At 11:40 PM 5/21/2003 -0700, Moose you wrote in part:
There is also simply different perspective. Whoever wrote about 17mm and
500mm giving same images at different scales is correct - as long as the
camera position doesn't change. Take pictures of a subject, say the trees
in the middle distance in Joel's lovely pics, and make the size of the
subject the same size through wide angle and tele lenses and the images
will be very different. That's because the perspective will be different,
that is, the angle subtended by objects in front of and behind the subject
will be very different and they will appear as different sizes relative to
the subject. Take a picture of the grasses at the near edge of the water
from close up with a 17mm and the Three Brothers will appear as
insignificant little things in the far distance. Step back quite a ways
and take a picture of the grass at the same size in the frame with a 500mm
and the Brothers will appear enormous, looming over the pond.
Moose,
Thanks for calling my pics "lovely." If they are, it's because I was in a
lovely place, in lovely light, and I didn't get in the way of the lens.
In case anybody wants to look again:
http://soli.inav.net/~jdub/28_or_24.html
The two shots are not completely concentric or congruent. Even though I
used the same location for both shots, the composition is a little
different. Both compositions really line up together on the left, which
expands the composition more to the right in the case of the 24mm. It
would be possible to resize the 24mm shot and crop it like the 28mm shot,
but that wasn't the shot I made with the 24. That would just be taking the
24 shot and making it look like the 28. The scene yielded to the lenses a
little differently, in other words.
Which do I like? As someone noted, the peaks seem a little more imposing
in the 28mm shot. They are just a bigger part of the frame, perhaps. I
like having a little more sky in the 24mm shot (though it's not a very
interesting sky) and I think having more of the frosty bank is a good thing
too. I think a bit of cropping on the top and right of the 24mm shot and I
would be happy with the shot. The reflection is better in the 24mm
shot. I feel lucky to have the two slightly different perspectives to
choose from, and even picking one, I can't unwish having the lens that made
the other.
There is something to be said for having the two lengths to choose from in
the creative phase. I don't have the ability to shoot with a 17mm lens and
previsualize a crop to 28mm end result. The 28mm lens has a different
"feel" in composition from the 24mm. I usually try the tightest fit I can
to get what I want and then go wider if I have to. I suppose the ideal
thing would be a 19-35 zoom, but the small primes are really much more
convenient for me at this length and I know how to manage all my filters
with them, especially the graduated split filters, and I use these a lot
with wides.
Thanks to all who contributed very interesting comments.
Joel W.
< 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 >
|