Hi Carlos,
Among my favorite subjects are classic airplanes. I have used the Jupiter
12 on my Leica IIIf to photograph these planes, with great success. I
guess, for my purposes, sharpness is an asset.
Jim Nichols
Tullahoma, TN USA
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carlos J. Santisteban" <zuiko21@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2009 11:37 AM
Subject: Re: [OM] DPReview on the "standard lens"
> Hi all,
>
>
>> From: Ken Norton <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> 50mm has never been one of my favorite focal-lengths. It seems to always
>> be
>> too long or too short. I personally prefer the 35mm focal length as my
>> "standard" just because it allows me to show my subject in its
>> surroundings
>> without distortion. You can also zone-focus it. But does this have to do
>> with it being closer to 42mm? No, it just has to do with my own artistic
>> preference.
>>
>
> I agree with AG -- 50mm is too narrow as "standard" for me. I tried some
> good 45's (Yashinon 45/1.7, Tessar 45/2.8) but still isn't the field I
> want.
> 40mm does the trick for me, and I'm very happy with the results of the
> ridiculously expensive Zuiko.
>
> There's no magic with the 50mm focal. I think the definition of a
> "standard"
> lens is a confrontation of subjective, artistic views and technical
> reasons; 43.3mm is just a geometric reference. In SLRs, the flange-to-film
> distance imposes additional restriction on the design of shorter focal
> lengths.
>
> Like AG, I think 35mm would be a better "standard" than the 50, but an SLR
> 35mm lens is forced to be a retrofocus design, much bulkier and of
> somewhat
> inferior performance.
>
> OTOH, the Russian Biogon-clone "Jupiter-12" (35/2.8 for rangefinders) is a
> no-compromise design, with a huge chunk of glass at the back, getting
> really
> close to the film (about 3-4mm, IIRC -- not suitable for Bessas!). I find
> this lens to be, believe it or not, *too* sharp... yes, there IS such
> thing
> as a "too sharp" lens.
>
> The standard lenses for the oldest SLRs were more in the 55/58mm range.
> Those introduced by Nik*n in 1959, together with the trendsetting "F"
> body,
> were a 58/1.4 (not surprising) and a then rare 50/2. But this lens was
> marked "S-Nikk*r" instead of "H-Nikk*r" of later versions -- that means
> the
> older model is a SEVEN element design, instead of the typical six element
> (like the Zuiko 50/1.8). In fact, it's a typical double-gauss plus a
> negative element in front -- yes, it's a mild retrofocus design; it wasn't
> easy back then to design a fastish 50mm with a flange-to-film distance of
> 47mm.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Carlos J. Santisteban Salinas
> IES Turaniana (Roquetas de Mar, Almeria)
> <http://cjss.sytes.net/>
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|