50, 90, 165(oops, maybe a 135 and a 200), 300(or should
it be 1.8 x135 or 200?), and well it kind of breaks down. >>
But it's not much fun for a real Zuikoholic is it?. And there's a short gap
between 35 and 50. Anyway, I love my 24mm Zuiko, so small, and I just like
the (wider than 28mm!) angle. It may come down more to personal taste and of
course what you like to photograph. Somehow I prefer the 35mm* to the 50mm
focal length too; I would adore the 40 f/2 though!! I nearly always find that
my 180/2.8 Zuiko is too short or too long and at that focal length it can be
a long walk to change the apparent subject size, so I often prefer an 80-210
zoom for convenience. But I do like my Tamron 90.
*By the way, what would you guys pay for a 35 f/2 Zuiko in near mint
condition? I want one, and there's one advertised for £140, that's £193... ? ?
Getting hooked!
I suppose that you could instead go for the Golden Ratio what is that,
1:1.618? That's related to Fibonacci's series, so it's popular with
mathematicians, artists, architects and violin-makers alike! Or maybe
1:1.4142136 or root 2, that'd give you twice the picture area each time, and
is a good photographic ratio given the inverse square law for light.
On the other hand you might have to choose a ratio that is inversely
proportional to the amount of spare cash you have to blow away on lenses!
Dave Bellamy.
http://hometown.aol.com/sitesearch/
< 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 >
|