Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/01/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I agree with John. With the 28mm I make very different photos than with the 35mm. John's observation about the changing relationship between foreground and background is the clue here. - -- Arne In message <B86617C9.184EA%jbcollier@powersurfr.com>, John Collier writes: >I am afraid I have to disagree Henry. A 28mm lens is completely different >from a 35mm lens. You are closer and more intimate with a 28. Almost too >close as focal length induced distortions to reality are much more >noticeable. This is not as pronounced as it was at one time what with news >photographers using the 20mm lens as their normal lenses these days. > >Rather than thinking about lenses as covering more or less, think about the >changing relationship between the foreground and background. > >John Collier > >> From: Henry Ting <henryting10@yahoo.com> >> >> Just my own opinion. The 28 is kind of an orphan. >> Unless one does not have a 35, then from 50 going to >> 28 would fill the gap. But anyone having a 35 would >> want either a 21 or 24 instead of the 28. > >-- >To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html