[Leica] Is 35 the Current 50?

[richard at richardmanphoto.com (Richard Man)]

Mark, and Henning's point is that the less linear distortion a wide angle
lens has (i.e. the vaunted Super Angulon or the Biogon), the MORE heads
will turn into oblong (i.e. more apparent distortion of the figure) in the
edges. It's a physics thing.


On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Mark Rabiner <mark at rabinergroup.com> 
wrote:

> Does my 2 thousand dollar Leica 24 have the same distortion as my 2 hundred
> dollar Nikon 24? I think its psychological that we think not. The reviews I
> remember reading seem to vindicate that along with my prints.
>
> it seemed to me I had more distortion with my Nikon 28  than I did with my
> Leica 24 asph Elmarit. Not sure if you're saying that's suspect or not. But
> that was the delusion I was working under  at the time; from 1999 to maybe
> 2005. I think they put more into a lens the less distortion you get out of
> it most the times that's what the countless lens reviews seem to be telling
> me.
>
>
> On 1/19/13 1:11 PM, "Henning Wulff" <hjwulff at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Mark, the drawing of spherical objects in the corners of wideangle shots
> > depends almost solely on the level of linear distortion - the more
> distortion
> > (within limits) the less spherical objects are turned into oblongs. So
> if you
> > have a low distortion lens, like the 21 SEM or even more so the 21/4.5
> Biogon
> > or 21/3.4 Super Angulon, heads in the corners don't look very good. A
> 'poorly'
> > performing lens with high levels of barrel distortion will do better with
> > heads. Unfortunately, the lenses with severe 'mustache' distortion do
> worst.
> >
> > Henning
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2013-01-19, at 2:27 AM, Mark Rabiner <mark at rabinergroup.com> wrote:
> >
> >> You shoot a crowd of people with a 28 you turn them all into a bunch of
> >> midgets. Some people don't take to this especially people who are not
> real
> >> tall to begin with. . I had a client get irate about that once. I've had
> >> very few irate clients. But he was right. After that if I used a 28 in a
> >> crowd I'd not get the people from head to foot only the top half of
> them.
> >> Waste up. If your using Leica not Nikon optics the heads at the edges
> are
> >> less watermelon like.
> >>
> >> On 1/19/13 5:19 AM, "Frank Dernie" <Frank.Dernie at btinternet.com> 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I have read that often over the last couple of decades, but personally
> I
> >>> find
> >>> 28 too wide to be of use unless in -very- crowded situations, which I
> avoid
> >>> due to claustrophobia.. I bought one, but it pretty well never gets
> used.
> >>> Should sell it I suppose...
> >>> I find the 50 most useful, and I like the 75-90 range best (by a long
> way)
> >>> FD
> >>> On 19 Jan, 2013, at 02:09, Richard Man <richard at richardmanphoto.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> For many people, 28mm has been the standard wide for awhile. Just a
> tad
> >>>> more than the 35mm, but more useful on the street, without the
> "immersive"
> >>>> of 24 or 21.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Leica Users Group.
> >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Mark William Rabiner
> >> Photography
> >> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Leica Users Group.
> >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
> >>
> >
> >
> > Henning Wulff
> > henningw at archiphoto.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Leica Users Group.
> > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
>
>
>
> --
> Mark William Rabiner
> Photography
> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>



-- 
// richard <http://www.richardmanphoto.com>