Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/06/07
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
Willem-Jan Markerink <w.j.markerink@a1.nl> writes
>
>>I'm figuring a 35mm shift lens is better than no shift lens
>> joe b.
>
>I have to disagree with you on this. If you start with such a medium
>wide angle, you could as well use an ordinary 24mm and crop it to a
>similar effect. Assuming you don't use slides, of course.
>Another argument: the more wide angle, the more lines of buildings
>tend to 'fall back', and the more reason to compensate with a shift
>lens. You might not even need shift with 35mm.
>BTW, in this price range you could as well get yourself the
>EOS TS-E 24/2.8....:-))
I've looked up all the data I can find and the 35mm PA lens really
doesn't have much shift, about 7mm. The Leica (Shneider) 28mm shift lens
costs about three times as much used but looks it could be a lot more
than three times as useful. And I already am using the crop method with
slide film- it just turned out that out of one batch of slides of
architectural subjects surrounded by trees, the only one that really
worked well had too much foreground on the one hand ("bad"), and non-
leaning architecture (good); I'd used a 28mm and will just slice the
bottom off the print- which is fine if you don't mind a panoramic effect
by default. I could always compose with this in mind I suppose... (This
is where square format really scores of course- use square format for a
horizontal rectangular landscape-with-archotecture without tilting the
camera and just lose the bottom of the image when printng.
--
joe b.