Thomas Clausen wrote:
> If you are going to go temple-visiting, think "fast, before long". If
> you have a 55/1.2 or 50/1.2, you will appreciate it. I fully approve of
> the 21mm and 85/2 also ;)
That's another question -- do people actually find the faster ends of
these lenses to be useful? I've tried taking photos indoors with a
50/1.4 wide open, and while I can get a lot less hand shake than I would
with it at f4, the depth of field is so small that I end up with so much
of the shot being out of focus the end result isn't much better.
Admittedly, in some situations I don't really have any option -- for
instance, in this one:
http://www.danielmitchell.net/gallery/albums/Trip/disneyland/pirates_caribbean_1.jpg
I was using 1600 film and 1.4 and praying..
If I'm just inside a gloomy building (temple, museum, etc) then I
normally want to get a decent amount of the building in focus, and that
means that opening the lens all the way up lets me get the closest
pillar / furthest tile, but not a lot in the middle. Outdoors, I can
normally set focus to infinity or hyperfocal distance and call it good,
but indoors it's rare that all the interesting things are at the same
distance from me.
Maybe I should look at this restriction as a way to force me to take
different types of photos, but as far as getting an image of what the
inside of Dark Structure X looks like, I haven't found super-fast lenses
to be all that useful.
Is there something I'm missing here?
-- dan
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
