Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,271   Posts: 1,534,518   Online: 1028
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 33
  1. #11
    hdeyong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Central Canada and Southern France
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    283
    I know how you feel. I found that my 35 wasn't wide enough, but a 28 was too close, so I found a really nice Zuiko 24 f2.8 at FFordes on sale for 89 Pounds.
    It's supposed to arrive today, and I can't wait to try it out.

  2. #12
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,239
    Images
    225

    I want to go wide: 21mm/28mm. RF or SLR

    If you want to go big and wide get a Mamiya 7 with a 43mm f/4.5 lens hehe it's supposed to be basically the same as a Zeiss Biogon if that makes you Leica guys any happier its basically a 21mm view in 35mm framing terms. A used lens and camera should only throw you back about $2,000 or so, maybe less if you're patient on eBay haha. Good luck!


    ~Stone

    http://www.stonenyc.com
    http://stonenyc.tumblr.com
    http://www.modelmayhem.com/stonenyc
    http://www.facebook.com/stonenycphoto
    http://www.twitter.com/StoneNYCphoto
    http://pinterest.com/stonenycphoto
    stone@stonenyc.com

    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    North Yorkshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    720
    I love wide angle lenses. My kit will always have one of at least 20mm. When I used a digital camera (Sorry for swearing ) I bought a Sigma 15-30 and it was used for most of the time. When I went back to film it was a real killer! Although not the sharpest of lenses open wide, from about 5.6-8 in all focal lengths it is superb and gives me so much more scope for what I like doing best in my style of photography.

    However with a wide or super wide I find that you have to watch out for the verticals, distortion, getting your feet in the shot and with a low sun getting your shadow in too. They are an acquired taste but go for it. The Zuiko F3.5/21mm is a cracker as someone has already said.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    368
    I love the 24mm length in prime lenses. Also, I find the Tamron SP 24-40AF to be a VERY good lens.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    164
    I've used a 24 mm Nikkor for decades for everything from weddings to news reportage. I wouldn't be without one.
    For the last 8 years I have been using a Leica 21mm f2.8 ASPH on my M7's.
    True the RF is easier to focus but with 24-21mm, unless close in you can zone focus easily.
    Hands down the SLR is much easier to workwith for framing and alignment to avoid the dreaded curved linear lines and skewed focus. Indeed an external finder on an M MUST be offset because the hot shoe on M cameras IS NOT overthe lens centerline and you will geta horizontal rotation about a vertical axis if using anything other then a Leica/Leitz viewfinder.
    I do occasional weddings using Leica M equipment and the last wedding party was so large, I used my Nikon Fm3a with 24mm and flash for group scenes. For the M, I have to resort to a handle mount METZ flash because the Viewfinder takes up the hot shoe and NO ONE makes a double hot shoe anymore. This also negates TTL flash on the M7.
    The 21mm f2.8 ASPH Leica lens is sharp with great depth of field, it makes an excellent lens with the M7 for candid work, with zone focus, all one has to do is 'point & shoot'.-Dick

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Vienna, AUSTRIA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    65
    I would recommend the Konica M-Hexanon 28/2.8
    one of the best wides I ever used.

    But then, the 28 and 24mm Zuikos are superb, too. The 24mm I have is a great lens.

  7. #17
    eurekaiv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Santa Ana, CA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    130
    Quote Originally Posted by msbarnes View Post
    Thanks for the advice.

    I actually had a gas attack and figured that the only cure was to buy something!

    I ordered a 28mm f3.5 and 21mm f3.5 Zuikos off keh.com. The 28mm f3.5 was ~$40, i think, and the 21mm f3.5 was ~$350. I figured that this was cheaper than going RF. Neglecting the cost, I figured that I would be just as happy starting off with RF 21/28's too. At this point, I think that the biggest thing for me to understand is if I like these focal lengths. For what I have in mind, either camera system will be fine more or less.
    Good choice. The OM 28 3.5 is super sharp at just about all apertures and a 21 is a better "super-wide" then a 24 IMO. I hardly ever touch my 24mm lenses, I almost invariably want it wider or find that it's too wide.
    Sometimes I post my photos on flickr.
    Sometimes I update my tumblr.

  8. #18
    msbarnes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    382
    Images
    7
    Thank you for all the comments.

    I'm not so interested in the Mamiya RF system. I was but then I realized that I prefer 35mm (3:2) normal and wider lenses and 6x6 (1:1) for normal and longer lenses. I know that I can crop and such but too many systems is too much money! I've pretty much settled on 35mm rf, 35mm slr, and 6x6 tlr for now. I find those the most useful, perhaps more systems in the future but I want to build my 35mm kits right now.

    Yeah I've read that the 28mm f3.5 is sharper than the 28mm f2.8. I don't really care to research too much on which is sharper and the difference in speed to me, is not that much. I use my Rollei 2.8E and my Rollei 3.5E at f/4 and f/5.6 mostly. Anyways I intend on using my 28mm f3.5 and 21mm f3.5 simply to learn the focal lengths, and then take it from there.

    Judging from the comments I guess there is good use for SLR and RF wide angles. This is kind of why I have both systems: one compliments the other. I'd prefer to choose one system but I don't want to live with the limitations of RFs nor do I want to live with the limitations of SLRs.

  9. #19
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,626
    Quote Originally Posted by eurekaiv View Post
    Good choice. The OM 28 3.5 is super sharp at just about all apertures and a 21 is a better "super-wide" then a 24 IMO.
    I wouldn't even call a 24 a superwide. I think of 21 as the longest of the superwides.
    Interesting that back in the 70's, 28mm and 24mm lenses were often called superwides (as in my 28mm EBC Fujinon-SW, bought in 1978) and 21's and shorter were ultrawides. I think now ultrawide is probably 15mm and shorter. I think of my 17 as a superwide, not ultrawide. I suppose that's debatable.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  10. #20
    Richard Sintchak (rich815)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    San Francisco area
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,903
    Images
    1
    I like the idea of super wides. Have the awesome 21/2.8 Biogon for my Contax G2 and the 15/4.5 Super-wide Heliar for my Leica bodies......but I suck at shooting ultra wide! :-(
    -----------------------

    "Well, my photos are actually much better than they look..."

    Richard S.
    Albany, CA (San Francisco bay area)

    My Flickr River of photographs
    http://flickriver.com/photos/rich815...r-interesting/

    My Photography Website
    http://www.lightshadowandtone.com

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin