Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2016/09/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Frank! I think the trick to wide wides is to crawl right up into your subjects personal space so your are right "up their nose". That's when you get a shot form their belt up. If you ever get your hands on an 18-35mm lens it may give you a whole new outlook. Amazing what you can do with that lens or the 1.5x crop version a 12-24mm. I shot most my 24 cars with one one a month when I did those cars for the NYTimes. But you gotta get right on top of your subject. Inches away. I always brushed my teeth twice. On 9/22/16 5:46 AM, "Frank Dernie" <Frank.Dernie at btinternet.com> wrote: > I quite agree Mark. If you look at an object straight ahead then with arms > outstretched move your index finger in an arc from in front of you until > you > just stop being aware of them you see that your visual field is about 180 > degrees, mine is anyway. On the other hand, as you say, the bit one > concentrates on is quite small. My preference of lens to represent the view > "as I see it" needs a 85/90mm lens. A 35 is on the limit for me as a > maximum > wide angle for observational pictures. OTOH one can get really good visual > effects with wider, it is just that the resulting picture bears no > resemblance > to what I see naturally, for me. So for me I use 35mm or longer for normal > photography. I find 28mm neither one thing nor the other, and don?t > remember > when I last used mine, and wider for special effects and fun or if I can?t > get > far enough away from my subject for a natural perspective. Frank D. > On 21 > Sep 2016, at 23:03, Mark Rabiner <mark at rabinergroup.com> wrote: > > Its just > that the unaided eye does not really have a frame it looks through. > Its sees > the whole room but is only concentrated on a small object in it. > Its a tele > mounted in a super wide. > So its darned hard to impossible to state what the > angle of the unaided eye > is. Its a sharp 180mm in a bokeh infused 12mm. I > don't think we can round > these two numbers off and come up with something. > As I understand it some > people use their peripheral vision differently. > > > > On 9/21/16 4:58 PM, "Lew Schwartz" <lew1716 at gmail.com> wrote: > >> I > believe that Bill C. is correct. It's relative to what you see with your >> > unaided eye. >> >> >> -Lew Schwartz >> >> On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 3:13 PM, > Mark Rabiner <mark at rabinergroup.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> The normal camera > lens now if you want to define normal as "most used by >>> the >>> most > photogs most often for most stuff" is the wide angle zoom. Which has >>> come > to be the 18 to 35 zoom. This for photojournalists as well as >>> commercial > photogs and probably fine art dudes too. It started out being a >>> 20 to 35. > But time flew. >>> I had a 12-24 for my cropped Nikons which translates to > that. >>> Not sure if I'm going to get a 20mm 1.8 to go with my new 35 1.8 and > 50 1.8 >>> and do some quick back and forth running or go with the zoom. >>> > >>> -- >>> Mark William Rabiner >>> Photographer >>> > http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/ >>> >>> >>> >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> Leica Users Group. >>> See > http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>> >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See > http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > > > -- > Mark William Rabiner > Photographer > > http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/ > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See > http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more > information _______________________________________________ Leica Users > Group. See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information -- Mark William Rabiner Photographer http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/