Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/07/19
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]no you're not the only one - they are all very different. I am starting to think of the 28 as being a standard lens with 35 being not enough and the 50 as a short tele - perverse I know. I used to think of myself as a 21-35-90 person and I now wonder if it should be 28-50 and NO 90. In the parallel SLR world I can hear the discussions of 180 not long enough, 400 too long maybe 300 is just right :) ernie On Saturday, July 19, 2003, at 07:42 PM, Steve Unsworth wrote: > I sometimes wonder if I am the only person who feels that a 28 is very > different from a 35. And for that matter that a 35 is very different > from a > 50 :-) > > Steve > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us] On Behalf Of Gary > Williams > Sent: 19 July 2003 20:09 > To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > Subject: Re: [Leica] An Introduction, and a plea for wisdom > > > IMHO 28mm is too close to 35mm and often not wide enough. > > > -- > 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