I've always considered the omission of prime lenses of about 70mm focal
length a bit of an oddity in 35mm photography. If we consider 50mm the
de-facto standard and we wanted to build a set of primes that doubled or
halved the image area at each step we'd choose a set with:
17,5mm, 25mm, 35mm, 50mm, 70mm, 100mm, 140mm, 200mm, 280mm, 400mm.
Typical prime lens availability options from the manufacturers usually
come pretty close to this set except for the 70mm option. Instead of
70mm we jump to the portrait or macro range of 85-90mm. How come? Why
the hole in angular coverage of primes? There's another oddity in that
the next most common lens down from 35mm is 28mm and not 24/25mm. But I
think that's a manufacturing price break thing as well as a
consideration for limiting distortion.
Of course, some would say that the standard lens should be 43mm and not
50mm which would place the next focal length up the scale at 60mm but
that's a different story.
Chuck Norcutt
On 1/27/2012 12:48 AM, Chris Barker wrote:
> That works well, Nathan.
>
> But apart from the low light performance, what other use is there for
> a lens with the efl of around 65mm? I would love to have an excuse
> to save up for one :-)
>
> Chris
>
> On 26 Jan 2012, at 22:09, Nathan Wajsman wrote:
>
>> We had our monthly wine tasting at the office this evening, which
>> provided a good opportunity to show off my 1.9/43mm Pentax lens
>> wide open:
>>
>> http://www.greatpix.eu/All/Picture-A-Day/4253606_kdsZ6C#!i=1687409995&k=FMxHGG5&lb=1&s=O
>>
>>
http://www.greatpix.eu/All/Picture-A-Day/4253606_kdsZ6C#!i=1687410074&k=W8W7cR7&lb=1&s=O
>>
>> I find its bokeh quite pleasing, and the performance of the K5 at
>> ISO 6400 is much better than my other camera's ;-)
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|