I'm growing amused with this conversation. Although when I got my first real
camera outfit (NIkon F), I had and shot a 24 frequently, but with time I
became disinterested in this focal length. When I moved to the OM's I ended
up with an 18 and a 21. That with a 28 were my go to lenses. I discovered
the 18 was perfect for interior shots and the 21 perfect for outdoors,
although I did shoot a lot of landscapes with the 85-100-135's. So, if Oly
is cropping a bit off the edge of the 12-40/2.8, that's fine with me, I
still plan on getting one for the EM5.2 I just got. They can cut it down to
a 14 on the short end for all I care uless they can stretch it to 10, which
seems unrealistic, but when I got my 43-86 Nikkor I said I'll never again
shoot with a zoom, and look where I'm at now.
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Whitmire
Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2015 9:01 AM
To: Olympus Camera Discussion
Subject: Re: [OM] Olympus 12mm is not 12mm?
I don't really have a dog in this fight, er, discussion, not anymore,
anyway, since selling my Nikon kit. Limited now to a Fuji 23mm on the
X-100s, which, as I recall, is roughly 35mm on full frame. But on this past
trip I did make several wider shots than the camera allowed by stitching
two images, sometimes three, as I tended to shoot portrait mode when I
intended to stitch. Can't be sure at this point, but I _think_ this might
be preferred for wide angle shots, especially when time permits use of
tripod.
--Bob Whitmire
Certified Neanderthal
On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 1:22 AM, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 6/27/2015 10:08 PM, C.H.Ling wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Moose" <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
It's good to be aware, as I can use DxO when I need it. OTOH, I don't
think it much effects me, personally. As I discovered when looking for
an
example, I don't shoot at 12 mm very often, and with most of those, the
small loss doesn't matter. 12 mm isn't wide enough for any broad
landscapes. I'm usually carrying the tiny 9-18, and even that is mostly
not
wide enough for that, so I shoot stitched panoramas.
I don't shot landscapes much except the buildings for test shots ;-) For
landscapes I think I may not need very wide, as you said stitching with
shots from mid-to-tele might suit better in most cases. But I do like
cityscapes and building interior, stitching is not always applicable.
With
the interior shots, a wider and faster lens is a better choice.
In the pass I use WA a lot for party events now it is mainly for street
snap and family shots in tight spaces like restaurant. I like large
aperture to separate the object and background. Even with the small 4/3
sensor, F2.8 will do much better than F4 or 5.6.
I'm just not willing to carry the size and weight of a lens like the Oly
7-14/2.8. It would just be an expensive paperweight. So the f4 of the
tiny,
light 9-18 just has to do for me.
I wonder if someone will make a faster 9 mm or less rectilinear prime for
µ43 someday.
--
_________________________________________________________________
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/
|