Josh Lohuis wrote:
>
> > Josh,
> > go for the 24mm, get a cheap 50/1.8 and an 85/2 or 100/2.8 and you got a
> > basic, very versatile setup. All excellent lenses. Just my 2 cents
> >
> > Henrik Dahl
>
> Hello Everyone,
>
> What would be better for me, a 24mm, 28mm or 35mm? I am going to be in
> the bush quite a bit, but I also imagine I'll do other things eg. people. I
> know the 24 has some distortion but is the (I dont know the real term) angle
> of view that much more than the 28? I would like to try and stay away from
> zooms. Maybe I should get a 24 and 35? Also, is there a BIG difference
> between f/2.8 and f/2? I know its whole stop but is it that important to
> have it?
>
> Thanks,
>
> JOSH
>
> PS> What exactly is Bokeh.
>
http://www.hudsonphoto.ca/233.html
is an example of barrel distortion using the 24/2.8 ............ convex
horizon of the ocean, but not so evident in
http://www.hudsonphoto.ca/021.html
and not evident at all in
http://www.hudsonphoto.ca/538.html
or
http://www.hudsonphoto.ca/536.html
where my feet are barely out of the photo in 538!
Used carefully the 24/2.8 is a wonderful lens but used indiscriminately
it does have its shortcomings as far as distortion is concerned.
To answer the f2.8 v f2 question ........... the one stop is likely not
worth any additional price you would have to pay and how often do you
shoot wide open.
John Hudson
Vancouver, BC
< 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 >
|