If you want the historical answer -
Once upon a time in the long ago and far away, 35mm was the best you could do
for a 35mm camera. So when 28mm showed up before the second major global
stupidity, in things like nice Leica leather case kits, it was the ultra wide
of its time. Then it became the widest you could get without serious
distortion, a role usually performed by a 24mm today. And then we got fast ones
too.
The 28/2 Zuiko has a reputation as being awesome sharp for a wide. The Kiron is
similarly endowed although much larger. This was not always the case (Canon
wides were never as good as their Tele's).
So, eventually, the 35mm became the street lens and the 28mm the street lens
for 'togs who like to get closer so they like fast ones and 24mm downwards is
landscape territory where f/2 is probably a bit too much light. It has become
an inbetweener but only because verywide technology has improved so much lately
- so I'm not surprised that some people don't know quite what to do with the
length. I think I'm one of them.
Andrew Fildes
afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Author/Publisher:
The SLR Compendium,The TLR Compendium
http://www.soultheft.com/storehouse_photopublish/
On 07/07/2014, at 1:11 AM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> So, I ask again, why 28mm?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|