Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/03/25

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] OT: Another maybe not so stupid GH1 question
From: passaro.vince at gmail.com (Vince Passaro)
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 00:29:40 -0400
References: <daaeb97e1003251901x39685bb5w60bb366bf9ca4089@mail.gmail.com> <20100326023230.GS29479@jbm.org> <daaeb97e1003252002v1a389887kaeb0c063c1ae551e@mail.gmail.com> <a3f189161003252005y54471dadm7a899184f4656a8@mail.gmail.com> <daaeb97e1003252014q462910c5yefac14166cf0ae48@mail.gmail.com> <a3f189161003252054y79906939o1a220e432c04a26c@mail.gmail.com>

The 20/1.7 does look like a fabulous lens and I hope someday to own one
though it's a low priority desire right now.

What I'm really recommending is a 35mm and saying that a 40 will do. This
whole issue of 40 = 80 by virtue of the crop is a little problematic to me.
These images mathematically may turn out to be equivalents but they don't to
my eye look anything like each other. And when my 14-45 is set at 18 or 20,
where I often keep it, I am not "getting" 35-40 mm images. I'm getting
something else.

This is kind of peculiar to the 2X size. Which is to say, what it's NOT is
more obvious at that size than on my 1.5 cropping Nikon, where a 35mm lens
does yield something very close to a 50mm image to my eye.  But even here it
doesn't work as you move up in size: on the Nikon, my 85mm doesn't look like
its closest Nikon equivalent on film, a 135mm. It looks like a 105 maybe.

I wish I could find some article that addressed all this because, as I say,
I find it baffling. What you get with a 20mm lens isn't a cropped down
middle of a 20mm shot exactly; and it's not as close up as a 40mm shot would
be, no matter the  crop size.  All I can say is, for me, walking around,
I've found 35mm to be the most versatile prime to be using on the 2X G1,
neither too large nor too small but as Goldilocks says before she pipes all
that opium and goes to sleep for 20 years, "Just right!".



On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 11:54 PM, Sonny Carter <sonc.hegr at gmail.com> 
wrote:

> The 20 F1.7 is a kickass lens, and I'm really happy I bought it. (BTW, I'm
> shooting it on an Oly)  You can see some of the results on my PAWs
> recently.
>
>  The list of other happy owners include Kyle and Nathan. If you go looking
> for it, I'd suggest J&R, because they seem to get it in stock pretty often,
> don't up charge, and ship free.
>
> However, I don't think the 20mm  has onboard OIS.  That doesn't matter to
> me, since my Pen has it in the camera.
>
> BTW, Vince, I was wondering why you might suggest the 40mm Summicron C as a
> standard lens since it will effectively be 80mm on these little cameras?
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Sonny
> http://www.sonc.com
> http://sonc.stumbleupon.com/
> Natchitoches, Louisiana
> (+31.754164,-093.099080)
>
> USA
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>


Replies: Reply from richard at imagecraft.com (Richard Man) ([Leica] OT: Another maybe not so stupid GH1 question)
Reply from sonc.hegr at gmail.com (Sonny Carter) ([Leica] OT: Another maybe not so stupid GH1 question)
In reply to: Message from digiratidoc at gmail.com (James Laird) ([Leica] OT: Another maybe not so stupid GH1 question)
Message from jbm at jbm.org (Jeff Moore) ([Leica] OT: Another maybe not so stupid GH1 question)
Message from digiratidoc at gmail.com (James Laird) ([Leica] OT: Another maybe not so stupid GH1 question)
Message from sonc.hegr at gmail.com (Sonny Carter) ([Leica] OT: Another maybe not so stupid GH1 question)
Message from digiratidoc at gmail.com (James Laird) ([Leica] OT: Another maybe not so stupid GH1 question)
Message from sonc.hegr at gmail.com (Sonny Carter) ([Leica] OT: Another maybe not so stupid GH1 question)